Karnataka High Court
Mr. V D Wadhwa vs State Of Karnataka Through on 20 June, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7126 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. MR. V D WADHWA
CEO INDIA, SITI CABLE NETWORKS LTD
GYS GLOBAL TOWER A
SEC 125 NOIDA
BRANCH OFFICE AT
UNITED MANSION
4TH FLOOR NO 39 M G ROAD
BANGALORE - 560001
2. MR SANJEEV TANDON
V P SALES & OPS SOUTH INDIA
SITI CABLE NETWORKS LTD
GYS GLOBAL TOWER A
SEC 125 NOIDA
BRANCH OFFICE AT
UNITED MANSION
4TH ,FLOOR NO 39 M G ROAD
BANGALORE - 560001
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI: DHANANJAY JOSHI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION
BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE - 560001
2. SRI GOPI H
S/O LATE HANUMANTHA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 119
18TH FLOOR S C ROAD SESHADRIPURAM
BANGALORE - 20
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI: V.SRINIVASA ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PETITIONERS HEREIN i.e.,
ACCUSED No.4 AND 5 IN C.C.No.6223/2015 ON THE FILE OF
THE VIII ADDL CMM AT BENGALURU AND ETC..
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
3
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Addl.SPP for respondent-State. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent and has not addressed any arguments.
2. Petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5 in the charge sheet filed by respondent No.1-police for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 506 r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code.
3. The case of the prosecution is that accused 1 to 3 were originally employed with respondent No.2. There were business transactions between them. According to the prosecution, accused 1 to 3 had fallen out with the complainant and in this context, cheques issued by accused 1 to 3 are alleged to have been dishonoured. There are also allegations that accused 1 to 3 had taken 530 set top boxes of the complainant. 4
4. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, there are no allegations whatsoever either in the complaint or in the charge sheet constituting the ingredients of the above offences. The petitioners appear to have been implicated on the allegation that accused 1 to 3 started to use the set top boxes of the petitioners herein viz. A4 and A5. These allegations even if accepted uncontroverted do not make out the offences under Sections 420, 120B, 506 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. There is no material to show that the petitioners herein have entered into any conspiracy with accused Nos. 2 to 3. No material is produced to show as to when and how accused Nos.1 and 2 started to make use of the said set top boxes of the petitioners. Even assuming that the said set top boxes of the petitioners are being used by Accused 1 to 3 in carrying on their cable business, the same does not amount to any criminal offence, much less offences under Sections 420, 120-B and 506 of IPC as alleged.
5. In that view of the matter, prosecution instituted against the petitioners being malafide and utter abuse of process 5 of Court is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.6223/2015, pending on the file of VIII Additional CMM at Bengaluru, insofar as petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE rs