IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021

BEFORE:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5245/2020

BETWEEN:

ANAND. T. R.

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

SON OF LATE T. M. RAMA KRISHNAPPA,

R/AT NO. 1786, 7^TH MAIN,

5^TH CROSS, JUDICIAL LAYOUT,

YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064.

... PETITIONER

[BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S , ADV.]

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION,

REPRESENTED BY SPP,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.

SRINATH. N

SON OF K. S. NARASIMHAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

R/AT NO. 71/6, 3^RD MAIN,

1^ST CROSS, SHAKAMBARINAGARA,

BSK 2^ND STAGE,

BENGALURU - 560 070.

… RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY., HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. N. SHIVAKUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2]

2

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC,

PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEINGS IN PCR. NO.

9268/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE IV A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU

REGISTERED AND CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE IN CR. NO.

141/2020

REGISTERED

BY

THE

JAYANAGARA

P.S.,

REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 406,416,417,464

R/W 34 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the

Cr.PC,

praying

this

Court

to

quash

the entire

proceedings in PCR No.9268/2020 on the file of the IV

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru

and

consequently

set

aside

Crime

No.141/2020

registered by the Jayanagara Police Station registered

for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406,

416, 417, 464 read with Section 34 of IPC and grant

such other reliefs.

2.

The factual matrix of the case is that the

Respondent No.2 herein has filed a private complaint

which is numbered as PCR No.9268/2020. Based on

the complaint, the learned Magistrate vide Order dated

3

16.09.2020, invoked section 156[3] of Cr.PC and

referred the matter to the jurisdictional Police to

investigate and submit the report. Consequent upon

the order, the FIR is issued against this petitioner and

has been arrayed as Accused No.2 and the other

Accused No.1.

3.

The contention of the petitioner’s Counsel is that

he had purchased car vide Document No.6 and sale

receipt

was

issued

on

25.06.2015.

The

complainant/Respondent No.2 was troubling him and

hence he also gave a complaint before the Police in the

year 2015 itself and the Police have issued an

endorsement dated 8.8.2015 stating that the dispute is

civil in nature and to approach the Civil Court. In

pursuance of the said endorsement, the suit is filed

against the Respondent No.2 and also against the

owner. Inspite of the suit being pending before the Civil

Court, the present complaint is filed with an intention to

4

harass the petitioner and it amounts to an abuse of

process which leads to miscarriage of justice.

4.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits

that though complaint was given in the year 2015, the

Respondent No.2 kept quiet till the year 2020 and now

private complaint is filed and obtained an order. The

learned Magistrate while referring the matter under

Section 156[3] of the Cr.PC has not applied his

judicious mind while invoking the said provision.

Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

5.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

No.2 submits that he has filed detailed objection

statement wherein he contended that he had purchased

the car on 30.07.2015 and the original owner took the

car with his permission in order to take his wife to

hospital since she was pregnant and thereafter did not

return the car and hence he gave a complaint on

3.8.2015. The Police have enquired both the petitioner

5

and also Accused No.2 and recorded statement and

closed the case by issuing NCR.

6.

The learned Counsel also submits that the

documents stands in his name and that car belongs to

him after he had purchased the sam