Sri C Manjunatha vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 4920 Kant

                              1


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                             BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3636 OF 2018

BETWEEN

SRI C MANJUNATHA
S/O CHIKKA APPAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT DODDA HULLAR VILLAGE,
DASARAHALLI POST,
KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114.          ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI C R RAGHAVENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
    BY MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
    POLICE STATION
    (NOW INVESTIGATED BY CCB
    N.T.PETE, BENGALURU)
    REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT
    BENGALURU-1
2 . M/S GLOBAL CITY
    AT SKANDA, NO.895/1,
    MAHALAKSHMI LAYOIUT,
    BENGALURU-86
    REPRESENTED BY ITS ACCOUNTANT
    SRI. VENKATAREDDY,
    S/O RAMIREDDY,
    AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VINAYKA V S, HCGP)
                                2



     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR AGAINST THIS PETITIONER IN CR.NO.47/2016 (PCR
NO.1802/2016) FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 403,406,420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
REGISTERED BY THE MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU.

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                            ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing FIR and the complaint

in Crime No.47/2016 (PCR No.1802/2016) registered for

the offence punishable under Section 403, 406, 420 read

with 34 of IPC by Mahalakshmipuram Police Station,

Bengaluru pending on the file of IV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for

the respondent-State and learned Counsel for respondent

No.2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the petitioner is neither accused nor the complainant

in FIR and there is no averments made against him. Such

being the case the police issued notice to the petitioner to

appear before them for the purpose of investigation,

therefore he is before the Court.

4. The same is objected by the learned HCGP.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanaka

Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and other reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 that the

affidavit is required to be filed before filing the complaint

and referring the matter to the police. There is no second

opinion in respect of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Priyanaka Srivastava's case that the

affidavit shall be filed along with the private complaint.

Looking to the case of the prosecution the name of this

petitioner is not found in the complaint nor in FIR and

there is no averments about this petitioner, therefore that

contention is not available to this petitioner for quashing

the FIR or complaint filed by the complainant as it is not

filed again the name of this petitioner. There is no order

to show whether the complaint is bad in law. Merely

notice issued by investigation officer for directing the

petitioner to appear for the purpose of investigation, that

itself is not a ground for quashing the notice, FIR or

complaint. Such being the case the petitioner is not

entitled for relief and this is not a good case for invoking

Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing FIR and complaint,

merely based upon the notice. The petition is devoid of

merit.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

However liberty is granted to the petitioner to

approach the court if so required.

Sd/-

JUDGE AKV