- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40648 CRL.P No. 6378 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6378 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SRI. N.K. RAJESH SON OF LATE N. KODANDARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.655/5 BANDAPPA STREET, YESHWANTHPURA BENGALURU - 560 022. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJU C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INVESTIGATION OFFICER, STATE BY VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, BANGALORE - 01. 2. SMT. NALINI R D/O RAMANNA, AGED 45 YEARS R/AT NO.13-A, 8TH 'E' MAIN SRINIDHI LAYOUT VIDYARANYAPURA - 560 097. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1; MS. KEERTHANA ARNAV BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARNAV A. BAGALWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40648 CRL.P No. 6378 of 2020 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH C.C.NO.23653/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE XLI A.C.M.M BENGALURU (EARLIER PENDING BEFORE VI A.C.M.M COURT AT BENGALURU) MARKED AS ANNEXURE-H AND AWARD THE COSTS OF THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER Respondent No.2, on the ground that she was searching for a job and the petitioner herein, whom she got introduced to through a common friend, promised her a job in Multi National Company or abroad, induced her to pay him a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- and thereafter cheated her by not getting the promised job nor refunded the money has preferred a private complaint before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore with the following prayers: "a. To take Cognizance of the offence against the Accused person under Sections 415, 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or in the alternative. b. Refer the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to the concerned jurisdictional police in accordance with law. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40648 CRL.P No. 6378 of 2020 c. The accused may be punished in accordance with law. d. Pass any other such order this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate referred the matter for investigation and the charge sheet came to be filed in this regard. The same reads as under: "ೋಾೋಪಣ ಪ ಅಂPÀt-4ರ ನಮೂರುವ ಆೋಯು ಾ-1 ರವೆ 2005ರ ಪೆಯ ಾ!ದು# ಾ-1ರವರು $ೆಲಸ ಹುಡುಕು*+ದ# ,ಾರವ- ಆೋೆ *.ಾಗ ಆೋಯು 0ಾಸ! ಕಂಪ1ಯ ಅಥ ಾ ಸ$ಾ3 $ೆಲಸ $ೊ4ಸುವ-ದ$ೆ5 10,00,000/-ರೂ ಹಣ $ೊಡ6ೇ$ಾಗುತ+ೆಂದು *. $ೆಲಸ $ೊ4ಸೇ ಇದ#ೆ ಹಣವನು9 ಾಪ: $ೊಡುವ-ಾ! ನಂ; ,ಾ<ರಣ<ಪ-ರ =ೕ: >ಾ?ಾ ಸರಹ#ೆ ೇದ @Aೕ1B CೇಔEನ 8Fೇ ಇ GೖIನರುವ ಮFೆ ನಂ 3/ಎ ಮFೆಯ Fಾಂಕ 22.05.2006 ಂದ ಜನವ 2007ರ ವರೆ ,,ಧ FಾAUÀ¼À°è ನಗಾ! 2,50,000/-ರೂ ಹಣವನು9 ಪMೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಾ-1 ರವರ ಹ*+ರ, E£ÀÄß ಹಣ 6ೇ$ೆಂದು Nೇ. Fಾಂಕ 15.08.2011 ರಂದು ಾ-1 ರವಂದ ೆOಗಳನು9 ಪMೆದು$ೊಂಡು Fಾಂಕ: 18.08.2011 ರಂದು ಾ-1 ರವರ Nೆಸನರುವ ಂ4$ೇE 6ಾ<ಂO 0ಾQೆ ನಂ 04812010049310ನ ೆO ನಂ 38024ರ 2,00,000/-ರೂ ಮತು+ 06901012009845£À ೆO ನಂ 117736gÀ°è 2,00,000/- ರೂಗಳನು9 ಆೋ-1 ರವರು MಾA Rಾr$ೊಂಡು ಾ-1ರವರ $ೆನಾ 6ಾ<ಂO 0ಾQೆ. ನಂ 0690101200984ನ ೆO ನಂ 93907ನ 0ಾ ೆOೆ ಸS ಪMೆದು$ೊಂಡು Fಾಂಕ: 10.04.2012 ರಂದು ಾ-5 gÀವೆ $ೊಟು 1,50,000/- ರೂಗಳನು9 MಾA Rಾ4$ೊಂಡು ಾ-1 ರವಂದ ಒಟು 8,00,000/-ರೂಗಳನು9 ಪMೆದು$ೊಂಡು -| ಾ-1 ರವೆ Vಾವ-ೇ $ೆಲಸವ£ÀÄß $ೊ4ಸೇ ಹಣವನು9 ಾಪ: 1ೕಡೇ ನಂ;$ೆ WೕಸRಾ4ರುವ-ದು ಲಭ<,ರುವ ಾYZಾರಗ.ಂದ ದೃಡಪರುತ+ೆ. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40648 CRL.P No. 6378 of 2020 ಆದ#ಂದ ಸದ ಆೋಯು Gೕಲ5ಂಡ ಕಲಂಗಳ ಅನ\ಯ @]ಾಹ3 ಅಪಾಧ ೆಸ!ದು# ಅವರ ,ರುದ^ ಈ ೋಾೋಪಣ ಪ." 3. Subsequent to filing of the charge sheet (police report) evidence is said to have commenced. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed with the following prayers: "i) Quash the proceedings in C.C.No.23653/2019, pending on the file of the XLI (41st) Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (earlier pending before IV (4th) A.C.M.M. Court at Bangalore) marked s ANNEXURE - 'H'. ii) Award the costs of this petition and grant of such other relief/s, as this Hon'ble Court deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 4. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 is in habit of blackmailing the petitioner. It is submitted that initially respondent No.2 made a complaint to Yeshwanthpura Police Station alleging that she was married to one Mahesh and has a son by name Dheeraj, who is 16years old from the said Mahesh. In the year 2003, the said Mahesh died. Thereafter, she came into contact with the petitioner herein, fell in love with him and the daughter was born to them. It is alleged against the petitioner that thereafter he neglected respondent No.2 and her daughter and though he had promised to marry - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40648 CRL.P No. 6378 of 2020 respondent No.2, he cheated her. Based on the said complaint, C.C.No.11581/2016 was registered. It is submitted by the contesting parties that the petitioner had been acquitted in the said case. It is further submitted that in the said C.C.No.11581/2016, respondent No.2 had complained that she had paid the petitioner a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-, as he told her he was in need of money and the same was paid out of love and affection. 5. Thereafter, it is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed Crl.Misc.No.9/2013 under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 ('the Act' for short) claiming maintenance for herself and child on the ground that she has paid the petitioner a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- because he requested the same to be given to him, as he was in need of money. 6. It is further submitted thereafter respondent No.2 has filed proceedings against the petitioner under the provisions of the Act, wherein the allegations made are similar to in C.C.No.11581/2016. The said proceedings also terminated in favour of the petitioner herein. However, it is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40648 CRL.P No. 6378 of 2020 submitted that in the meanwhile there was a compromise between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 wherein the petitioner had agreed to pay some amounts to respondent No.2. 7. In the light of the aforementioned cases, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the complaint made by respondent No.2 against the petitioner is a bundle of lies and cannot be maintained in the light of the complaints made by her earlier, as mentioned above. 8. Respondent No.2 is not in a position to contravene fact that she had made complaints against the petitioner as mentioned above, which led to filing of C.C.No.11581/2016 and Crl.Misc.No.9/2013, both of which have been terminated in favour of the petitioner. 9. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- claimed by the respondent herein is the same as in the complaint given by her about having paid to the petitioner herein in C.C.No.11581/2016. The allegations made against the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40648 CRL.P No. 6378 of 2020 petitioner herein by respondent No.2 in C.C.No.11581/2016 and in Crl.Misc.No.9/2013 is that they both had a love affair and a physical relationship, because of which a daughter was born to them and out of love and affection, respondent No.2 had paid a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to the petitioner. The proceedings were initiated against the petitioner because the petitioner cheated respondent No.2 by not marrying her and neglected her and the daughter. 10. Whereas in the instant case, the complaint of respondent No.2 is that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- to be paid to him as a consideration for getting her a job in Multi-National Company or abroad, and in the present complaint nothing is mentioned about their physical relationship, love affair or birth of a daughter. 11. In the light of contentions taken up by respondent No.2 in C.C.No.11581/2016 and Crl.Misc.No.9/2013, the present complaint against the petitioner cannot be sustained. 12. Learned High Court Government Pleader admits as to the facts mentioned hereinabove. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40648 CRL.P No. 6378 of 2020 13. For the aforementioned reasons, the criminal petition is allowed, and the proceedings in C.C.No.23653/2019 pending on the file of XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore presently transferred to VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore against the petitioner stands quashed. It is hereby made clear that this order will not come in the way of respondent No.2 enforcing any right against the petitioner in terms of the agreement said to have been entered into between them. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK