- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15221 WP No. 26595 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 26595 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: GIRISH A V S/O VENKATESHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, NO-294, 1ST MAIN ROAD 1ST CROSS, 11TH BLOCK NAGARBHAVI, 2ND STAGE BENGALURU- 5600072 KARNATAKA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BIPIN HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KIRAN J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR BY ANNAPOORNESHWARI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU- 560001 2. SRI.CHANDRESHEKAR GOWDA.R S/O LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO -18/1, CHIKKABANASWADI MAIN ROAD, NEAR NEW KARNA BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA-560033 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M V ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. V VIJAYASHEKARA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DTD. 06.06.2024 FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT WITH R- 1 POLICE (ANNX-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15221 WP No. 26595 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner challenges the registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The 2nd respondent lodged the First Information Report alleging that the petitioner, by fabricating a No Objection Certificate (for short, ‘NOC’), purportedly issued by the police for renewal under The Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005, submitted an application for renewal of the license. Based on the alleged forged NOC, the competent authority is said to have issued a renewed license in favour of the petitioner.2. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State. 3. It is relevant to note that respondent No.2 (informant) is also engaged in the business of running a private security agency. The core allegation is that the petitioner, by fabricating a NOC, obtained renewal of a license in his favour. However, this allegation is not supported by any documentary material or any official communication or endorsement from the competent - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15221 WP No. 26595 of 2024 authority suggesting that the NOC submitted by the petitioner is forged or fabricated. 4. It is always open to the competent authority to initiate appropriate legal proceedings in the event it is found that the petitioner has indeed fabricated a NOC for the purpose of securing renewal of the license. However, in the absence of any prima facie material demonstrating that the NOC relied upon by the petitioner is forged, the registration of the FIR is without basis and constitutes an abuse of the process of law. 5. In such circumstances, continuation of the investigation would amount to a misuse of the legal process and serve no fruitful purpose. 6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR registered in Crime No.0250/2024 by Annapoorneshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City, is hereby quashed in its entirety. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29