Karnataka High Court

Mr Ashwin Mahendra vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2023

Bench: K.Natarajan

                                1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2023

                            BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11436 OF 2022

BETWEEN

1 . MR. ASHWIN MAHENDRA
    S/O B.MAHENDRA
    AGED 33 YEARS

2 . MR.B. MAHENDRA
    S/O CHANNE GOWDA
    AGED 60 YEARS

3 . SMT. SHEELATHA S
    (SHRILATA M AS PER THE FIR)
    W/O MAHENDRA
    AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

4 . SRI. AKSHIT M
    (ANKIT M AS PER THE FIR )
    S/O B. MAHENDRA
    AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

   PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE
   R/AT NO. 300/10,
   36TH CROSS
   7TH C MAIN , 4TH BLOCK
   JAYANAGAR
   BENGALURU CITY 560 011

5 . SRI. HARISH P
    S/O PRAKASH
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
    R/AT NO.3, ANCHE MANE
                             2




   VATTIGARU, DEVANGI PSOT
   TIRTHAHALLI,
   SHIVAMOGGA 571 172
                                         ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRINCE ISAC, ADVOCATE)

AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
    BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION
    MILLERS ROAD,
    VASANTH NAGAR
    BENGALURU - 560 052
    KARNATAKA

      REPRESENTED BY
      STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
      HIGH COURT BUILDING
      BENGALURU - 560 001

2 . SRI. G.M. KUMAR
    S/O GANGADARAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
    R/O NO.277, 4TH BLOCK
    INDUSTRIAL TOWN
    RAJAJINAGAR
    WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
    BANGALORE - 560044
                                       ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
 SRI H.S. CHANDRAMOULI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
 FOR MS. KEERTHANA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER
IN CR.NO.184/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 465, 420, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
HIGH GROUNDS POLICE WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE LEARNED 8tH ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA
ROAD, BENGALURU CITY VIDE ANNEXURE A.
                                 3




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.03.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1

to 5 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in

Crime No.184/2022 registered by the High Grounds Police

Station, Bengaluru, now pending on the file of 8th ACMM,

Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 465,

420, 468, 471, 120B, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent No.1-State and learned Senior counsel for

respondent No.2.

3. The case of the petitioners is that respondent

No.2-G.M.Kumar have made first information to the Police

on 15.11.2022 alleging that Ashwin Mahendra-accused

No.1, Mahendra-accused No.2, Sreelatha-accused No.3,

Ankith-accused No.4 and Harish-accused No.5 were

floating a company by investing Rs.30.00 crores in the

year 2013, he has also invested Rs.3.00 Crores in the

company and they have cheated by creating the

documents, misappropriated the money belongs to the

company and also fabricated the documents. It is alleged

that the accused have opened the account in the

Corporation Bank on 24.10.2013 along with the

complainant by mentioning the name of the complainant

as a joint signatory. They looted more than Rs.30.00

crores. They used the pan card number of the

complainant. They mentioned his name in the company

data. Therefore, the Registrar of the Companies also held

an enquiry under the Companies Act, closed the matter

and thereafter, they registered a company in the name of

M/s. Eaglesight Media Private Limited and they inactivated

the said company. From last 2016, it was shown as closed

and it was web-hosted in the public domain saying that the

said company is inactive. In spite of closing the company,

they have filed false affidavit by using fake BTv Logo and

have committed the offence under the Trade Marks Act,

1999. They have filed affidavit in the Original Suit

No.584/2022 by using the Eaglesight Media Private Limited

and he has filed affidavit as authorised person. He also

filed an interlocutory application in the said original suit. A

perjury case has been registered against the accused and

it is under investigation. They also sold the property

belongs to the company to one Caprika International. A

complaint also lodged before the Registrar of Companies

which is pending. They also shifted the company to their

house at Jayanagar. The complainant also issued notice to

them on 19.07.2018. They also cheated Rs.3.00 crores

which belongs to the complainant and they violated the

Trade Marks Act. Therefore, prayed for taking action

against the petitioners. After registering the FIR, the Police

took up the investigation which is under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has

vehemently contended that petitioner No.1 filed a

complaint against the complainant by filing P.C.R.

