Karnataka High Court
Sri. Narayana Swamy T vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
WP No. 5316 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JULY, 2022 R
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 5316 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI NARAYANA SWAMY T.,
S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS.
2. SMT. NANJAMMA
W/O. LATE. THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS.
3. SMT. MARIYAMMA
D/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
4. SRI. RAJU
S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
5. SMT. GOWRAMMA
D/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS.
by PADMAVATHI
BK
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 6. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
7. SMT. CHANDRIKA
S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
-2-
WP No. 5316 of 2020
8. SRI. NAGARAJ
S/O. LATE THIMMARAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 75,
PUTTENAHALLI VILLAGE,
J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RANGARAMU V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
ITS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARIATERY
OF THE HOME DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
BENGALURU CITY,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BY KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION,
REP BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
KORAMANAGALA, BENGALURU CITY,
BENGALURU - 560 095.
4. SRI. B. SHIVARTHY
S/O. LATE. BRAHMANANDA,
NO. 132/11, KANTHA COURT,
LALBAGH ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
5. DR. ASHOK GURUDAS,
R/AT NO.41, K.R. ROAD,
-3-
WP No. 5316 of 2020
BASAVANAGUDI,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
6. SRI. M.N. PARANJYOTHI
S/O. SRI. M. NARAYAN DAS,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
R/AT POORAN HORTICULTURE,
2ND MAIN, 47TH A CROSS,
8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 070.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
SMT. VIJETHA R.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE
F.I.R. DATED 17.12.2018 IN CRIME NO.425/2018 OF
KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION AT BENGALURU FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 420, 456, 466, 468, 471, 120B OF IPC,
THE COPY AT ANNX-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.06.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Crime No.425 of 2018 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 456, 466, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.
-4- WP No. 5316 of 20202. Heard Sri V.Rangaramu, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and Smt Vijetha R.Naik, learned counsel for respondents 4 to 6.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
It is the case of the petitioners that lands in Sy.Nos.
32/1, 52, 61 and 42 totally measuring 7 acres and 35 guntas situate in Puttenahalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, were granted to their father one Sri Thimmarayappa by the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore under the Inams Abolition Act. On the death of Sri Thimmarayappa, it is the claim of the petitioners that they have come in possession of the lands.
Respondents 4 to 6 who were also claiming possession of the said lands had generated constant interference with the peaceful possession of the petitioners and in that light the petitioners had instituted a suit in O.S.No.8033 of 2014 -5- WP No. 5316 of 2020 before the civil Court which is pending consideration.
During the pendency of the said suit, respondents 4 to 6 registered a criminal complaint against the petitioners invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. in P.C.R.No.4155 of 2016. A prayer was sought by the respondents in the said complaint for an investigation at the hands of the jurisdictional police. Investigation having been ordered by the learned Magistrate, the police registered a FIR in Crime No.425 of 2018 for offences punishable under Sections 456, 466, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC. Upon registration of the crime and the police initiating investigation, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question the very registration of crime against them.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend with vehemence that the entire issue is purely civil in nature, since the petitioners have filed a suit against respondents 4 to 6 seeking permanent injunction restraining the complainants from interfering with the -6- WP No. 5316 of 2020 property of the petitioners. As a counter blast, the criminal complaint is registered in a case which is purely civil in nature. He would further contend that the private complaint so registered is not in compliance with the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS1.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing respondents 4 to 6 would submit that the petitioners have come in possession of the property by generating forged documents. It is for that reason the complaint is registered notwithstanding the suit being filed by the petitioners seeking permanent injunction restraining the respondents and would seek that it is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean in the same.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
1(2015) 6 SCC 287 -7- WP No. 5316 of 2020
7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record and, therefore, are not reiterated. It is the case of the petitioners that their father Sri Thimmarayappa had acquired lands in the aforementioned survey numbers totally measuring 7 acres and 35 guntas in terms of an order of the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition on 30-07-1975.
Since Sri Thimmarayappa was the absolute owner of the said lands, on his death, the family members viz., the petitioners come in possession of the lands. It is the case of the petitioners that Sri Thimmarayappa had been cultivating the lands since 30 years and on his death, the petitioners are in possession of the property. The said Sri Thimmarayappa died on 22-08-1985. Wife of Sri Thimmarayappa, on the death of her husband, gave representations to the competent authority to effect khata of the said lands in her name. The authority is said to have turned a deaf ear towards the said representations given by the wife of the land owner. The petitioners claim to have come to know that the lands had been mutated in the name -8- WP No. 5316 of 2020 of Sri Thimmarayappa from the years 1975-76 to 1981-82 and thereafter, the column did not find the name of Sri Thimmarayappa and several revenue proceedings were instituted by the petitioners on that score and those proceedings are said to be pending either before the original authorities or before the revisional authorities.
8. It is the further case of the petitioners that respondents 4 to 6 who are complainants began to disturb peaceful possession of the property allegedly belonging to the complainants to an extent of 3 acres 35 guntas which drove the petitioners to file a suit in O.S.No.8033 of 2014 seeking permanent injunction against respondents 4 to 6 herein. The said suit is stated to be pending adjudication at the hands of concerned Court.
