1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.5669 OF 2021 BETWEEN Shri. Veerendra Shetty, Aged 41 years, Son of Shri.Vishwanatha Shetty, Residing at Flat No.210 Matha Residency Mary Hill, Mangaluru-575008. Also at: No.18, 3rd Floor, ‘Sumukha’, HBCS Layout, 24th Main, J.P.Nagar, 2nd Phase, Bengaluru-560078. …Petitioner (By Sri Pallava R., Advocate) AND Smt. Padmaja Rao, Aged about 54 years, Wife of Prakash Pednekar, Residing at No.799, ‘Avani’, 2nd Main, 2nd Cross, 80 Feet Road, BCC HS Layout, Vajarahalli, Bengaluru-560062. …Respondent (Respondent – served) 2 This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.11574/2021 on the file of the XXX A.C.M.M., Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC at Annexure-A. This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission through video conferencing this day, the court made the following: ORDER Heard the counsel for the petitioner. The respondent though is served with notice, neither she has appeared in person nor any advocate appears on her behalf. 2. The petitioner is the accused in a complaint initiated by the respondent under section 200 Cr.P.C. The private complaint now has been registered as C.C.11574/2021 on the file of XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under section 420 IPC. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Pallava R submits that the respondent, instead of filing a suit for recovering the money said to be due to her from the petitioner, approached the court of Magistrate alleging that she has been cheated. If the entire complaint is read, it does not disclose any ingredient constituting offence under section 420 IPC. He submits that a reading of the averments made in the complaint itself makes it clear that according to the respondent, petitioner has to pay her a sum of Rs.34,70,000/- in connection with production of two TV shows telecast in Udaya TV channel and another sum of Rs.18,00,000/- being her remuneration for acting in a Kannada movie Savarna Dheerga Sandhi. In the complaint itself it is clearly stated that the actual agreement was between the petitioner and Udaya TV in connection with production of two TV shows. According to her, it was she who brought the 4 petitioner in her place for producing the TV shows and there was an oral agreement in this regard. If really there was an oral agreement, it is a matter of proof and only a competent civil court can decide the oral agreement. In this view, the private complaint initiated against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of court and hence the proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the private complaint are to be quashed. 4. I have perused the private complaint made by the respondent against the petitioner. The respondent is a Kannada actress actively involved in the cinema and TV industry. She says that she was producing two shows namely Savalige Sye and Thuta Mutha. She was constructing a house and since she did not have surplus funds at her disposal for carrying on the production activities of the two shows, she brought the petitioner for completing the shows as a 5 producer. In para 4 of the complaint, it is clearly stated that there was an agreement between Udaya TV and the petitioner through the latter’s proprietary concern Viru Talkies. It appears that 52 episodes of two shows were telecast. It is alleged that the petitioner had promised her to pay a sum of Rs.34,70,000/- towards the remuneration of the respondent and that he denied to pay in spite of repeated requests. Another allegation is that she worked as an Executive Producer and Costume Designer for a movie that was produced by the petitioner besides acting in the said movie. The petitioner had agreed to pay her a sum of Rs. 18,00,000/- towards her expenses and it was not paid. 5. It might have been stated in the complaint that in the first instance she approached J.P.Nagar police for taking action against the petitioner, and 6 since they did not take any action, she then approached the Commissioner of Police before initiating proceedings under section 200 Cr.P.C., but what is to be stated is that if the entire complaint is perused, an inference can be drawn that there are no allegations that the petitioner induced her to invest money in the TV shows with an intention to cheat her subsequently. Even according to her, she brought the petitioner for completing the production of two T.V. shows and that she had to be paid Rs.18,00,000/- in connection with another movie which was produced by the petitioner. That means the petitioner owes her a certain sum of money. This being the factual circumstance, she has to approach a competent civil court for recovering the money and to seek accounts in relation to production of two TV shows which she had authorized the petitioner to complete on her behalf. The dispute clearly shows a civil action to be 7 initiated. The ingredients of offence under section 420 IPC are absent. The petitioner cannot be prosecuted for offences under the IPC. It amounts to abuse of process of court. Therefore the following : ORDER (a) Petition is allowed. (b) The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.11574/2021 on the file of XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed. Sd/- JUDGE ckl