No.11527/2019 before the IV ACMM, Bengaluru on

11.09.2019 itself. The case was referred to the Police,

case was registered, but the Police have not filed any

investigation report which is pending. The learned counsel

also contended that on 23.01.2020, the accused also filed

a complaint against the said complainant-G.M.Kumar and a

case in Crime No.8/2020 has been registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471,

504, 506, 120B of IPC but, the Police have not

investigated the matter, kept the FIR in cold storage and

the Police refused to act upon.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further

contended that subsequently, respondent No.2-

Complainant has filed a case on 29.01.2020 where the

respondent police registered a FIR in Crime No.10/2020

against the petitioners for the offences punishable under

Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 506, 120B and 34 of IPC and

the Police have transferred the investigation to the CCB

and the CCB Police have filed the charge-sheet before the

IV ACMM Court on 12.08.2021 and subsequently, the

complainant have filed one more complaint against these

petitioners on the same cause of action for the same

offences. The police have immediately registered the FIR

but on the other hand, the petitioners' complaint has not

been investigated by the police and on the other hand,

they registered one more case against the petitioners on

the same cause of action even though charge-sheet has

been filed against the petitioners. Therefore, it is

contended that the police have not properly investigated

the matter, hence, the petitioners also filed a Writ Petition

before the High Court for referring the investigation to the

CBI which is pending. Therefore, the FIR in this case is not

sustainable. Hence, prayed for quashing the FIR.

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court

Government Pleader objected the petition and contended

that the matter requires investigation and fairly admitted

that it is dispute between the Directors of the company

and the charge-sheet was already filed by the CCB police.

7. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the

respondent has objected the petition and contended that

there was lot of litigation pending between both the

parties. The learned Senior counsel has contended that

there are six criminal cases filed by the petitioners against

the respondent and six civil cases filed against the

respondent No.2. Apart from that, other six cases are

pending in the High Court and contended that it is no

doubt that the second complaint is not maintainable on the

same set of facts since they are independent and different

allegations. learned counsel also contended that if there is

different allegations, two FIRs are maintainable in view of

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Anju Chaudhary vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

Another reported in (2013) 6 SCC 384 and contended

that for the purpose of registering the FIR is to set the

machinery of criminal investigation into motion and filing

of the Police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. and

the incident is separate and different offences, therefore,

two FIRs are maintainable. He further contended that

there are pending cases interlinked with each other

therefore, it cannot be of same cause of action. It need to

be addressed distinctly, no finality has been reached in any

of the cases. The same would be prejudicial in any of the

cases. There are numerous cases pending before different

forum and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case, it is just and reasonable to allow the Investigating

Agency to investigate the matter as held by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Prakash

P. Hinduja and Another reported in (2003) 6 SCC 195.

Therefore, prayed for vacating the stay or permit the

Police to investigate the matter and hence, prayed for

dismissing the petition.

8. Having heard the arguments and perused the

records. The case of the petitioners is that on the same

set of facts and on the same cause of action, multiple FIRs

have been registered by the same Police against the

petitioners and he has brought to the notice of this Court

that the FIR in respect of Crime No.10/2020 registered by

the High Grounds Police on the complaint of very same

complainant-G.M.Kumar-respondent No.2 herein for the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471,

506, 120B, 34 of IPC and the alleged offence have been

committed by the petitioners-accused between 01.01.2013

and 29.01.2020. The place of occurrence is M/s Eaglesight

Media Pvt. Ltd., No.32/1-2, Crescent, Crescent Road,

Bangalore-560001, Karnataka. The said complaint was

registered against the same five accused persons and in

the present case challenged in Crime No.184/2022 has

been filed by the very same respondent No.2 on

15.11.2022 for the offences punishable under Sections

465, 420, 468, 471, 120B, 506, 34 of IPC, the alleged

offences said to be took place from 24.10.2013 till

15.11.2022 and the place of occurrence is one and the

same i.e., Eaglesight Media Pvt. Ltd., No.9 Loop line,

Racecourse, Bengaluru and contended that the allegation

in the both the complaints are one and the same for

cheating, misappropriation of amounts etc. and he has

invested Rs.3.00 crores which is stated in both the cases.

