- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19320 WP No. 2095 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 2095 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MRS. KHUSHI JOHN D/O. MR. JOHN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO. A131, CENTURY PARK, NO.48, RICHMOND ROAD, BENGALURU-560 025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHRISTOPHER NOEL A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. 2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BUREAU, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. 3. MR. SHAJI GEORGE THOMAS S/O. MR. K. G. THOMAS, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.B1, CASSA LAVALLE-4, LAVELLE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M R PATIL., HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI.VENKATESH PRASAD R., ADVOCATE FOR R3(ABSENT)) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19320 WP No. 2095 of 2021 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE R-1 REPORT (FIR) DATED 01.06.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an First Information Report (henceforth referred to as ‘FIR’) drawn against her in Crime No.45/2020 by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as ‘IPC’). 2. (i) The respondent No.3 informed the respondent No.1 on 01.06.2020 that he knew one Mr.K.P.Amjad through the petitioner. He alleged that the petitioner had contacted him and told him about a famous doctor Mr.Mohanan Vaidyar, who ran an Ayurvedic Research Center known as Parabhrahma Ayurvedic Research Center and that he has miracle cure for the ailment suffered by respondent No.3. Believing her version, he went to the Ayurvedic Research Centre for treatment, where he - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19320 WP No. 2095 of 2021 met Mr.K.P.Amjad (accused No.1), who purportedly was the managing director of that Parabhrahma Ayurvedic Research Center. (ii) Later, accused No.1 became close to him and used to frequently call him. He represented that he is a director of a reputed security agency in Goa called "Thunder Force" and offered to involve respondent No.3 in the business as a partner. The respondent No.3 claimed that he politely refused as he was not sure about the kind of person Mr.K.P.Amjad was. He alleged that the petitioner called him and told him that Mr.K.P.Amjad wanted to do business with him and that it was a good opportunity for her and the respondent Nos.3. However, the respondent No.3 claimed that he did not show any interest. (iii) Later, respondent No.3 approached the petitioner to find an office space in Bangalore as she was a real estate agent. She found a place on Vittal Mallya Road, Bangalore and without his consent, she went ahead and made a rental agreement, where the respondent No.3, the petitioner and Mr.K.P.Amjad were shown as tenants. The respondent No.3 claimed that he refused to be part of it, but later the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19320 WP No. 2095 of 2021 forced him into the business stating that the venture would benefit all of them. Believing these representations, he claimed that he paid more than Rs.4,00,000/- for getting the interiors done. (iv) He claimed that in February 2020, he purchased a new Mercedes Benz GL-350 bearing registration No.JH-07-E- 6669. He alleged that the said Mr.K.P.Amjad (accused No.1) expressed his desire to purchase the same and started bargaining as he was looking out for a four wheeler. Accordingly, the respondent No.3 offered to sell the car for a sum of Rs.48,00,000/- and on 06.03.2020 handed over the car to Mr.K.P.Amjad, who transferred a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and promised to repay the balance within a week. The respondent No.3 claimed that he believed the words of the accused No.1. However, the accused No.1 did not pay the remaining amount. When he contacted him several times, he started threatening him of his life if he ever asked about the car. (v) He claimed that when he started making enquiries, he realized that the accused No.1 and the petitioner were accomplices and were regularly cheating people to make illegal - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19320 WP No. 2095 of 2021 gains. He also alleged that the accused No.1 was a rowdy element in Kerala, having several pending cases against him. He also alleged that during demonetization, he was arrested with demonetized currency notes of Rs.5,00,00,000/-. He also claimed that he was an accused No.1 in Crime No.420/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 363 of IPC. (vi) Likewise, he stated that accused and his driver were involved in several criminal cases. He alleged that he was living under constant fear and threat and apprehended serious danger to his life from Mr.K.P.Amjad (accused No.1) and the petitioner, who brought a few rowdies to his office. Based on this, a case in Crime No.45/2020 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner being aggrieved by the registration of an FIR against her, has filed this petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 had earlier filed a complaint against the accused No.1 before the Koramangala Police Station and the statement of accused No.1 was recorded and the case was closed. He submits that long thereafter, the instant complaint - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19320 WP No. 2095 of 2021 is filed, wherein several accusations are made against the petitioner. He submits that the alleged offence took place in the office of the petitioner and not in the house of the respondent No.3. He therefore submits that the petitioner had nothing to do with the offences committed by the accused No.1 and that the petitioner has been unnecessarily roped into the case so as to harass her. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submitted that the petitioner is an accomplice of the accused No.1 and it is she who introduced the respondent No.3 to the accused No.1. He contends that when the accused No.1 failed to pay the balance value of the Mercedes Benz car, which was sold by the respondent No.3 to the accused No.1, a settlement was arranged between the accused No.1 and the respondent No.3, where the petitioner intervened and also threatened the respondent No.3 of his life. He therefore submits that the involvement of the petitioner in the offence has to be investigated by the respondents and therefore no interference may be made with the investigation. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19320 WP No. 2095 of 2021 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader, reiterated the above submissions and submitted that the case is still at the crime stage and that the investigation of the offences is necessary. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 7. The respondent No.3 did not dispute the fact that he had lodged a complaint before the Koramangala Police Station against the accused No.1 regarding the non-settlement of the balance value of the car that he had sold to the accused No.1. He also did not dispute the fact that the said complaint was closed at the instance of the respondent No.3. It appears that later the respondent No.3 after nearly a month, again went before Cubbon Park Police Station and filed a fresh complaint without disclosing the earlier complaint lodged before the Cubbon Park Police Station and accused the petitioner herein of bringing “few rowdies to his office.” - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19320 WP No. 2095 of 2021 8. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3 also placed on record a CD, which contained the video of the incident, which involved the petitioner herein. The Court played the said CD and found that there was nothing incriminating to implicate the petitioner in an offence punishable either under Section 420 of IPC or under Section 506 of IPC. Therefore, this Court is convinced that the petitioner is unnecessarily roped into the case involving the accused No.1, presumably to ensure that the petitioner compels the accused No.1 to settle the dispute. 9. In that view of the matter, the continuation of the criminal case against the petitioner would be an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the following order is passed: ORDER i. This petition is allowed; ii. The FIR drawn against the petitioner by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.45/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, is quashed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19320 WP No. 2095 of 2021 However, the respondent No.1 is at liberty to proceed against the accused No.1 in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36