Bheemashankar S Guled vs Suresh P
2023 Latest Caselaw 2269 Kant

                          1


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

      WRIT PETITION NO.21462 OF 2021 (GM-RES)
                 CONNTECTED WITH
         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.774 OF 2021

IN WRIT PETITION NO.21462 OF 2021

BETWEEN

SRI BHEEMASHANKAR S GULED
S/O. LATE SHAMARAO,
R/AT NO. 23, PARVATHI NILAYA,
2ND MAIN ROAD, MSH LAYOUT,
1ST STAGE, ANAND NAGAR,
RT NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU

PRESENTLY R/AT NO. A1,
NEW PWD APARTMENT,
8TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
VASANTH NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 052                  ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI T SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND

SRI SURESH P
S/O. PUTTASWAMY,
R/O. APT 303, BLOCK-B,
TEAM ROYAL APARTMENT,
VR LAYOUT, 1ST MAIN,
1ST CROSS, 6TH BLOCK,
                           2


KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 095                    ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI NATARAJ G., ADVOCATE)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
01.09.2021 ONE PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL., CHIEF
METROPOLITAN     MAGISTRATE,    BENGALURU   IN   PCR
NO.9579/2018 PRESENTLY HAVING CC.NO.22845/2021
FOUND AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND
DISMISS THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT MADE BY THE
RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE 1ST ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN     MAGISTRATE,    BENGALURU   IN   PCR
NO.9579/2018 FOUND AT ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT
PETITION.

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 774 OF 2021

BETWEEN

BHEEMASHANKAR S GULED
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O SRI SHAMARAO,
R/AT FLAT NO.A1,
GROUP A OFFICERS APARTMENT,
VASANTH NAGAR, IST CROSS,
PALACE LOOP ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 051

PRESENT OCCUPATION,
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIION DEPARTMENT,
CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD,
BENGALURU                                ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL
 FOR SRI GIRISHA T.R., ADVOCATE FOR
 SRI PRINCE ISAC, ADVOCATE)
                            3




AND

SURESH P
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O LATE SRI PUTTASWAMY,
R/AT FLAT B 303 B BLOCK,
TEAM ROYAL APARTMENT,
V R LAYOUT, IST MAIN,
IST CROSS, 6TH BLOCK,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU - 560 095
                                             ... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI G. NATARAJ, ADVOCATE)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO i. SET ASIDE THE COMPLAINT
IN PCR NO.41/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL
CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE FOR
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT (CCH-24), BENGALURU
CITY. ii. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
30.09.2020 PASSED IN PCR NO.41/2020 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT
(CCH-24), BENGALURU CITY.

     THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 27.03.2023 THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

W.P.No.21462/2021 is filed by the petitioner-

accused under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of

India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the

criminal proceedings in C.C.No.22845/2021 based on the

PCR No.9579/2018, taking cognizance and issuing process

for the offences punishable under Sections 354A, 506, 201

of IPC and Section 67(A) of the Information Technology

Act, 2000 (for short 'I.T. Act').

        2.   Crl.P.No.774/2021          is   filed      by        the     same

petitioner    who     is    accused           No.1           in         another

P.C.R.No.41/2020, pending on the                 file    of the           XXIII

Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge

for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bengaluru for having

taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sections 7, 11, 12, 13(1)(a) and (b) read with Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short

'P.C. Act') and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002 (for short 'PML Act') and

Sections 3 and 5 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition)

Act, 1988 read with Sections 120B, 201 and 34 of IPC.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the order of the Magistrate for taking

cognizance for the alleged offences punishable under

Sections 354A, 506, 201 of IPC and Section 67(A) of the

I.T. Act not attracted. The complainant had intentionally

filed a false complaint against the petitioner who is the

Police Officer and contended that the respondent said to be

approached the jurisdictional police, thereafter, the police

registered NCR case and the police have summoned the

wife of the respondent No.2 where she has denied the

allegations made in the complaint. But by suppressing the

same, he has filed the private complaint for taking

cognizance. It is further alleged that the accused was

working as a Superintendent of Police at Davanagere. He

and his family members have visited a photo studio

established by the wife of the complainant at Davanagere

and to avail the service of the studio for the birthday party

of children of the accused, the wife of the complainant said

to be developed the relationship and also turned into

physical relationship. The accused taken the consent of

the wife of the complainant to have illicit relationship by

the act of threat and coercion and he had taken nude

videos and photographs using the technology. One Roopa

who is the wife of the complainant has filed a complaint

against her husband for dowry harassment and attempt to

kill her which was registered in Crime No.109/2018 where

she has stated against the complainant for harassment in

her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.. It is further

alleged that the complainant's wife Roopa also filed

petition before the Family Court for divorce. The

complainant also filed written statement, he has sought

divorce as a counter claim. The respondent also filed a

civil suit against his wife in O.S.No.308/2019. The

allegation against the petitioner and the wife of the

complainant is one and the same. The sworn statement of

PW.2 in PCR No.9579/2018 has been recorded. But the

same complainant filed one more complaint against his

own wife and this petitioner. Absolutely, there is no

material to attract Sections 354C, 506, 201 of IPC apart

from Section 67A of the I.T. Act. Therefore, taking

cognizance by the learned Magistrate is illegal and not in

accordance with law. Therefore, prayed for quashing the

criminal proceedings.

5. The learned counsel further contended that for

taking the obscene video and photos and forwarding the

same, there must be ingredient to attract Section 354C of

IPC and the same was not done by the accused. In fact,

the complainant himself had seen the photographs in the

mobile phone of his wife and he got it transferred the

same. Therefore, the alleged offence would attract against

him, but not against this petitioner. He also contended that

there is no document to show that the complainant

approached the police for filling complaint which was

refused. Thereafter, there is no document to show that he

has approached the Higher Officer and thereafter filed the

private complaint. It is also contended that though the

complainant also alleged the offence punishable under

Sections 376 and 497 of IPC apart from Sections 406 and

420 of IPC, but the learned Magistrate took the cognizance

only for Section 354C of IPC and other offences which is

also not sustainable. Hence, prayed for quashing the

same.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

had objected the petition and contended that there was

illicit intimacy between accused No.1-this petitioner and

the wife of the complainant. The petitioner took the nude

photos and videographs of his wife and threatened him to

upload the same to the public website. The act of the

accused using electronic facilities which is making

trafficking of illegal and off seen pictures of the woman

attracts Section 67A of the I.T. Act. He has threatened the

complainant which attracts Section 506 of IPC. He has

threatened the complainant to delete the videos which

attracts Section 201 of IPC. Therefore, prayed for

dismissing the petition and contended that the petitioner

required to face the trial.

7. In Crl.P.774/2021, the petitioner is shown as

accused No.1 and the wife of the complainant is shown as

accused No.2 where he has filed a private complaint which

was registered in PCR No.41/2020 where it is alleged that

the petitioner who is the IPS Officer working in Bengaluru

as DCP and he was Probationary Officer in the year 2012

at Davanagere as Superintendent of Police. Accused No.2

who is the wife of the complainant and there was no

children for them for six years and at that time she was in

depression. The complainant had Rs.95.00 lakhs money.

He established a studio in the name of his wife where the

accused No.2 used to look after the affairs of the studio

and accused No.3 said to be Assistant General Manager of

the KFSC who was sanctioned and disbursed loan of

Rs.75.00 lakhs to her at the instance of accused No.1.

Accused No.4 who is another Assistant General Manager of

KSFC who was initiated loan recovery proceedings in the

year 2019-2020 for the loan granted to accused No.2.

Accused No.5 who is the proprietor of Unique Pro Studio

and Events have been purchased the assets from accused

No.2 and changed the name of the studio. He further

contended that accused No.1 using the official position has

given his phone number to accused No.2 and they used to

have interactions with each other. Then, accused No.1

contacted accused No.2 by mobile phone, discussing

regarding photography, album etc. and he came to know

that accused No.2 is having no issues. He took her outside

in October 2016 and had intercourse with her against her

will and consent. Accused No.1 was forcing accused No.2

for sexual affairs and intercourse. Accused No.1 used to

take the photographs and videos, started blackmailing

accused No.2. On several occasions, accused No.1 had

forcible sexual intercourse with accused No.2 in the office

of the Superintendent of Police which has been recorded in

his mobile phone. The photographs, videos and chats

clearly demonstrate that accused No.1 has misused the

official power of the post of Superintendent of Police and

obtained the sexual gain for himself. It is further alleged

that in the year 2017, accused Nos.1 and 2 colluded with

other, hatched conspiracy and knocked out the huge loan

from KSFC and obtained loan of Rs.50.00 lakhs under the

term loan and subsidized interest for woman entrepreneur

and she was a Proprietor of the firm. With the convenience

of accused No.1, accused No.3 sanctioned the loan by

showing accused No.2 as a partner of the Pro Studio.

There was no firm existed. After the sanction, the said

huge loan amount as per their will got a plan within four

days and accused Nos.1 and 2 have deliberately induced

the complainant to join as a partner for 10% profit and

loss and made one Kamala who is the sister of the

complainant to mortgage her house as a collateral security

for the loan and in order to defraud the KSFC, they forged

several quotations, GST bills for more than Rs.20.00 lakhs

and produced as genuine for sanction of loan of Rs.75.00

lakhs. Accused No.1 entered into MOU on 04.03.2017 with

accused No.2 to save 20% of the profit. Accused No.3

colluded with accused Nos.1 and 2 by receiving the bribe,

sanctioned the loan. They have misused the power of KSFC

who is of a public service. He further alleged that accused

No.2 has intentionally not opened an account in the name

of the firm, but she has deposited the said loan to the

account of the firm where accused Nos.1 to 3 were

planned for the illegal loan transaction. Thereby, accused

No.1 misused the official power and transacted with his

wife, borrowed the loan and lent the money to the accused

No.2 for the firm which amounts to Money Laundering.

Based upon the private complaint, the trial Court after

receiving the complaint, registered the PCR, took

cognizance and posted the matter for recording the sworn

statement which is under challenge.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner in

W.P.No.21462/2021 has contended that the provisions of

Section 354C of IPC and Sections 506, 201 of IPC will not

attract. There is no ingredient for voyeurism has been

made out. The petitioner never shared any off seen

photographs or pornography to any other person. In fact,

it is alleged that the complainant himself transferred the

photographs and pornography from the phone belongs to

his wife. There was a dispute between the complainant and

his wife, she has already filed a case against him under

Section 498A of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry

Prohibition Act which is pending. Subsequently, the wife of

the complainant also filed a divorce petition against him

making allegation against him including cruelty and taking

advantage of some photographs, the complainant filed a

false complaint against the petitioner who is a Police

Officer. The sworn statement recorded by the Magistrate

in PCR No.9579/2018, he has made so many allegations

including Sections 376, 497 of IPC for having illicit

intimacy between the accused No.1 and wife of the

complainant, but the same was not considered by the trial

Court. However, it is not correct in the part of the trial

Court for taking cognizance under Section 354C of IPC.

The petitioner is a Police Officer, there is no sanction

obtained for prosecuting against him. Absolutely, there is

no material for threatening the complainant and destroying

the evidence. Therefore, it is also contended that Section

67A of the I.T. Act also not attracted. Hence, prayed for

quashing the criminal proceedings.

9. The learned counsel also contended that in

Crl.P.No.774/2021, the very same complainant in the

earlier case has filed one more PCR against the petitioner

in the Special Court alleging that the petitioner was

involved in Money Laundering activities by providing fund

to the wife of the complainant who is also made as

accused No.2. The Special Court cannot take any

cognizance against the petitioner under the PML Act as

there is a bar for taking cognizance, if the complaint is not

filed by the Director or Additional Director of the

Enforcement Department in accordance with law.

Therefore, taking cognizance by the trial Court under the

PML Act is illegal. The complainant also alleged that the

petitioner is involved in Benami Transactions Act, but,

there is no basis for filing such complaint and taking

cognizance. In order to proceed against the petitioner who

is a Police Officer and a public servant without obtaining

sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. and Section 19 of

the P.C. Act, there is no ingredient to attract any offence

under the P.C. Act. The allegation against the petitioner is

that he has misused the official position and obtained the

loan. The Departmental Enquiry was also initiated against

the petitioner where it was not proved and exonerated

from the charges. Therefore, criminal proceedings against

the petitioner is not sustainable. Hence, prayed for

quashing the PCR No.41/2020.

10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent

has contended that the petitioner and the wife of the

complainant had illicit intimacy between them. He has

taken the nude photos of complaint's wife and threatened

to transfer it to the public website. He had intercourse with

her and was blackmailing her by keeping the photos and

videos which attract Section 354C of IPC and Section

67(A) of the I.T. Act. Therefore, there is material against

the petitioner for taking cognizance. Hence, prayed for

dismissing the petition in Writ Petition No.21462/2021.

In Crl.P.No.774/2021, the learned High Court Government

Pleader has contended that the petitioner being the Police

Officer by misusing the Official power had intimacy with

the wife of the complainant and provided loan to her. He

was involved in PML Act and invested money on some

other persons which attracts Benami Transactions Act.

Therefore, the Magistrate has rightly took the cognizance.

The offence is not in official duty, therefore, sanction is not

required. He has filed a complaint to the Koramangala

Police and they have not taken the complaint, therefore he

was forced to file private complaint. Hence, prayed for

dismissing the petitions.

11. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of

the records, in PCR No.9579/2018 where the complainant

has made allegation for the offences punishable under

Sections 376, 354A, 420, 406, 497, 498 of IPC where the

trial Court took the cognizance for the offences punishable

under Sections 354C, 506 and 201 of IPC and Section 67A

of the IT Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that Section 354C voyeurism do not attract and

Section 67(A) of the I.T. Act which is almost Section 354C

of the IPC and even Sections 506 and 201 of IPC will not

attract and there is no material to show the petitioner has

transferred the nude photographs and uploaded to the

public platform. In fact, the respondent himself has got

transferred the pornography into his own phone, therefore,

the offence against the petitioner not attracted. Before

going to the relevant provisions of Section 354C of IPC, it

is worth to mention that the background of the case of the

respondent where it is stated by him that he is an

Engineer, he started a Studio and the petitioner is said to

be the IPS Officer worked as Superintendent of Police in

Davanagere who came to the Studio for appointing the

photographer for the function. Subsequently, the petitioner

said to be developed intimacy with the wife of the

complainant who is the proprietor of the Studio and later,

both of them said to be had sexual intercourse and it is

said to be recorded by the petitioner in the mobile phone

of the wife of the complainant which was found by the

complainant. It is also an admitted fact that there was

dispute between the husband and wife and while filing the

second complaint, the wife of the complainant one Roopa

already filed a divorce case against the respondent-

complainant and also filed an FIR for the offence

punishable under Section 498A of IPC and other cases

which is pending against the very complainant. On that

background, the complainant filed this private complaint

alleging that there is a illicit intimacy between the accused

and the wife of the complainant and the petitioner is said

to be committed rape under Section 376 and an unnatural

offence under Sections 497, 498 of IPC. But the trial Court

disagreed the contention under Sections 376 and 497 of

IPC as the petitioner is major and wife of the complainant

is also major and both of them had a sexual intercourse

and the wife of the complainant herself videographed the

sexual affairs held between them. It cannot be said that

the accused recorded the porn video through the mobile

phone of the wife of the complainant and also in order to

attract Section 354C of IPC where the trial Court taken

cognizance and also under Section 201 of IPC where the

complainant's wife herself deleted the photographs and

videograph which was saved in her mobile phone and

therefore, it cannot be said that the accused destroyed the

evidence.

12. That apart, the accused said to be threatened

her to delete the pornography also cannot be acceptable as

there was a quarrel between the husband and wife in

respect of the some nude photos or nude videographs of

the accused as well as wife of the respondent No.2 found

in the mobile phone of the wife of the complainant. Such

being the case, Sections 506 and 201 do not attract.

Therefore, it is held that the trial Court took the

cognizance without any material evidence against the

petitioner for the alleged offence.

13. In order to attract Section 354C of IPC

voyeurism and for the convenience, the provisions of

Section 354C reads as under:

"354C. Voyeurism - Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being

observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image1 shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation No.1 - For the purpose of this section, "private act" includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.

Explanation 2. - Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such

image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section."

On careful reading of Explanation 2 which reveals,

where the victim consents to capture the images or any

act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and

where such image or act is disseminated, such

dissemination shall be considered an offence under the

provision of Section 354C. Here in this case, there is no

allegation that the accused got transferred the

photographs into his phone or transferred to any other

person, whereas the complainant himself has categorically

stated in his complaint that he found the porn video of his

wife and the accused in the mobile phone of his wife and

he is said to be got it transferred to his mobile phone

which amounts to dissemination of the captured images in

the phone of the complainant attracts the offence against

the complainant. It is not a case where the accused got

disseminated the images to third persons, but here the

complainant himself got transferred the images from his

wife's mobile phone. Therefore, the offence under Section

354C Voyeurism is not attracted against this petitioner.

14. That apart, a sexual affair between the

accused as well as wife of the complainant, both of them

were major and such being the case, the question of

taking cognizance by the Magistrate under Section 354C

of IPC against the petitioner does not attract Section 67(A)

of the I.T. Act is nothing but pari materia of Section 354C

of the IPC. Therefore, the cognizance taken against the

petitioner in the W.P.No.21462/2021 arising out of

C.C.No.22845/2021 deserves to be set aside.

15. As regards to the Crl.P.No.774/2021, in PCR

No.41/2020 where the very complainant has filed the

complaint against the petitioner as well as his own wife

and other three persons stating that the accused provided

loan to his wife and thereafter, involved in Money

Laundering Act and started business in the benami name

etc. In this regard, the learned Sessions Judge on the

private complaint filed by the respondent took the

cognizance and posted the matter for recording the sworn

statement which is under challenge, where the allegation

against the petitioner was that he has provided loan to

accused No.2-wife of the complainant through the State

Financial Corporation who are accused Nos.3 to 4 in the

complaint as they are the Bank Officials who provided loan

to the wife of the complainant for starting of the New Pro

Studio and Events in the name of accused No.5-Kumar.

