- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25946 CRL.P No. 2697 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2697 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM S/O RAMESH. K.S., AGED 29 YEARS, NO.54, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, S.V. LAYOUT, SANJAYA NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560094 …PETITIONER (BY SRI LOHITH KUMAR N S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THYAGARAJA NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560001 2. SRI. SWAROOP. L .NAYAK S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.164, 9TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, N.R.COLONY, BENGALURU - 560028 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25946 CRL.P No. 2697 of 2023 THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2966/2016, CRIME NO.29/2013 (OF THYAGARAJA NAGARA POLICE STATION) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 420, R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following relief, "(i) Quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.2966/2016, Crime No.29/2013 (of Thyagaraja Nagara Police Station) pending on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, for the alleged offences punishable under Section u/s 406, 420 R/W 34 of IPC. (ii) Pass any other suitable order's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that respondent No.2-de facto complainant filed the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25946 CRL.P No. 2697 of 2023 instant complaint dated 15.02.2013 against the petitioner and two others which was registered as FIR in Crime No.29/2023 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 506 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 4. Pursuant to the said FIR, respondent-police conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet in C.C. No.2966/2016, in which the petitioner was arraigned as accused No.1 while one Arun was arraigned as accused No.2. In this context, it is relevant to state that in the said case Arun approached this Court in Crl.P. No.8736/2016 which was allowed and the proceedings qua accused No.2 were quashed vide final order dated 31.01.2023 by this Court as under, "The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 read with 34 of IPC is impugned in this petition by petitioner/accused No.2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25946 CRL.P No. 2697 of 2023 2. Police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against petitioner/accused No.2 and accused No.1, alleging that the de- facto complainant, was in financial crises, and the accused promised that they would secure loan to him from M/s.Rajesh Exports Private Limited, and in that regard, they took signature from the Grandmother of de-facto complainant on the purported agreement of sale executed in favour of M/s.Rajesh Exports Private Limited and also Rs.18 lakhs from the de-facto complainant. Thereafter, the M/s.Rajesh Exports Private Limited has not furnished any loan application, since it is not in the business of lending money. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner/accused No.2 submits that in absence of any corroborative material, charge sheet filed by the Police is without any substance. She further submits that allegation that a sum of Rs.18 lakhs was received from the de-facto complainant is against accused No.1, and not against accused No.2, hence, in the absence of corroborative material, cognizance taken on the basis of the omnibus and general allegations is without any substance. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25946 CRL.P No. 2697 of 2023 4. On the other hand, learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State submits that charge sheet material discloses that petitioner/accused No.2 along with accused No.1 has cheated the de-facto complainant by taking money by promising that they would secure loan in his favour. Hence, he submits that the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Police along with charge sheet, have produced statements of de-facto complainant and complainant witnesses, who are the family members of the de-facto complainant, and also produced the agreement of sale alleged to have been executed by the grandmother of the de- facto complainant in favour of M/s.Rajesh Exports Private Limited, wherein, Grandmother of de-facto complainant has agreed to convey the subject property for total consideration of Rs.3 crores, and a sum of Rs.2 crores was paid as advance sale consideration and the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25946 CRL.P No. 2697 of 2023 7. The said agreement of sale is alleged to have been executed by the grandmother of the de-facto complainant, and it does not bear the signature of the prospective purchaser under the agreement of sale. In the absence of any material that petitioner/accused No.2 has received a sum of Rs.18 lakhs from de-facto complainant towards securing loan in favour of the de-facto complainant, cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate on the basis of omnibus and general allegations made by the de-facto complainant and his family members is impermissible. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER 1. Criminal Petition is allowed. 2. Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2966/2016 on the file of IV Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused No.2 is hereby quashed. 3. The observation made in this order is in respect of allegations made against petitioner/accused No.2, and the trial Court to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25946 CRL.P No. 2697 of 2023 proceed against accused No.1 on the available evidence on record without being influenced by the observations made herein above. Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration in view of the disposal of the main matter." 5. A perusal of the aforesaid order will indicate that the allegations made against the petitioner and the aforesaid Arun are common and by applying/invoking the Doctrine of Parity and since the petitioner is identically/similarly situated as the aforesaid accused No.2, and in light of the principles enunciated by this Court in Mohan Vs. State of Karnataka and Another in Crl.P. No.5376/2024 dated 19.09.2025, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings qua petitioner/accused No.1 deserves to be quashed. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The petition is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25946 CRL.P No. 2697 of 2023 (ii) The entire proceedings in C.C. No.2966/2016 (Crime No.29/2013) registered by Thyagaraja Nagara Police Station, pending on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, insofar as petitioner/accused No.1 is concerned, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14