9. After filing of the suit, respondents 4 to 6 registered a private complaint in P.C.R.No.4155 of 2016 for the afore-
quoted offences. The matter having been referred to investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., a crime is -9- WP No. 5316 of 2020 registered in Crime No.425 of 2018. The private complaint, so registered against the petitioners invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., was seeking the following prayer at the hands of the learned Magistrate:
"WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:
(a) Take cognizance for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons and secure the presence of the accused persons before this Hon'ble Court and punish them for having committed offences punishable under Sections 456, 466, 468, 471 r/w 120-B of IPC against the accused persons.
(b) Or in the alternate refer the matter to the jurisdictional police i.e., Madivala Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit report before this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice."
(Emphasis added) The complainants in terms of the afore-quoted prayer in the private complaint clearly sought reference for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional police. The complaint also does not indicate the efforts made by the complainants before registration of the complaint in
- 10 -
WP No. 5316 of 2020compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C.
All that the complaint refers to is at paragraph-17 with regard to the efforts made by the complainant which reads as follows:
"17. The complainants had tried their best to register a complaint with the jurisdictional police and the police refused to receive the complaint under the impression that the offences are civil in nature. Hence, they have approached this Hon'ble Court with the present complaint."
(Emphasis added) In the light of the complaint being thus (supra), it is necessary to notice Section 154 of the Cr.P.C., which reads as follows:
"154. Information in cognizable cases.--(1) Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf:
- 11 -WP No. 5316 of 2020
Provided that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer:
Provided further that--
(a) in the event that the person against whom an offence under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, section 376, section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) is alleged to have been committed or attempted, is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, then such information shall be recorded by a police officer, at the residence of the person seeking to report such offence or at a convenient place of such person's choice, in the presence of an interpreter or a special educator, as the case may be;
(b) the recording of such information shall be videographed;
- 12 -
WP No. 5316 of 2020(c) the police officer shall get the statement of the person recorded by a Judicial Magistrate under clause (a) of sub-section (5A) of section 164 as soon as possible.
(2) A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
(3) Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence."
(Emphasis supplied) Section 154(1) mandates that a person aggrieved should knock the doors of a police station and if that is not accepted, the complainant should approach a higher authority alleging that despite the complaint revealing cognizable offence, it is not being registered. Sections 154(1)
- 13 -
WP No. 5316 of 2020and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. are acts to be performed by a complainant before knocking the doors of the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The efforts made by the complainants to register a complaint should be discernible from the narration in the complaint and documentary support to that effect, should be placed, failing which, it would not be in compliance with Section 154(1) and (3) of the Cr.P.C. A mere statement, without any documents appended to demonstrate the efforts having been made by the complainant for registration of the crime before the jurisdictional police, would not suffice for a private complaint to be registered before the learned Magistrate.
10. Apart from this, it is necessary for such complainants who invoke Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and seek reference to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3), to file an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant in support of the said complaint. The complaint appears to have been registered in the year 2016 as it is numbered as P.C.R.No.4155 of 2016, but comes up before concerned
- 14 -
WP No. 5316 of 2020Court in the year 2018 when investigation is directed in terms of the prayer that was sought, it admittedly is not supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant.
Reference being made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA (supra) in the circumstances would become apposite. The Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA has held as follows:
"30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.
- 15 -WP No. 5316 of 2020
31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR."
(Emphasis supplied) The aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court is followed in a later judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BABU
- 16 -
WP No. 5316 of 2020VENKATESH AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER2 wherein it is held as follows:
"12. It was submitted that, the Magistrate was required to apply his mind before passing an order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. It was further submitted that, unless an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. was supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant, the learned Magistrate could not have passed an order under the said provision.
... ... ... ...
23. Further we find that, the present appeals deserve to be allowed on another ground.
24. After analyzing the law as to how the power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has to be exercised, this court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 has observed thus:
"30. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing 2 (2022) 5 SCC 639
- 17 -WP No. 5316 of 2020
and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of the said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores.
31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit is so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari [(2014) 2 SCC 1 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524] are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate
- 18 -
WP No. 5316 of 2020would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR."
25. This court has clearly held that, a stage has come where applications under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate.
26. This court further held that, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also verify the veracity of the allegations. The court has noted that, applications under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. are filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility only to harass certain persons.
27. This court has further held that, prior to the filing of a petition under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., there have to be applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. This court emphasizes the necessity to file an affidavit so that the persons making the application should be conscious and not make false affidavit. With such a requirement, the persons would be deterred from causally invoking authority of the Magistrate, under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. In as much as if the affidavit is found to be false, the person would be liable for prosecution in accordance with law.
28. In the present case, we find that the learned Magistrate while passing the order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., has totally failed to consider the law laid down by this court.
- 19 -
WP No. 5316 of 202029. From the perusal of the complaint it can be seen that, the complainant/respondent No. 2 himself has made averments with regard to the filing of the Original Suit. In any case, when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate ought not to have entertained the application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The High Court has also failed to take into consideration the legal position as has been enunciated by this court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (supra), and has dismissed the petitions by merely observing that serious allegations are made in the complaint."
