- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16065 CRL.P No. 820 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 820 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VEENA W/O ASHWATHNARAYAN AGED ABOUT 38 YARS, PROPRIETOR OF VIGNESH UTILITY SERVICES NO.638, 3RD FLOOR, ‘D’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, OPP. ALLAHABAD BANK, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560010. 2. G KARUNAKARAN S/O M GOPAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, NO. 121, 10TH CROSS 2ND FLOOR, BOVIPALYA BENGALURU - 560 086. 3. MAHESH SHETTY S/O ASHOK SHETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YARS, R/AT NO.83/B, 1ST FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, BASAWESHWARA NAGAR H.B.C.S. CHANDRA LAYOUT, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16065 CRL.P No. 820 of 2019 WARD NO.132, BENGALURU - 560 040. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GANGARAJA C., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 3; SRI. G. KARUNAKARAN, PETITIONER NO.2 (PARTY IN PERSON)) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, CENTRAL POLICE STATION (PRESENT V.V. PURAM POLICE STATION) CHAMARAJAPETE SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HGIH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SMT. SHYLAJA W/O LATE CHAMARAJ AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDNG AT NO.57, 3RD CROSS 3RD MAIN, NANJAPPA BLOCK K G NAGAR BENGALURU-560 019. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16065 CRL.P No. 820 of 2019 SRI B.G. RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPGUNED ORDER DATED 11.04.2017 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.19361/2017 (CRIME NO.49/2013) TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the proceedings initiated in C.C. No.19361/2017 then pending on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, and presently pending before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 2. The respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1 on 24.03.2013 that the petitioner No.1 befriended her in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16065 CRL.P No. 820 of 2019 year 2010 and claimed that she had lot of contacts in the Social Welfare Department of the Government of Karnataka and that the Social Welfare Department calls for tenders for supply of Group ‘D’ workers, Watchmen etc., on contract basis to Schools and Hostels run by it and that she would procure tenders in the name of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 alleged that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were introduced to her by the petitioner No.1, who represented that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were the employees of the Social Welfare Department. The petitioner No.1 promised to procure contracts through the petitioner Nos.2 and 3. 3. The respondent No.2 claimed that on 28.09.2010, all the three petitioners approached her and received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- in cash for furnishing Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) for a contract invited by the Department of Social Welfare. Later, on 30.09.2010, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 again received a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- from the respondent No.2 and thereafter, they received a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on 01.10.2010 and Rs.20,00,000/- on 15.10.2010 from the respondent No.2. The petitioner No.1 after a year, represented - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16065 CRL.P No. 820 of 2019 that a contract was awarded in the name of the respondent No.2 and insisted her to part with a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-, which was paid by her to the petitioner No.1 on 05.10.2011. The petitioners thereafter demanded and collected a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondent No.2. She, therefore, alleged that the petitioners have all conspired to defraud her. 4. Based on this information, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.49/2013 against the petitioners herein for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation, the respondent No.1 filed a ‘B’ report. 5. The respondent No.2 filed objections to the ‘B’ report by filing a private complaint. Her sworn statement was recorded. The Trial Court after being satisfied that the respondent No.2 had made out a case for taking cognizance, in terms of the order dated 11.04.2017, took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and directed the office to register Criminal Case, which was numbered as C.C No.19361/2017, against the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16065 CRL.P No. 820 of 2019 petitioners for the said offences and ordered issuance of summons to them. 6. Being aggrieved by the above, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner Nos.1 and 3 submitted that the respondent No.2 has alleged that she had parted with a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for the purpose of obtaining a tender from the Department of Social Welfare. However, in a private complaint filed by her against the petitioners, she accused them of commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. He, therefore, submitted that the ‘B’ report filed by respondent No.1 is just and proper and the Trial Court without considering the same, has arbitrarily taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners herein. The learned counsel invited the attention of this Court to several documents and submitted that respondent No.2 has taken different stances at different points of time which totally belies the allegations made in the complaint. He, therefore, contends that the impugned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16065 CRL.P No. 820 of 2019 prosecution against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and hence, the same may be set at nought. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions. 9. The Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that the Trial Court after perusing the sworn statement of the respondent No.2, has come to the conclusion that the respondent No.2 had parted with large sums of money to the petitioners and therefore, the case warranted an investigation and hence, it took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners and therefore, there is no error committed by the Trial Court in doing so. He further submits that if the petitioners contend that the cognizance taken by the Trial Court is wrong on the basis of certain documents in their custody, they are bound to produce the same before the Trial Court and seek discharge. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16065 CRL.P No. 820 of 2019 10. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1. 11. A perusal of the protest petition filed by the respondent No.2 before the Trial Court shows that several cases were filed against the petitioners herein in respect of certain dishonour of cheques. It also appears that the petitioners herein were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It is not known whether the amounts allegedly paid by the respondent No.2 to the petitioners as informed by her to the respondent No.1 on 24.03.2013 has any link to the amounts that were returned by the petitioners under the cheques which are the subject matter of C.C Nos.15796/2012, 15797/2012 and 15798/2012. Therefore, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this Court cannot indulge in a fact finding mission to find out whether the allegations made by the respondent No.2 in the complaint are genuine or not. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the Trial Court taking cognizance of the offences - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16065 CRL.P No. 820 of 2019 punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, they are bound to file appropriate applications before the Trial Court seeking discharge in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, no indulgence is warranted in this petition. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek discharge before the Trial Court. If an application is filed, the Trial Court is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA