Karnataka High Court
Mr Shankar Gowda K M vs The State Of Karnataka By on 20 June, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
CRL.P No. 13612 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13612 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
MR. SHANKAR GOWDA K. M.
S/O MR. K. V. MADHU,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
R/A NO.16, KEREKODI MAIN ROAD,
OPP SBI, DISOUZA NAGAR,
HOSAKEREHALLI,
BSK 3RD STAGE,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 085.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOKA T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally BANGALORE - 560 001
signed by
CHANDANA
BM 2. ANBU SELVI A.,
Location:
High Court W/O ARAVINDHANA,
of Karnataka AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/A NO.10/A, 1ST G CROSS,
7TH MAIN, SUBBANNA GARDEN,
VIJAYANAGARA
BENGALURU CITY - 560 040.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. UMESHA K. AND SRI GIRISH S., ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528
BNSS) THAT TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET DATED
29.04.2023 IN CC.NO.19418/2023 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
CRL.P No. 13612 of 2024
HC-KAR
POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ACJM AT BENGALURU, FOR
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420, 406 R/W 34 OF
IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
"a. Quash the entire charge sheet dated 29.04.2023 in
C.C.No.19418/2023 filed by the Respondent No.1 police
pending on the file of IV ACJM at Bengaluru for the
offence punishable under Section 420, 406 r/w. 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
b. Pass any other order/s as it may deem fit to the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. Though respondent No.2 was served with notice, she
has remained unrepresented and has not chosen to contest the
petition.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that
respondent No.2-defacto complainant filed a private complaint
against accused No.3 and seven other persons i.e., accused
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 8 complaining that they had committed offences
punishable under Sections 420, 383, 120B, 406 r/w. Section 34 of
IPC. Learned magistrate having referred the matter for
investigation, FIR in Crime No.235/2022 dated 02.09.2022 was
registered against the petitioner accused No.3 and other accused
persons, pursuant to which a charge sheet was filed by the
respondent-Police, which is currently pending in
C.C.No.19418/2023 before the trial Court for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420 r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
5. In this context, a perusal of the material on record will
indicate that the complainant alleges that the instant transaction
took place way back in the year 2020 and there is absolutely no
explanation offered as to the long and inordinate delay and latches
on the part of respondent No.2 in relation to the event/transaction
that took place two years ago. In the case of Chanchalapati Das
Vs. State of West Bengal- 2023 SCC OnLine SC 650, the Apex
Court held as under;
"Leave granted. Both the appeals arise out of the
common judgment and order dated 22-3-2017 passed by the
High Court of Calcutta in Chanchalpati Das v. State of W.B.
[Chanchalpati Das v. State of W.B., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
1588] whereby the High Court has dismissed both the
criminal revision applications seeking quashing of the
charge-sheet filed against the appellants-accused, in respect
of FIR No. 33 of 2009 registered at Ballygunge Police
Station, for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and
120-B of the Penal Code, 1860.
2. As transpiring from the record, the appellant Madhu
Pandit Das (Accused 1) is the President of ISKCON,
Bengaluru since 1984 and the appellant Chanchalpati Das
(Accused 2) is the Vice-President of ISKCON, Bengaluru since
1985. Both of them claim to be the global spiritual leaders
and humanitarians. According to the appellants, the
International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON),
Bengaluru, is a society registered in 1978 under the
Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960.
3. As per the case of the respondent complainant on
30-9-2006, a letter in the form of complaint was addressed to
the Officer-in-Charge, Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata, by
the General Manager, ISKCON, Kolkata, in which it was
alleged inter alia that the International Society for Krishna
Consciousness (ISKCON), Mumbai is a Society registered
since 1971 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and
the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, having its registered
office at Hare Krishna Land, Juhu, Mumbai-49. The said
Society has many branches/offices all over India including
one located at 3C, Albert Road, Kolkata-700019. The
Governing Council of the said Society known as "Bureau" is
the highest administrative body. The said Bureau at the
relevant time had entrusted Shri Adridharan Das, who was
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
the President of the said Kolkata Branch, with the
management of the assets and properties situated at Kolkata
Branch, which included a 42-seat deluxe bus of Ashok
Leyland make, model Viking Alpsv 4/37-222 WB passenger
bus, bearing registration No. WB 25A 0454, engine No. WSH
104189, chassis No. WSH042296. The said bus used to be
parked at the premises of Kolkata Branch.
4. It was further alleged that when the new
management took over the management of the said branch
at Kolkata, the said bus was not found in the premises of the
said branch. Therefore, Shri Jagdartiha Das, one of the
Managers wrote a letter dated 23-11-2001 to the Regional
Transport Officer, Barasat, Kolkata not to issue any duplicate
registration certificate, tax card, etc. in respect of the said
bus. It was further stated in the said letter dated 30-9-2006
that a report was also made to the police station on 22-5-
2002, however subsequently they came to know that the said
bus was in the illegal custody of Shri Madhu Pandit Das,
residing at Hare Krishna Hills, Rajaji Nagar, Bengaluru,
Karnataka.
5. It was also alleged that Mr Adridharan Das had
entered into a criminal conspiracy with Mr Madhu Pandit Das
and others, and that Mr Adridharan Das had committed theft
as well as criminal breach of trust in respect of the said
vehicle, which was taken to Bengaluru. It was also alleged
that the original registration certificate of the said vehicle was
lying at the Kolkata Branch, and that neither Mr Adridharan
Das nor Mr Madhu Pandit Das or any other person had any
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
authority to get the said vehicle transferred to Bengaluru or to
change the name of the registered owner of the said vehicle.
6. It is further the case of the respondent complainant
that since Ballygunge Police Station had not taken notice of
the said letter dated 30-9-2006, the complainant Radha
Raman Das, the Branch Manager of ISKCON, Kolkata had
filed a private complaint in the year 2009 in the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, against the accused Madhu
Pandit Das, Chanchalpati Das, Mahajan Das and Adridharan
Das seeking investigation under Section 156(3)CrPC. The
said case was registered as Criminal Case No. 747 of 2009
in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore.
7. It appears that the said court petition under Section
156(3)CrPC was registered as FIR being No. 33 at
Ballygunge Police Station on 20-2-2009 for the offences
under Sections 379/411/406/408/120-B/468/471IPC. The
investigating officer on the completion of investigation
submitted the charge-sheet being No. 58 in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore against the accused Madhu
Pandit Das, Chanchalpati Das, Mahajan Das and Adridharan
Das, for the offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-
BIPC on 23-10-2010.
8. The appellant-accused Chanchalpati Das filed a
petition being CRR No. 1490 of 2013 and the appellant-
accused Madhu Pandit Das filed a petition being CRR No.
3307/2013 before the High Court of Calcutta seeking
quashing of proceedings of Criminal Case No. 747 of 2009
pending before the CJM, Alipore. The High Court vide the
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
common impugned judgment and order [Chanchalpati Das v.
State of W.B., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 1588] dismissed both
the criminal revisions.
9. The learned Senior Advocate Mr Shyam Divan for
the appellants vehemently submitted that the prosecution
initiated against the appellants by the respondent
complainant was only an attempt to harass the appellants
under the guise of the bus theft case to settle personal
scores with the appellants, as the appellants were able to
create around 30 ISKCON/Hare Krishna Movement associated
Centres under the aegis of ISKCON, Bengaluru, who follow
the teachings of Srila Prabhupada, by keeping him as the
sole Diksha Acharya. He further submitted that the
allegations in the complaint/FIR are not only absurd and
improbable, but there is no reasonable possibility of the
appellants being convicted for the alleged offences after the
trial. Relying upon the documents with regard to the transfer
of registration of the bus in question, he submitted that the
said bus was registered at Kolkata on 20-11-1998, however
thereafter was registered at Bengaluru on 22-5-2002 after
the execution of necessary documents of transfer and at
present the bus is lying in the dump yard at Vrindavan, Uttar
Pradesh.
10. According to Mr Divan, filing of an FIR in 2009 for
the alleged theft of bus taken place in 2002, was sheer
abuse of process of law. Even the investigating officer has
failed to collect and produce any documents or evidence
along with the charge-sheet with regard to the alleged
forgery and fabrication of documents. Mr Divan has placed
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
reliance on the decisions in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal
[State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 :
1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [G.
Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC
(Cri) 513] , in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v.
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988
SCC (Cri) 234] , in Subal Ghorai v. State of W.B. [Subal
Ghorai v. State of W.B., (2013) 4 SCC 607 : (2013) 2 SCC
(Cri) 530] to buttress his submissions. Lastly, he submitted
that to put a quietus in the matter, ISKCON, Bengaluru is
ready and willing to purchase a latest model brand new
Ashok Leyland bus in the name of ISKCON, Kolkata directly.
