- 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, BANGALORE - 560 001. 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) Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 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 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6559 CRL.P No. 7040 of 2024 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6559 CRL.P No. 7040 of 2024 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, 1 2023 SCC Online SC 650 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6559 CRL.P No. 7040 of 2024 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