- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5610 CRL.P NO.2194 OF 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2194 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. M. JAYAMMA W/O B.A. PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.120, GOWRADHANA NILAYA, BOMMANAHALLI, BOVI COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 068. 2. B.A. PILLAPPA S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC.:GOVERNMENT TEACHER, R/AT NO.120, GOWRADHANA NILAYA, BOMMANAHALLI, BOVI COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 068. 3. NAGARAJA G. S/O GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.61/A, 4TH CROSS, KANTEERAVA STUDIO, NARASIMHALU LAYOUT, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU. CORRECT ADDRESS: MELEKAT THIGANURU PALYA AREBOMANA HALLI POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 111. 4. GURUMURTHY S/O LATE ANNAYAPPA Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5610 CRL.P NO.2194 OF 2023 AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC.: GOVERNMENT TEACHER R/AT NO.120, GOWRADHANA NILAYA, BOMANAHALLI, BOVI COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 068. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJU C.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE, BENGALURU REP. BY THE A.P.P., CITY CIVIL COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. CHANDRAMMA W/O MADAIAHAN AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.17/18, 3RD MAIN, NARASIMHALU LAYOUT NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 058. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJESH P., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. REYNOLD D'SOUZA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE BY THE IV A.C.M.M. AT BENGALURU IN C.C. NO.6946/2020 DATED 03RD JULY, 2020 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.21/2019 OF NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 418, 420,120(B) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 76 OF THE CHIT FUNDS ACT BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5610 CRL.P NO.2194 OF 2023 ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners seek following relief: "Set-aside the order taking cognizance by the 4th ACMM at Bangalore in C.C. No.6946/2020 dated 03/07/2020 arising out of crime No.21/2019 of Nandini Layout Police, for the offences P/U/S 406, 418, 420, 120(B) read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 76 of Chit Fund Act, by allowing this petition in the interest of justice." 2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners; learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1; and Sri. Reynold D'Souza for the respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.2-complainant had lodged complaint on 12th January, 2019. It was the specific allegation of the respondent No.2-complainant that the accused Smt. Divya had cheated the respondent No.2-complaiant and consequently, it was only the said Divya was arraigned as sole accused person in the complaint and accordingly, the F.I.R. in Crime No.21/2019 was registered by the Nandini Layout Police Station, Bengaluru City. Subsequently, the respondent No.1-Police have filed charge sheet, which is pending adjudication in C.C. No.6946/2020 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in which along - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5610 CRL.P NO.2194 OF 2023 with the aforesaid Divya, the petitioners herein who are none other than her family members were also arraigned as accused Nos.2 to 5 in the said proceedings. In this context, it is relevant to state that, though initially the respondent No.2-complainant made allegation only against the sole accused Smt. Divya, merely on the basis of statements said to have been given by other persons who are similarly situated to respondent No.2 and who claim to have been cheated by the accused No.1 along with the petitioners, petitioner- accused Nos.2 to 5 were also arraigned as additional accused persons. It is needless to state that, so long as the respondent No.2-complainant did not make any allegation against the petitioners in the complaint or in the F.I.R., the allegation/grievances made by the persons similarly situated as that of the respondent No.2-complainant, could not have been made the basis to arraign the petitioners as co-accused especially when the respondent No.2 herself did not made any allegation/grievance against the petitioners in relation to the alleged monetary transaction between the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5610 CRL.P NO.2194 OF 2023 4. Under these circumstances, in the absence of sufficient /corroborative material to come to the conclusion that the petitioners had committed offences punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of impugned proceedings against the petitioner- accused Nos.2 to 5 would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 5. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R 1) Criminal Petition is allowed; 2) Impugned order dated 03rd July, 2020 taking cognizance by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C. No.6946/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 418, 420 and 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 76 of the Chit Funds Act qua the petitioner-accused Nos.2 to 5 is hereby quashed. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE ARK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5