- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27091 CRL.P No. 1063 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1063 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. RENUKA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O K.G. GOWDA 2. K.G. GOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O VEERABHADRE GOWDA BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1329, VINOBA ROAD CROSS, BEHIND MORE MEGA STORE DEVARJA MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 001. 3. NANDISH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O H.N. SRIKANTE GOWDA R/AT 1432/C, SEEBAIAH ROAD, DEVARJA MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 001. 4. G. RAKESH MITTAL AGD ABOUT 36 YEARS S/O GOPAL MITTAL R/AT NO.966, 1ST CROSS, KABIR ROAD, MANDI MOHALLA, MYSORE - 570 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VAGEESHA N., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27091 CRL.P No. 1063 of 2020 NOTE: (1) THE RESPONDENT IN HIS PCR WRONGLY MENTIONED THE NAME OF PETITITONER NO.2 AS K.J.GOWDA INSTEAD OF K.G.GOWDA. (2) FURTHER THE NAME OF THE FOURTH PETITIONER IS G.RAKESH MITTAL AND THE RESPONDENT HAS ONLY MENTIONED HIS NAME AS G.RAKESH. HOWEVER, THE PERSONS AS MENTIONED IN THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT ARE NONE OTHER THAN THE PETITIONERS HEREIN. AND: K K MOHAN AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O S. KESHAVAN POTTI R/AT NO.195, TEACHERS COLONY, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 034. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI A. SRIRAM BABU, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.08.2019 PASSED BY THE III A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 347,384,386,506,209 R/W 34 OF IPC IN PCR.NO.7025/2017 NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.19078/2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-T. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27091 CRL.P No. 1063 of 2020 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking for following reliefs: (i) Call for records in PCR.no.7025/2017 which is numbered as CC.no.19078/2019 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. (ii) Quash the order dated 16.08.2019 passed by the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in taking cognizance of the alleged offence against the petitioners under Section 347, 384, 386, 506, 209 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in PCR.no.7025/2017 numbered as CC.no.19078/2019, produced at Annexure-T. (iii) Consequently dismiss the complaint filed by the respondent numbered as CC.no.19078/2019 on the complaint in PCR.no.7025/2017 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, produced at Annexure-R and etc. 2. Sri N. Vageesha, learned counsel for petitioners (accused) submitted that present petition is by respondent (complainant) in private complainant and proceedings initiated in PCR no.7025/2017. It was submitted, as per complaint on 26.07.2015 at about 7:45 a.m., accused went to residence of complainant and demanded issuance of signed blank cheque and signature on blank white sheet. On being asked reason, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27091 CRL.P No. 1063 of 2020 complainant was confined from 7:45 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. in his house raising quarrel and torturing him mentally and coercing him into conceding to demand. Consequently, issuance of blank cheque no.013002 drawn on Shamrao Vittal Co-operative Bank, Koramangala Branch, Bangalore, was due to coercion and extortion and though complainant had sent a complaint by RPAD to Madivala Police Station, Bangalore, marking a copy to Principal Secretary, Home Department and Commissioner of Police, Bangalore and once again by RPAD on 30.07.2015, complaint was not registered and no steps were taken constraining complainant to file private complaint. It was submitted copy of entire complaint was produced as Annexure- R to this petition. Aggrieved by issuance of summons on said complaint above petition was filed. 3. It was submitted, complaint was filed on 08.06.2017 nearly 2 years after date of alleged incident, without any assertion about intimation having been given to Bank for stop payment and without explanation for delay in filing complaint. It was apparent that complaint was to wriggle out of obligation to discharge lawful liability. It was submitted, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27091 CRL.P No. 1063 of 2020 complainant was manufacturer of lift system one of which was installed at M/s Preety Home Lodge belonging to accused. Due to faulty installation customers of Lodging suffered grievous injuries when lift crashed requiring accused to pay compensation to injured. On refusal of demand for reimbursement from complainant, suit was filed for recovery of damages of Rs.20,00,000/-. As a settlement of said claim, cheque in question was issued. Thus civil proceedings were antecedents of impugned proceedings. 4. Besides same, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 had held it mandatory for a private complaint to be accompanied with affidavit containing material allegations. There was non-compliance with said requirement. Neither endorsement by Magistrate on complaint nor complaint at Annexure-R would not indicate compliance. Therefore, on above grounds, impugned proceedings were required to be quashed. 5. On submissions having been made on previous occasion, matter was adjourned to today to provide opportunity - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27091 CRL.P No. 1063 of 2020 to respondent who was absent on previous day to turn up and make submissions. Even today there is no appearance for complainant. 6. In view of above, contention that private complaint did not accompany affidavit remains uncontroverted. In view of above, non-compliance with mandate as per Priyanka Srivastava's case (supra) stands substantiated. Without any more, petition would succeed. 7. Hence, petition is allowed, impugned proceedings in PCR.no.7025/2017 numbered as CC.no.19078/2019 on file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore is quashed. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36