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that

after the thorough investigation, the Police have filed the

charge-sheet in Crime No.10/2020 on the very same

dispute between the same parties. In spite of having their

knowledge about the same dispute among the same

parties, they purposely registered the fresh FIR against the

petitioners and further contended that when the

petitioners have filed a complaint against the respondent

No.2 on 23.01.2020 much prior to the filing of complaint

by respondent No.2 which was registered in Crime

No.8/2020, but the Police willfully not investigated the

matter and filed any report till date. Whereas, the

respondent-police obtained the complaint from the

complainant, subsequently, they registered the FIR in

Crime No.10/2020 and hurriedly filed charge-sheet

through CCB police, but willfully neglected the complaint

filed by the petitioners.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners also

brought to the notice that the respondent by filing

repeated complaints has misused the position and created

the documents. He has started one more business in the

name of same company by ignoring the dispute. He

borrowed loan and he has involved in money laundering

activities and subsequently, the petitioners came to know

from the notice issued by the Enforcement Directorate.

Then the petitioners rushed to the Vijayanagar Police

Station and filed a complaint against the respondent, the

same is registered in Crime No.92/2022 for the offence

punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC which is

pending for investigation. That apart, the petitioners have

also filed original suit against respondent No.2 and

obtained the injunction against respondent No.2, in spite

of it, the respondent No.2 troubling the petitioners and not

allowing the petitioners to run the business even though

they are legally entitled to do so.

10. The learned counsel also brought to the notice

that the dispute between the parties or between the

Directors of the company i.e., running B-Tv news channel

and respondent already raised complaint before the

Registrar of Companies, they closed the complaint after

making enquiry and one more complaint has been filed

before the Registrar of companies in respect of the

alienation of the assets of the company which is pending

before the Company Registrar.

11. It is seen from the records that though the

petitioners have filed a private complaint before the

Magistrate, got it referred to the Police and a case was

registered by the Police in Crime No.8/2020, but, in spite

of the lapse of three years, the respondent-High Grounds

Police have not bothered to investigate the matter and

filed any report. On the other hand, on the complaint filed

by respondent No.2, the very same Police hurriedly

registered the FIR in Crime No.10/2020, investigated the

matter and got the charge-sheet filed against the

petitioners. Normally, in any dispute regarding case and

counter case registered against the rival parties, the Police

should have investigated both the matters to file the final

report and if one FIR in Crime No.10/2020 was referred to

CCB Police for investigation. The Police could have

obtained permission from the Magistrate and referred the

investigation of FIR in Crime No.8/2020 to CCB for

investigating both the FIRs together, which is not done by

the High Grounds Police Station and referred only one case

to CCB which shows, there is hand in glow with respondent

No.2 and the Police. As per the very statement of the

objection filed by counsel for respondent No.2 which

reveals that there were 6 criminal cases filed by the

petitioners against respondent No.2 which are in

C.C.No.4842/2019 for the offence punishable under N.I.

Act; FIR No.135/2022-the Police have filed 'B' report; FIR

No.178/2022-the Police filed 'B' report; FIR No.92/2022-

the matter is under investigation; FIR No.8/2020-pending

and not filed any charge-sheet; C.C.No.6626/2018-matter

is under evidence. Apart from that, another 6 civil cases

filed against respondent No.2 in O.S.No.5617/2020,

O.S.No.584/2022, O.S.No.7854/2022, Misc.No.1184/2022,

O.S.No.7334/2022, Misc.No.1143/2022 which are pending

in various Courts. Apart from that, there were other cases

pending between the parties in the High Court where the

petitioners have challenged the complaint filed by the

respondent No.2.