The trial Court has stated that there was offence

punishable under Sections 7, 11, 12 and 13, 1(a) and (b)

and 13(2) of the P.C. Act against the petitioner and bank

officials and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PML Act, apart from

Benami Transactions. The learned counsel for the

petitioner has seriously contended that the Assistant

Director or Director of the Enforcement Authorities,

Enforcement Directorate has to file the complaint under

Section 45 of the PML Act and no complaint can be filed

by the private persons. Apart from that, the petitioner is

public servant. Even for the offence under Section 13(1) of

the Corruption Act, a sanction under Section 19 of P.C. Act

and Section 197 of Cr.P.C. required to take the

cognizance. Though the learned counsel for the respondent

has contended that there is no official duty or discharge of

official functions by the petitioner was involved in order to

take cognizance but in order to file complaint under

Sections 3, 4 and 5 PML Act, the Director of Enforcement

Directorate (ED) shall file the complaint but not the

defacto-complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner

has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court in Crl.P.No.9071/2021 dated 12.04.2022 where

the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held as per

Section 45(1) of the Act, the Special Court is barred from

taking cognizance except filed a complaint by the Director

or any other Officer authorized by the General or Special

order by the said Government. Therefore, in view of the

judgment of Court under Section 45 of the PML Act, the

complaint filed by the respondent person is not

maintainable and the trial Court also cannot take

cognizance and post the matter for recording the evidence.

16. That apart, the alleged offence is also

punishable under Section 13 of the P.C. Act and Benami

Transactions Act. That the complaint is invoking the P.C.

Act for the purpose of taking cognizance and proceeding

against the accused or referring the complaint to the Police

under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. A sanction is necessary

under Section 19 of the P.C. Act and also under Section

197 of Cr.P.C. Absolutely, there is no such sanction

obtained by the complainant for initiating proceedings

against the petitioner. That apart, the respondent also not

filed any complaint to the Police which was refused by the

Police and thereafter, he has approached the Higher

Authorities and later has filed a complaint before the

Magistrate as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND

ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND

OTHERS REPORTED IN (2015) 6 SCC 287. But no such

attempt was made except mentioning that he has

approached the Police and the Police have not registered

the complaint. That apart, the Police Higher Authorities

have already made an enquiry against the petitioner and

they have stated that there is no such offences committed

by the petitioner and the enquiry against him has been

dropped.

17. It is also borne out from the records that the

very wife of the complainant-Roopa has filed a complaint

against the complainant-husband before the Police where

the Police have registered the FIR in Crime No.109/2018

on 17.07.2018 for the offence punishable under Sections

498A, 323, 307, 504, 506, 354B of IPC and Sections 66E

and 67 of the I.T. Act, the FIR under investigation against

the very complainant-husband. That apart, the wife of the

complainant i.e., accused No.2-Roopa also filed a divorce

petition against him on 28.08.2018 for decree of divorce

where the complainant also filed a counter claim seeking

the divorce which is also pending before the Court. Such

being the case, when the wife of the complainant herself

filed a complaint against the very defacto-complainant-R2,

question of giving her evidence or statement for the

purpose of taking cognizance in W.P.No.21462/2021 for

the offence punishable under Section 354C of IPC does not

arise as the private complaint itself filed under Sections

498A and 307 of IPC and also filed a divorce petition. The

question of giving a sworn statement by her and brought

her to the Court for providing some statement appears to

be a threaten by the complainant. Therefore, considering

all these aspects, where in one case, the complainant

taken the contention that his wife given evidence against

the petitioner. In another private complaint, he has filed a

complaint to take cognizance against his own wife as well

as the petitioner and there was litigation between the

husband and wife for divorce as well as under Sections

498A and 307 of IPC which are pending. Therefore, in

order to overcome those cases, it appears the respondent

has filed a private complaint against the petitioner for the

PML Act and other offences including P.C. Act. Therefore,

the very cognizance taken by the trial Court against the

petitioner without having sanction and without considering

the bar under Section 45 of the PML Act, posted the matter

for sworn statement is abuse of process of law and

committed illegality or the order under challenge suffers

legality. Therefore, both the petitions are liable to be

quashed.

18. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order:

Both the petitions are allowed.

The criminal proceedings against the petitioner in

C.C.No.22845/2021 arising out of PCR No.9579/2018

pending on the file of I Additional CMM, Bengaluru and the

order of taking cognizance for posting the matter for

recording the sworn statement in PCR No.41/2020,

pending on the file of the Additional City Civil and Sessions

Judge and Special Judge for P.C. Act, Bengaluru are

hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

GBB