(Emphasis supplied) If the complaint is considered on the bedrock of the judgments rendered by the Apex Court (supra) what would unmistakably emerge is that the complaint was not even maintainable as the complaint nowhere narrated compliance with Section 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. and filing of an affidavit while registering the criminal complaint. Though the complaint is registered in the year 2016 and a direction to investigate was issued in the year 2018, the law in this regard was very clear in terms of the judgment in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA which had by then, been rendered by the Apex Court. Therefore, any further proceedings taken by the jurisdictional police in the form of investigation, in furtherance of the direction issued by the
- 20 -
WP No. 5316 of 2020learned Magistrate, would all be a nullity in law, as the very complaint, without compliance with the afore-quoted provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the judgments of the Apex Court was not maintainable.
11. Even otherwise, in the teeth of the facts as narrated in the complaint, the matter is undoubtedly civil in nature. It is the claim of the petitioners that they are in possession of the property right from 1975. Interference by the respondents has led to the petitioners seeking permanent injunction at the hands of the competent civil Court, where the matter is pending adjudication.
Complainants have entered appearance and are contesting the case. In the teeth of the pending proceedings the complainants now urge that the petitioners have come in possession of the property on the strength of forged documents. The entire narration in the complaint is that the petitioners have played fraud by getting inserted pages in Book-I of the documents meant for registration and have gone one step further and fabricated two more concocted
- 21 -
WP No. 5316 of 2020documents, one being the order dated 30-07-1975 and the allegation is creation of a sale deed in the year 1969-70.
They further allege that the property in which the petitioners are in possession is the property belonging to the complainants for it having come to them on partition dated 16-06-1954. Therefore, those contentions in the private complaint cannot but be held to be a matter that is purely civil in nature, as the complainants now seek to agitate issues which are 60 to 70 years old in a complaint that is brought up in the year 2016. If this cannot be held to be a matter that is purely civil in nature, there cannot be any better illustration. It is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER3 wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
"19. From the above discussion on the settled legal principles, it is clear from the facts of the present case that there was a clear abuse of the process of the Court and further that the Court had a duty to secure the ends of justice. We say so for the following reasons:
a) The allegations made in the FIR had an overwhelmingly and predominatingly a civil 3 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1007
- 22 -WP No. 5316 of 2020
flavour inasmuch as the complainant alleged that he had paid money to Gurmeet Singh, the main accused to get employment for his son abroad. If Gurmeet Singh failed the complainant could have filed a suit for recovery of the amount paid for not fulfilling the promise.
b) Initially, the investigating officer and two superior officers of the economic wing has found that there is no substance in the complaint making out even a prima facie triable case and had therefore, recommended for closure. However, on the orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police, the FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. No criminal breach of trust was found and the charge sheet was submitted only against Gurmeet Singh under section 420 I.P.C.
c) The complainant Nasib Singh had clearly deposed that he had paid Rs. 4 lacs cash to Gurmeet Singh and had also given a cheque of Rs. 2 lacs favouring Gurmeet Singh which he had encashed.
d) During trial the present appellant as also the other co-accused Gurpreet Singh were summoned in April 2014 invoking powers of Section 319 Cr.P.C., for being tried under Section 420 I.P.C. It may be noted that no specific allegations of cheating are made against these two accused as they were both settled abroad in Italy.
e) The complainant Nasib Singh entered into a compromise with the main accused Gurmeet Singh which was filed before the
- 23 -
WP No. 5316 of 2020learned Magistrate and the same was accepted vide order dated 26.09.2014 and the alleged offence being of financial transaction stood compounded. Proceedings against Gurmeet Singh were closed.
f) Right from 2014, the present appellant and other co-accused Gurpreet Singh who were in Italy were being summoned by the Court. The appellant was declared proclaimed offender. The appellant applied before the High Court challenging the order declaring him proclaimed offender and also filed a 482 Cr.P.C. petition for quashing of the proceedings wherein, he also filed the compounding order of 26.09.2014.
g) The High Court merely perused the FIR and noting the fact that the name of the appellant was mentioned in the FIR, declined to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20. In our considered view, the High Court erred in firstly not considering the entire material on record and further in not appreciating the fact that the dispute, if any, was civil in nature and that the complainant had already settled his score with the main accused Gurmeet Singh against whom the proceedings have been closed as far back as 26.09.2014. In this scenario, there remains no justification to continue with the proceedings against the appellant."
(Emphasis Supplied)
- 24 -
WP No. 5316 of 2020In the light of the afore-quoted facts and the law laid down in the cases of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA, BABU VENKATESH and JASWANT SINGH (supra), if further proceedings are permitted to be continued, it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) P.C.R.No.4155 of 2016 pending before the 45th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore stands rejected and consequently FIR in Crime No.425 of 2018 dated 17-12-2018 of Koramangala Police Station, Bengaluru stands quashed.
Consequently, pending applications stand disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