12. On perusal of the cases filed between the

parties and the allegation made against the petitioners by

the respondent No.2 are identical one and same and there

is no new averment or allegation in order to register the

second FIR by the Police. On the other hand, it is also

brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel

for the petitioners that the respondent No.2 went to

Vijayanagar Police for having registered a case in Crime

No.92/2022 against him and quarreled with them, but the

said Police have not taken any action against respondent

No.2 and they were afraid of respondent No.2.

13. In view of the said facts and circumstances of

the present case on hand and pending civil litigation

between the parties which is pertaining to the inter se

dispute between the Directors of the company and they

can approach the Company Law Board or the Registrar of

Companies for adjudication. But, respondent No.2 always

in the habit of filing repeated complaints and registering

the FIRs against the petitioners and investigating the

matter but the Police have failed to investigate the matter

against respondent No.2 on the complaint filed by the

petitioners. Therefore, the learned counsel for the

petitioners also filed Writ Petition before the High Court for

referring the dispute to the Central Bureau of Investigation

(CBI) and the learned Senior counsel for respondent also

submitted no objection for referring the complaint to CBI.

But, the said writ petition is not before this Court.

Therefore, this Court cannot take any decision in this

regard and the judgment relied by the learned counsel for

the respondent in the case of Union of India vs. Prakash

P. Hinduja stated supra and Anju Chaudhary stated

supra are not applicable to the case on hand. The Police

once registered FIR in Crime No.10/2020 and filed the

charge-sheet by the CCB Police even during the pendency

of the case, the trial Court can order for further

investigation or the Police can also file additional charge-

sheet under Section 173(8)of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.10/2020.

But for the same complaint between the same parties

registering multiple FIRs are not permissible under the

law.

14. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of T.T.Antony vs. State of Kerala and others &

connected matters reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 at

paragraph 27 has held as under:

"27. A just balance between the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution and the expansive power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence has to be struck by the court. There cannot be any controversy that sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC empowers the police to make further investigation, obtain further evidence (both oral and documentary) and forward a further report or reports to the Magistrate. In Narang case [(1979) 2 SCC 322 : 1979 SCC (Cri) 479] it was, however, observed that it would be appropriate to conduct further investigation with the permission of the court. However, the sweeping power of investigation does not warrant subjecting a citizen each time to fresh investigation by the police in

respect of the same incident, giving rise to one or more cognizable offences, consequent upon filing of successive FIRs whether before or after filing the final report under Section 173(2) CrPC. It would clearly be beyond the purview of Sections 154 and 156 CrPC, nay, a case of abuse of the statutory power of investigation in a given case. In our view a case of fresh investigation based on the second or successive FIRs, not being a counter-case, filed in connection with the same or connected cognizable offence alleged to have been committed in the course of the same transaction and in respect of which pursuant to the first FIR either investigation is under way or final report under Section 173(2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate, may be a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC or under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution."

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also quashed the

multiple FIRs in the case of Arnab Ranjan Goswami vs.

Union of India and others reported in AIR 2020 SC

2386. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgment

in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh reported in AIR ONLINE 2022 SC 1393:: 2022

(3) CRI LR (RAJ) 1132 at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 has

held as under:

"11. We have perused both the FIRs. The respondent No.4 is the first informant in both the FIRs and the same are based on the same agreement for sale executed on 14th June 2006. The allegation made in both the FIRs is the same. The allegation is that by practising forgery and fraud, the appellant No.1 has sold the subject property to appellant No.2 thereby deceiving the respondent No.4. The second FIR, which is the subject-matter of challenge, was registered nearly four years after the first FIR was registered. The challenge to the first FIR is pending before the High Court. These aspects have been completely overlooked by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

"12. If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and

allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by the High Court."

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has followed the

decision of the its earlier judgment in the cases of Union

of India vs. Prakash and T.T.Antony stated supra and

the above said principles have squarely applicable to the

fact of the case on hand where respondent No.2 has filed a

complaint in the year 2020 on the same allegation of

misappropriation and cheating of his investment in the

company and subsequently, once again, he has reiterated

the same allegation in the present FIR and got registered

in the year 2022, it amounts to multiple FIRs on the same

cause of action which is nothing but abuse of process of

law and the same is liable to be quashed. Therefore, the