- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34907 CRL.P No. 4385 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1902 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4385 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1902 OF 2022 IN CRL.P No. 4385/2021 BETWEEN: SMT T J CHYTHANYA D/O T R JAYARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A NO.85, 1ST FLOOR, 8TH CROSS RANGANATHA NILAYA, WIDIA LAYOUT CHANDRALAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MURTHY D L, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER (IN-CHARGE) CHANNAMMANAKERE POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 050 2. SRI SRINIVASA K S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS MECHANIC IN BMTC DEPOT TOKEN NO.3494, DEPOT NO.13 KAMAKYA, BENGALURU-560 085 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34907 CRL.P No. 4385 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1902 of 2022 SRI.V.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8207/2021 IN PCR.NO.807/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE II ACMM, BANGALORE. IN CRL.P NO. 1902/2022 BETWEEN: SRI G V RAMESH S/O DWARAKA MAAYI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RETIRED BMTC EMPLOYEE RESIDING AT NO.11, SIMHA LAYOUT CHIKKALASANDRA, SUBRAMANYA PURA POST BANGALORE-560061. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASH K M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER (INCHARGE) CHANNAMMANAKERE POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560050 REP STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-01. 2. SRI SRINIVASA K S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS MECHANIC IN BMTC DEPOT TOKEN NO.3494, DEPOT NO.13 KAMAKYA, BANGALORE-560085. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34907 CRL.P No. 4385 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1902 of 2022 SRI.V.PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8207/2021 IN P.C.R.NO.807/2021 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI COMMON ORDER In these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused Nos.1 and 2 have sought for quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them in PCR.No.807/2021 on the file of II ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 109, 426, 500(2), 504 r/w Section 34 IPC. 2. In support of the petitions, the petitioners have contended that they are innocent of the offences alleged. Respondent No.2 has filed complaint to harass them and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34907 CRL.P No. 4385 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1902 of 2022 to heed to his illegal demand for money in O.S.No.3989/2014. The accused No.1 has secured document relating to the service record of respondent No.2 under Right to Information Act. It was for the authorities to decide whether to furnish the records or not. Such being the case, question of committing offences under Sections 420, 109, 426, 500, 504 r/w Section 34 IPC would not arise. The trial Court has failed to appreciate this fact. The suit filed by respondent No.2 is still pending. Apprehending that it may be dismissed, to pressurize the petitioners, he has filed a false complaint. He has also filed complaint before the State Bar Council against accused No.1. 2.1 In addition, accused No.2 has further contended that he has sent reply to the notice dated 17.01.2019 by the respondent No.2. After lapse of 1 year 11 months, he has chosen to file this complaint. Accused No.2 has not furnished any documents pertaining to respondent No.2 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34907 CRL.P No. 4385 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1902 of 2022 under RTI. He is not a party to the allegations made in the complaint and hence the petition. 3. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would submit that the complaint filed by respondent No.2 indicate that accused No.1 is his family friend since 15-16 years. Since 2010, accused No.1 Smt.Chaitanya, used to borrow hand loan from him for her legal necessity. With regard to borrowing of Rs.4 lakhs, she has executed loan agreement. Except payment of Rs.60,000/-, balance is still due. Again accused No.1 borrowed Rs.1,40,000/- for her urgent family necessity in between May to August 2013. When demanded repayment, she issued a cheque dated 22.09.2013 and also a DP note dated 05.09.2013. 3.1 However, when the cheque was presented, it was dishonoured as 'Account closed'. Therefore, respondent No.2 filed O.S.No.3989/2014 for recovery of Rs.4,80,000/- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34907 CRL.P No. 4385 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1902 of 2022 with interest. In respect of the said case, accused No.1 has secured documents from the employer of respondent No.2 through RTI application. Accused Nos.2 to 4 have colluded with accused No.1 and furnished the documents, which are confidential records. Before furnishing personal information of respondent No.2, he was not intimated and his consent was not taken. On account of disclosure of his personal information, his reputation is tarnished. Based on the complaint, the trial Court has taken cognizance and case is registered. There is prima facie material to proceed against all the accused persons, including the petitioners and pray to dismiss the petition. 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the decision in Girish Ramachandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commissioner and Ors. (Ramachandra Deshpande)1 5. Heard arguments and perused the record. 1 SLP(Civil)No.27734/2012 (CC.No.14781/2012) Dt:03.12.2012 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34907 CRL.P No. 4385 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1902 of 2022 6. It is not in dispute that complainant and accused No.2 to 4 are the staff of BMTC. Accused No.1 is a practicing advocate. While complainant claim that accused No.1 has borrowed loan from him by executing agreement and also issued cheque for repayment of the said loan, accused No.1 has contended that complainant has forged her signatures and in collusion with the Ex Husband of accused No.1 has created these documents. The complainant has also filed suit in O.S.No.3989/2014 against accused No.1 for recovery of the amount allegedly borrowed from him by accused No.1. In connection with the said suit, accused No.1 has secured documents pertaining to the complainant regarding the punishment imposed on him etc., under RTI Act. Alleging that production of these documents would amount to defamation and other offences, complainant has filed the private complaint. 7. Now, through the present petitions, accused Nos.1 and 2 are seeking quashing of the criminal - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34907 CRL.P No. 4385 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1902 of 2022 proceedings initiated against them, contending that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court. The respondent No.2 filed suit in O.S.No.3989/2014 for recovery of the amount due under the said cheque and agreement. It appears in aid of her defence, accused No.1 has under Right to Information Act secured the documents relating to the personal information of complainant such as show cause notices issued, punishment imposed etc., Admittedly, before furnishing the said information, the consent of complainant was not taken. The complainant has claimed that the said information was not supposed to be divulged to general public without his consent and the information furnished is defamatory in nature and therefore, he has sought to prosecute accused Nos.1 to 4, including the petitioners. 8. Whether the information so furnished is defamatory or not is a matter to be examined at the trial. The accused persons may also take defence that the contents of the information so furnished are true and as - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34907 CRL.P No. 4385 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1902 of 2022 such it would not amount to defamation. This is also a matter for trial and appreciation of evidence. So far as accused No.2 is concerned, he has claimed that he is not instrumental in furnished information to accused No.1 and therefore, he cannot be prosecuted. The complainant has made specific allegations that accused Nos.1 to 4 have colluded and the details of information pertaining to him are handed over to accused No.1. Therefore, it is also a matter for trial, wherein it is for the complainant to prove the said allegations. Disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Of course, all the accused persons, including the petitioners are at liberty to take any defence that is available under law. In the light of the above discussion, accused Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled for the relief sought in these petitions and accordingly, the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34907 CRL.P No. 4385 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1902 of 2022 ORDER (i) Petitions filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C are rejected. (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e- mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33