Karnataka High Court
L Maruthi vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6559
CRL.P No. 7040 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7040 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
L. MARUTHI,
S/O LAKSHMINARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/A KANIVENHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH B R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY PAVAGADA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by BANGALORE - 560 001.
ARUNKUMAR M S
Location: High
Court of Karnataka 2. JAYARAMREDDY B.H.,
S/O HENJAREDDY,
AGED 64 YEARS,
R/AT BELLIBATTALU VILLAGE,
NIDAGAL HOBLI, SHILAPURA POST,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6559
CRL.P No. 7040 of 2024
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.234/2023 OF PAVAGADA POLICE
STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 465, 468, 471
R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC COURT PAVAGADA, TUMKUR DISTRICT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORDER
1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks for the following relief:
"Quash FIR in Crime No.234/2023 of Pavagada police
station registered for the offences punishable U/s 465, 468,
471 r/w 34 of IPC pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge &
JMFC Court Pavagada, Tumkur Dist. and pass such other
order/s deems fit in the circumstances of the case, in the
interest of Justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and perused the
material on record.
3. Respondent No.2 having been served with notice of the
petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not
contested the petition.
4. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that
respondent No.2 - complainant was none other than the client of
NC: 2025:KHC:6559
the petitioner who is a practicing advocate. It is a matter of record
and an undisputed fact that respondent No.2 as well as accused
No.2 were both clients of the petitioner who is a practicing
advocate and that the petitioner had obtained anticipatory bail on
behalf of respondent No.2 as well as accused No.2. In this
situation, after lapse of about 2 years from the date on which he
receives information from the respondent - Police Station
regarding the grant of anticipatory bail, the respondent No.2
appears to have lodged the impugned complaint against the
petitioner - accused No.1 and accused No.2 for alleged offences
under Sections 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the IPC, which is registered
as FIR in Crime No.234/2023 dated 01.10.2023, and assailed in
the present petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would invite my attention to
the material on record in order to point out that necessary
ingredients constituting offences under the aforesaid provisions
were not made out in the complaint even if they are taken at face
value and in the light of the undisputed fact that the petitioner had
obtained anticipatory bail which enured to the benefit of respondent
No.2, the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed. It is also
NC: 2025:KHC:6559
submitted that there is a long unexplained and inordinate delay of
more than 2 years in filing the complaint and the same deserves to
be quashed on this ground also in the light of the judgment in the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of IMRAN SIDDIQUI VS.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR., in W.P.No.10023/2022 c/w
10029/2022 dated 26.07.2022 and CHANCHALAPATHI DAS VS. THE
STATE OF WEST BENGAL1.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits
that there is no merit in the instant petition.
7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
there is a long, inordinate and unexplained delay of more than 2
years on the part of the respondent No.2 in filing the complaint in
relation to an incident that had allegedly occurred in the year 2020.
In addition thereto, so long as respondent No.2 benefited from the
anticipatory bail order obtained by the petitioner who was a
practicing advocate, it does not lie in the mouth of respondent No.2
to contend that the petitioner or accused No.2 who is also the
beneficiary of the anticipatory bail order, are liable for any of the
offences as alleged by respondent No.2 and consequently,
2023 SCC Online SC 650
NC: 2025:KHC:6559
continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner would
amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this
Court in the present petition.
8. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is hereby allowed.
The impugned proceedings in Crime No.234/2023
of Pavagada Police Station registered for the offence
punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of the
IPC qua the petitioner, is hereby quashed.
SD/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
RD