11. Per contra, the learned Senior Advocate Mr K.
Venugopal appearing on behalf of Respondent 2
complainant submitted that both the appellants have been
charged by Respondent 1 State for the offence under
Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-BIPC as per the final report
submitted by the investigating officer and there being a prima
facie case made out against the appellants, which even the
High Court had recorded in the impugned order
[Chanchalpati Das v. State of W.B., 2017 SCC OnLine Cal
1588] , this Court may not interfere with the same. According
to him, the documents of registration produced by the
appellants, claiming to have been received under the RTI
from the Regional Transport Authority, Bengaluru concerned,
have been produced for the first time before this Court and
the same could not be taken into consideration. He further
submitted that the underlying complaint pertained to only one
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
luxury bus in comparison to the huge business empire
including real estate built by the appellant-accused, cannot
detract from, or minimise the gravity of the offences of
forgery, cheating and breach of trust allegedly committed by
the appellants. He also submitted that the proposal of
appellants-accused to give a new bus to ISKCON, Kolkata
cannot be accepted, as the offences alleged against the
appellants are not compoundable under Section 320CrPC.
Mr Venugopal has placed reliance on the decisions in CBI v.
Maninder Singh [CBI v. Maninder Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 389 :
(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 292] ; State of Gujarat v. Gajanand M.
Dalwadi [State of Gujarat v. Gajanand M. Dalwadi, (2008) 1
SCC 716 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 304] ; Jasbir Singh v. Tara
Singh [Jasbir Singh v. Tara Singh, (2016) 16 SCC 441 :
(2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 514] ; Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan
[Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 4 SCC 432 :
2004 SCC (Cri) 1294] ; Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P.
[Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P., (2021) 9 SCC 35 : (2021) 3
SCC (Cri) 385] and CBI v. Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind
Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] in
support of his submissions that the criminal proceedings
against the appellants may not be quashed.
12. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties
and the documents on record and having anxiously
considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties, it emerges that according to the respondent
complainant, a letter in the form of complaint was written by
the Branch Manager of ISKCON, Kolkata, on 30-9-2006
addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Ballygunge Police
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
Station, Kolkata, in respect of an alleged theft of a bus
having taken place in 2001, however, no action was taken by
the said police station. Though, the complainant had reported
the matter to the police station concerned earlier on 22-5-
2002, however, no action was taken in that regard.
13. It is pertinent to note that with regard to the said
allegations against the police station concerned, there is
nothing on record to suggest that either the said report dated
22-5-2002 or the letter dated 30-9-2006 was ever received
by the police station concerned or any follow-up action was
taken by the respondent complainant in that regard.
According to the respondent complainant, since no action
was taken on the letter dated 30-9-2006 written to the police
station concerned, the complaint was lodged in the Court of
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 10-2-2009, which was
registered as CR Case No. 747 of 2009, seeking
investigation under Section 156(3)CrPC.
14. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the
case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had
taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the
substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the
Ballygunge Police Station concerned, Kolkata would not
have taken any action on the report made in 2002 on behalf
of the powerful body like ISKCON, Kolkata, or on the letter
dated 30-9-2006 written by the Branch Manager of ISKCON,
Kolkata. Respondent 2 complainant also did not take any
concrete action for getting the said complaint registered with
regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long period of eight
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
years, till the complaint in the court was filed in the year
2009.
15. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate
delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself
would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the
luxury bus owned by ISKCON, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so
precious to them, they would not have sat silent for such a
long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal
machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the
alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that
act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the
process of the court.
16. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint
filed before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was
registered at Ballygunge Police Station on 20-2-2009, it is
discernible that except bald allegations made in the
complaint with regard to the theft of bus in question there
was no material or document produced by the complainant to
substantiate the allegations against the appellants. Even
after the investigation of the said complaint, there was no
evidence collected by the investigating officer to prima facie
satisfy the ingredients constituting the alleged offences under
Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-BIPC. Even if the allegations
made in the complaint as well as in the charge-sheet are
taken at their face value none of the ingredients constituting
the alleged offences are culled out. The learned Senior
Counsel Mr Shyam Divan for the appellants had strenuously
urged relying upon the documents pertaining to the transfer
of ownership and registration of the said bus, that the said
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
documents were executed by the then authorised persons of
ISKCON, Kolkata, in our opinion, the said documents could not
be considered in these proceedings, the same being not the
part of the charge-sheet papers.
17. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the
other documents on record of the instant appeals that the
investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent
or substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute
them for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion
obtained or scientific evidence collected on the documents
allegedly forged to show as to by whom, when and how the
theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were committed.
Under the circumstances, allowing such prosecution to
continue would not only be an empty formality but would be
gross wastage of court's precious time.
18. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have
power to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under
Section 482CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the
powers under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised and
with great caution, the said powers ought to be exercised if a
clear case of abuse of process of law is made out by the
accused. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [State of
Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC
(Cri) 404] the Supreme Court had held that the criminal
proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under
Section 482 if the court is of the opinion that allowing the
proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
the court or that the ends of justice require that the
proceedings are to be quashed.
19. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark
decision State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] ,
after considering relevant provisions more particularly
Section 482CrPC and the principles of law enunciated by this
Court relating to the exercise of extraordinary powers under
Article 226, had laid down certain guidelines for the exercise
of powers of quashing, which have been followed in umpteen
number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads as under :
(SCC pp. 378-79, para 102)
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under
Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated
by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226
or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the
Code which we have extracted and reproduced
above, we give the following categories of cases by
way of illustration wherein such power could be
exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of
any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,
though it may not be possible to lay down any
precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised
and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein
such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence
or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order
of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only
a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
is sufficient ground for proceeding against the
accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or
the Act concerned (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act
concerned, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused
and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge."
20. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [State
of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1805] this Court had observed that the court would
be justified to quash the proceedings if it finds that initiation
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
or continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse
of the process of court.
21. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint
it has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D.
Vora v. State of T.N. [Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N.,
(2022) 15 SCC 164 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 632] that though
inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of
a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay
must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and
ground for quashing a criminal complaint.
22. In the light of the aforestated legal position, if the
facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow
of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent
complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight
years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the
process of law to settle personal scores with the appellants,
and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would
also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more
particularly when neither the allegations made in the
complaint nor in the charge-sheet, disclose any prima facie
case against the appellants. The allegations made against
the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent
person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a
sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-
accused.
23. Before parting, a few observations made by this
Court with regard to the misuse and abuse of the process of
law by filing false and frivolous proceedings in the courts
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
need to be reproduced. In the Court in Dalip Singh v. State of
U.P. [Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114 : (2010)
1 SCC (Civ) 324] it was observed that : (SCC p. 116, para 1)
"1. For many centuries Indian society cherished
two basic values of life i.e. "satya" (truth) and
"ahimsa" (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha
and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain
these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an
integral part of the justice-delivery system which was
in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people
used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts
irrespective of the consequences. However, post-
Independence period has seen drastic changes in
our value system. The materialism has
overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for
personal gain has become so intense that those
involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of
facts in the court proceedings."
24. In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India [Subrata
Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 : (2014) 4
SCC (Civ) 424 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 712] it was observed as
under : (SCC p. 642, para 191)
"191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted
with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be
evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive
obsession towards senseless and ill-considered
claims."
25. We would like to add that just as bad coins drive out
good coins from circulation, bad cases drive out good cases
from being heard on time. Because of the proliferation of
frivolous cases in the courts, the real and genuine cases
have to take a backseat and are not being heard for years
together. The party who initiates and continues a frivolous,
irresponsible and senseless litigation or who abuses the
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
process of the court must be saddled with exemplary cost, so
that others may deter to follow such course. The matter
should be viewed more seriously when people who claim
themselves and project themselves to be the global spiritual
leaders, engage themselves into such kind of frivolous
litigations and use the court proceedings as a platform to
settle their personal scores or to nurture their personal ego.
26. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the present case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we
deem it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings
pending against the appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Alipore, arising out of FIR No. 33 of 2009
registered at Ballygunge Police Station, and quash the same.
27. The appeals stand allowed, with costs of Rs
1,00,000 which shall be deposited by the respondent
complainant in the office of the Supreme Court Advocates-
on-Record Association.
SLPs (Crl.) Nos. 4539 and 4603 of 2023
28. Both these petitions arise out of the order dated
17-2-2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Radha
Raman Das v. State of W.B. [Radha Raman Das v. State of
W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1397] whereby the High Court
has directed the Judicial Magistrate concerned at Alipore to
specifically fix the date for consideration of the charge within
one month from the date of communication of order and
further to conclude the trial within ten months taking recourse
to the provision contained in Section 309CrPC.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21639
HC-KAR
29. In view of the judgment [ Set out in paras 1 to 27,
above.] passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1592 of
2023 [@ SLP (Crl.) No. 6688 of 2017] and Criminal Appeal
No. 1593 of 2023 [@ SLP (Crl.) No. 6689 of 2017], the
present petitions do not survive and stand disposed of
accordingly."
6. It is also pertinent to note that except making bald,
vague, general and omnibus allegations, specific incidents and
allegations as against accused No.3 are conspicuously absent in
the impugned complaint, FIR and charge sheet, which is sufficient
to come to the conclusion that the impugned proceedings against
the petitioner deserves to be quashed.
7. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned criminal proceedings in
C.C.No.19418/2023 pending on the file of the IV
ACJM, Bengaluru, in so far as the petitioner is
concerned, are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
BMC
