- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:100 CRL.P No. 166 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 166 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI ASHOK REDDY K N, S/O SRI NANJI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.209, 3RD FLOOR, 45TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, JAYANAGAR 8TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560082 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY JIGANI POLICE, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT. 2. SRI BIJU K S S/O SRI K M SAKTHIDHARAN, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.242, 7TH MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560040 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1, R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.91/2018 (CR.NO.199/2017) ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:100 CRL.P No. 166 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a. Call for the entire records in CC. No. 91/2018 [Crime No. 0199/2017), on the file of the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, at Anekal, b. Quash the entire proceedings in CC. No. 91/2018 [Crime No.0199/2017], on the file of the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, at Anekal, c. Consequently quash the First Information Report in Crime No.0199/2017 Dated 02.08.2017 registered in the Police Station, Anekal registered for the offences punishable under Section 420, 468, 471, 406 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code, in CC No. 91/2018 on the file of the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, at Anekal, and d. Pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record. 3. Respondent No.2 – complainant having been served with notice of this petition, he has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not chosen to contest the petition. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:100 CRL.P No. 166 of 2023 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to the complaint dated 02.08.2017 filed by respondent No.2 in relation to the immovable property comprising of sites, an FIR was registered against petitioner-accused No.1 and one Ravindra, who is said to be the owner of the property. In pursuance of the same, respondent No.1 – police authorities submitted a charge sheet on 30.11.2017, pursuant to which the Trial Court issued summons in C.C.No.91/2018 to the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner is merely a marketing agent and he cannot be punished for any act, deed or thing said to have been done by the aforesaid Ravindra or any dispute between the said Ravindra and respondent No.2. It is also submitted that under identical circumstances, in relation to other complainants also, who are said to be site owners in the instant criminal proceedings in which petitioner was arrayed as accused No.2, this Court in the case of Sri. Ashok Reddy K.N. and others Vs. State of Karnataka and another - Crl.P.No.3698/2023 and Connected Matters dated 26.10.2023 has quashed the proceedings as against the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the present petition also deserves to be allowed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:100 CRL.P No. 166 of 2023 5. As stated supra, respondent No.2-complainant having been served with notice of this petition, he has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under identical circumstances, in criminal petitions arising out of the complaint given by other alleged site owners and also against the alleged Ravindra (Accused No.1) and the petitioner (accused No.2), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3698/2023 dated 26.102.2022 has held as under: “The petitioner who is common in all these petitions is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 406, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/s in all these petitioners had purchased sites through a registered sale deeds from one Sri R Narayana Reddy, Sri Ramaswamy Reddy @ Raja Reddy, Smt. Sudha and Sri Harish through their GPA Holder, Sri P Raveendra. On the ground that the vendor did not have all the necessary approvals and that on false representation, they were induced to purchase the sites, they lodged the FIRs. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent - State. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:100 CRL.P No. 166 of 2023 4. The defacto complainants though served with notice have not chosen to appear in person or through their counsels. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that he is a marketing agent, who had marketed the sale of sites formed by the Accused No.1. and the subject sites were conveyed in favour of the defacto complainants. On a similar allegation, the police had submitted the charge sheet in CC No.159/2018. The petitioner challenged the said proceeding before this Court in Crl.P.No.7310/2018. This Court by order dated 28.10.2022 quashed the impugned proceeding therein against the petitioner by observing as follows: "5. Admittedly, the land was developed by accused No.1 and he as a GPA Holder of the owners of the property who have sold the property in favour of the second respondent. The petitioner herein was only a marketing person and complaint pertains to not developing the layout and not getting the sites duly released from BMRDA which is essentially the work of accused No.1 and accused No.2 has nothing to do with the same and further when the property being purchased, it is the responsibility of the purchaser to verify the documents also and if the purchaser has any claim, under the given facts and circumstances of the case, he can have it only against the vendors or the developer or the GPA Holders of the vendors and not the marketing Manager as that of the petitioner herein. Under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the allegations alleged by the second respondent does not constitute an offence under Sections 420, 468, 471, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC as the petitioner is charged herein." - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:100 CRL.P No. 166 of 2023 6. Therefore, when the responsibility of obtaining necessary approvals from the competent authorities was with the Accused No.1, and the Petitioner only acted as a Marketing Agent, the petitions require to be disposed of in terms of the order passed by this Court in Crl.P. No.7310/2018. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal petitions are allowed. Crl.P No.3698/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.3651/2020 arising out of Crime No.0133/2018 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC and JMFC I/c III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.92/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.92/2018 arising out of Crime No.0200/2017 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.125/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.157/2018 arising out of Crime No.0202/2017 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.127/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.153/2018 arising out of Crime No.0194/2017 pending on the file of the learned - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:100 CRL.P No. 166 of 2023 III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.135/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.96/2018 arising out of Crime No.0189/2017 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.137/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.142/2018 arising out of Crime No.0204/2017 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.157/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.143/2018 arising out of Crime No.0203/2017 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.1663/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.156/2018 arising out of Crime No.0214/2017 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.1666/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.158/2018 arising out of Crime No.0215/2017 pending on the file of the learned - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:100 CRL.P No. 166 of 2023 III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.1840/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.90/2018 arising out of Crime No.0190/2017 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.1870/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.154/2018 arising out of Crime No.193/2017 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.1873/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.144/2018 arising out of Crime No.210/2017 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed. Crl.P No.3849/2023: The impugned proceeding in CC No.3641/2020 arising out of Crime No.0217/2017 pending on the file of the learned III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby quashed.” 7. It is the matter on record and undisputed fact that the present complainant is also identical/similarly situated as the complainant in Ashok Reddy’s Case (supra,), which were - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:100 CRL.P No. 166 of 2023 quashed by this Court and by applying the doctrine of parity, I deem it just and appropriate to quash the instant proceedings also. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.91/2018 pending on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, in so far as it relates to the petitioner- accused No.2 is concerned are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37