Karnataka High Court
M/S Ashthosh Plastics Pvt. Ltd. vs M/S Religare Finvest Ltd on 25 March, 2013
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.789 of 2013
BETWEEN:
1. M/s.Ashuthosh Plastics
Private Limited, Vill-PO-Kanduah,
Sankrail, Poly Park,
Plot PPH 8, Howrah,
Kolkata - 711 204,
West Bengal,
Represented by its
Director Anup Kumar Bharuka.
2. Anup Kumar Bharuka,
Aged about 50 years,
Son of Bhagavathi Prasad,
3. Ansu Bharuka,
Aged about 48 years,
Wife of Anup Bharuka,
Both are residing at BL-2,
2 FR F L-2/2A, 136,
Jessore Road, Kolkata - 700 055,
West Bengal. ...PETITIONERS
2
(By Shri. Vijayakumar, Advocate)
AND:
1. M/s. Religare Finvest Limited,
1st Main, 2nd Block,
Dr. Rajkumar Road,
Above Dominous,
Rajajinagar,
Bengaluru - 560 010.
And also at:
No.1314, 1 and 2 Floor,
H.A.L. 2nd Stage,
Indiranagar,
Bengaluru - 560 038.
Represented by its Authorized
Representative Ali Haskar P K.
2. State of Karnataka by
Sampangiramanagar Police Station,
Bengaluru - 560 027. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Shri. Satish R. Girji, Government Pleader for respondent
No.2)
*****
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the FIR in Crime
No.202/2012 of the second respondent police station in
pursuance of the direction in PCR No.19779/2012 now pending
on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore.
3
This petition is coming on for Admission this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners are from Kolkata and that they have borrowed money from Respondent No.1 under a contract. The respondent which is a company, has its head office at Kolkata. The petitioners claim that though the respondent - Company has a Branch office at Bangalore, there is no cause of action that has arisen within the jurisdiction of the court below. Merely because the respondent has lodged the complaint that the petitioners have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 468, 471, 474, 120B and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for brevity), the court below has directed investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.' for brevity), even though the court would not have jurisdiction, as it was necessary for the court to enquire into the 4 matter and postpone issuance of process. Since the petitioners were residing outside the jurisdiction of the court below, the court having directed investigation, causes serious apprehension to the petitioners of the matter being entertained and cognizance being taken of the allegations and process being issued in due course. Therefore, since the petitioners would suffer undue hardship and inconvenience in having to appear before the court below, the present petition is filed.
2. The learned Government Pleader on the other hand would submit that it is true that a complaint had been filed before the court below and investigation was ordered by the court. However, the police have filed a 'B' report on 11.03.2013 and therefore, the present petition would be rendered infructuous.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners however would submit that the filing of a 'B' report does not give finality to the proceedings. It is quite possible that the complainant would file 5 a protest memo and the proceedings would drag on interminably, which would result in further inconvenience to the petitioners.
4. In the light of the fact that the court below has not taken cognizance of the case and the police having filed their 'B' report, the further course of action is not predictable and therefore, there is no warrant to quash the proceedings, as the court below is yet to take cognizance of the offences alleged. The petition is premature and is therefore, rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE KS