Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkataramana Bhat vs The State Of Karnataka By on 27 March, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7701 of 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Venkataramana Bhat,
Son of Ganapathi Bhat,
Aged about 49 years,
Occupation: Managing Director,
M/s. Nikhara Motors Private Limited,
Residing at No.140,
Vinayaka Layout,
Ullala Main Road,
Jnanabharathi Post,
Bangalore - 560 056.
2. Smt. Bhagirathi Bhat,
Wife of Sri. Venkataramana Bhat,
Aged about 45 years,
Occupation: Director,
M/s. Nikhara Motors Private Limited,
Residing at No.181,
Vinayaka Layout,
Ullala Main Road,
Jnanabharathi Post,
Bangalore - 560 056. ...PETITIONERS
2
(By Shri. M.R. Balakrishna, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By Tavarekere Police,
Bangalore Rural District
PIN - 560 081.
2. Sri. B. Lakshmana,
Son of Sri. S. Balu,
Aged about 50 years,
Occupation: Managing Partners,
M/s. Nikhara Electronics,
and Allied Techniques,
residing at No.24,
Hegganahalli Main Road,
Vishwaneedam Post,
Bangalore - 560 091 ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. P.M. Nawaz, Additional State Public Prosecutor, for
Respondent NO.1
Shri. D. Jayaramaiah, Advocate for Respondent No.2)
*****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to set aside the order dated
22.11.2012 in Crime No.615/2012 (PCR.No.343/2012) on the
file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore quash the entire proceedings in Crime No.615/2012
in PCR. No.343/2012 for the alleged offences punishable under
section 419, 420, 468, 471, 477(A) and 483 of IPC on the file of
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore.
3
This petition is coming on for Admission this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners are the accused in case pending before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It transpires that the petitioner No.1 was earlier running a proprietorship concern and it was running under loss. Therefore, in order to improve his business, he had entered into a partnership with the second respondent and had borrowed monies from the second respondent while affording immovable property as security. After having borrowed huge sums of money, it is alleged by the second respondent - complainant that a security for due repayment of money, an agreement of sale, in respect of his properties, was executed in his favour and possession was also delivered under the said agreement. However, it was discovered that even before entering into the agreement of sale, the very property had been offered as security a charge was 4 created in favour of a Bank, which fact was suppressed by the petitioners. Therefore, he had lodged a complaint alleging offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The same having been referred to the police for investigation, the police had filed a 'B' report. The respondent No.2 herein has sought to file a protest memo insofar as the said 'B' report is concerned. However, notwithstanding that there has been a 'B' report filed on the circumstances alleged, the respondent No.2 has chosen to file yet another complaint on the very same allegations and the court below has directed investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, insofar as the second complaint brought on the very same allegations as was the basis for the first complaint.
3. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the law is well-settled as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Pramatha Nath Taluqdar vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar ((1961) 2 SCR 297)) and hence, the petition 5 would have to be allowed and the proceedings insofar as the second complaint is concerned, are to be quashed.
4. In the above background, the question is whether, at a stage where the court below is yet to take cognizance of the second complaint, this court would be justified in proceeding to quash the same only on the ground that there was an earlier complaint on the very same facts in respect of which the police have filed a 'B' report. Admittedly, it is not the case of the petitioners that a second complaint in all circumstances is not maintainable. There are exceptional circumstances. The question whether the present case involves such a circumstance and would fall under the category of an exceptional case is to be examined not by this Court, but by the court below. Therefore, if the second complaint is at a stage where the court has called for a police report, it is for the court to take a decision whether the second complaint would be maintainable. In the event the court should take a decision that it is maintainable 6 notwithstanding that the allegations are identical in nature, it may result in a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, it is premature for this Court to interfere in the above circumstances. The court below would certainly take the circumstances into view if the police should report the sequence of events, as alleged by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are protected in law, as the procedure prescribed does have checks and balances to prevent such abuse of process. Therefore, there is no warrant for interference. The petition stands disposed of with the above observations.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS