- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7975 CRL.P No. 1454 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1454 OF 2023 BETWEEN: DIPESH J. THACKER, S/O JITENDRA V. THACKER, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.503, LAXMI APARTMENT, SHASTRI NAGAR WEST, NEAR JAIN MANDIR, DHANBAD, JHARKAND - 826 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 034. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BENGALURU, DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. MR. MADHU DAMODARAN, GROUP HEAD, LEGAL M/S QUESS CORP. LIMITED, BBMP NO.435, IMAD BUILDING, 80 FT. ROAD, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THEJESH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7975 CRL.P No. 1454 of 2023 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT IN MATTER BEARING P.C.R.NO.4856/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE XLI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN ALONE (ANNEXURE A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a. Quash the Complaint preferred by the respondent in matter bearing P.C.R.No.4856/2021 pending on the file of the Hon’ble XLI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, as against the petitioner herein alone (Annexure-A). b. Quash the order dated 19.12.2022 passed by the Hon’ble XLI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in matter bearing P.C.R.No.4856/2021, as against the petitioner herein alone (Annexure-B). c. Pass any order/s as deems fit to this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. Respondent No.2 – complainant having been served with notice of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7975 CRL.P No. 1454 of 2023 this petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the 2nd respondent – complainant instituted the aforesaid proceedings in PCR No.4856/2021 against M/s. Wardwiz India Solutions Pvt. Ltd. - accused No.1 and four other persons including the petitioner, who was arraigned as accused No.4 in the said proceedings before the learned Magistrate. The said case was referred to the Police authorities for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. pursuant to which the 1st respondent submitted a ‘B’ report, which was challenged by the 2nd respondent – complainant before the learned Magistrate. It was contended by the 2nd respondent that the accused No.1 was a private limited company of which the accused No.2 was the Managing Director while, petitioner – accused No.4 and remaining accused No.3 and 5 were authorized officials of the company. It was also contended that the accused No.2 had issued a post-dated cheque dated 30.03.2020 on behalf of accused No.1 – Company which had been dishonored on account of ‘insufficient funds’ resulting in the complainant instituting the aforesaid proceedings for alleged offences under Sections 415, 420 and 34 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7975 CRL.P No. 1454 of 2023 of IPC. The learned Magistrate proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 19.12.2022 rejecting the ‘B’ report submitted by the 1st respondent and thereby directed the 1st respondent to investigate the matter afresh and submit a fresh report. Aggrieved by the impugned order rejecting the ‘B’ report and directing fresh investigation, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the extracts issued by the Registrar of Companies at Annexures – C and C1 in Form DIR-11 and DIR-12 in order to contend that the petitioner, who was an Ex-Director of the accused No.1 – Company had resigned on 04.07.2019 itself, much prior to the accused No.2 committing the alleged offence by issuance of a cheque on 05.03.2020 and consequently, the petitioner being a Ex-Director / resigned Director of accused No.1 – Company cannot be held to be liable for the alleged offences as held by the Apex Court in the case of Harshendra Kumar D. Vs. Rebatilata Koley and others – 2011 (3) SCC 351 and in the case of Rajesh Viren Shah Vs. Redington - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7975 CRL.P No. 1454 of 2023 India Ltd., - 2024 (4) SCC 305 and as such, the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the proceedings as against the petitioner deserve to be quashed. It was also pointed out that in addition to the instant complaint for alleged offences under Sections 415, 420 and 34 IPC, the 2nd respondent – complainant had instituted proceedings in C.C.No.132/2021 against the petitioner and the aforesaid Company for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and that in Crl.P.No.3259/2021 preferred by the petitioner herein, this Court quashed the said proceedings in C.C.No.132/2021 qua the petitioner on the ground that he was an Ex-Director / Former Director, who could not be made liable for the said offences. It was therefore contended that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed by setting aside the impugned order and accepting the ‘B’ report. 5. As stated supra, the 2nd respondent having been served with notice of the petition has remained unrepresented and has not contested the petition. 6. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the light of the material on record which clearly - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7975 CRL.P No. 1454 of 2023 establishes that the petitioner having resigned from the post of a Director of accused No.1 – Company on 04.07.2019 itself, much prior to the alleged commission of the alleged offences, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner, who was an Ex-Director / Former Director were not maintainable as held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments and consequently, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate rejecting the ‘B’ report and directing fresh investigation is clearly contrary to law and facts and the same deserves to be set aside and the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed. So also, in view of quashment of proceedings in C.C.No.132/2021 in Crl.P.No.3259/2021 dated 08.06.2022 preferred by the petitioner for offences under Section 138 of the N.I.Act in relation to the very same subject matter / transaction, the impugned order and instant proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed on this ground also. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7975 CRL.P No. 1454 of 2023 (ii) The impugned order dated 19.12.2022 passed in PCR No.4856/2021 by the XLI ACMM, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner is hereby set aside. (iii) The impugned proceedings in PCR No.4856/2021 on the file ob the XLI ACMM, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SJK / SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK