- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13059 WP No. 6557 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.6557 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. AMITHA VIKRAM SATHYANARAYANA S/O LATE S. SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.7, STONINGTON COURT, MIDDELEBURY, CT 06762 USA, REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER DR. N.S. SHANKAR. 2. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI W/O LATE S. SATHYANARAYANA, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.12/1, SRI RANGA NILAYA, ITI COLONY, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085. 3. DR. N.S. SHANKAR S/O LATE N.V. SRINIVASA RAMIYA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HABITAT HEIGHTS APARTMENTS, 148, F1, WEST WING, FIRST FLOOR, TEMPLE ROAD, ITI COLONY, BANASHANKARI III COLONY, KATHRIGUPPA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 085. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13059 WP No. 6557 of 2022 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA CHANNAMMAKERE ACHU KATTU POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 085. 2. H.G. PRASHANTH S/O H.N. GOPINATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.129/2, FIRST FLOOR, TEMPLE ROAD, ITI COLONY, BANASHANKARI III STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHD. AYUB ALI, ASPP. FOR R.1; SRI. H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.09.2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, IN CRIME NO.209/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13059 WP No. 6557 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. Respondent No.2/Complainant had certain financial transaction with late father of petitioner no.1, who was also the husband of petitioner No.2. Petitioner No.3 is the father-in-law of petitioner No.1. The father of petitioner No.1 had issued two cheques in favour of respondent no. 2. 2. The said cheques belonged to petitioner no.1 herein. The first cheque was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. Thereafter, petitioner no.1 instructed the Bank not to honour the said cheque as he had not authorized his father to issue the said cheque, and accordingly, the second cheque was dishonoured for the reason "payments stopped by drawer". Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed a complaint against petitioner no.1 and his late father for cheating and fraud. The same came to be numbered as C.C.No.5900/2009 which later got renumbered as C.C.No.9592/2011. The father of petitioner no.1 died when he was in custody. 3. During the course of the aforementioned proceedings, petitioner No.1 was residing in abroad and the proceedings - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13059 WP No. 6557 of 2022 against him came to be quashed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.2872/2011. Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed a complaint against the petitioners herein on the ground that they have committed certain offences, while initiating the proceedings before this Court in Criminal Petition No.2872/2011 seeking quashment of the proceedings. The allegations made against the petitioners herein are as follows: "B. OFFENCES COMMITTED BY ACCUSED PERSONS 1. MAKING COUNTERFEIT SEAL OF A FOREIGN OFFICIAL: All the three accused have made / caused to make a counterfeit seal of TOMASZ M. CUPRYS, Notary Public, State of Connecticut, United States of America. This seal has been affixed to the Vakalath submitted by Sri Amitl Vikram before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No.2872 of 2011. (Annexure-B) This vakalath is dated 12.04.2011 but the Notary is said to have signed on 12.04.2010. This seal is prepared and possessed for the purposes of affixing the same to the vakalath thereby committed forgery. Offence committed is punishable under Section 473 of Indian Penal Code. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13059 WP No. 6557 of 2022 2. FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION a) Sri Amith Vikram in paragraph 5 of his Criminal Petition No.2872/2011 filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has stated that "The Petitioner is innocent of commission of offences alleged. There is no nexus between the transaction if any of the Accused No.1 and the said Prashanth." The transaction referred to herein is detailed by him in paragraph No.2 of his petition. (Annexure-C). This is a false statement. Sri Amith Vikram had issued a mandate to his banker CITI Bank for honouring cheques from his banking account if signed and issued by his father the Accused No.1. Accused No.1 had issued the cheque of Sri Amith Vikram to the complainant herein for Rs.15 lakhs which bounced and after bouncing of the cheque Sri Amith Vikram cancelled the mandate issued in favour of his father. This false statement is one of the two grounds on which Criminal Petition was disposed of in favour of Sri Amith Vikram and against the interests of the complainant herein. Reference paragraph 11 of judgement dated 02.02.2015 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.2872/2011 (Annexure - D) b) Sri Amith Vikram in paragraph 9 of his Criminal Petition No.2872 / 2011 (Annexure-C) stated that "The Petitioner herein is staying at USA. He is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13059 WP No. 6557 of 2022 nothing to do with the transaction if any between the Accused No.1 and the said Prashanth." This is a false statement. He is a permanent resident of Bengaluru as declared by himself in the first paragraph of General Power of Attorney dated 25.05.2006 executed by him in favour of his father (Annexure - E) and also as per details furnished on 31.01.2011 (Annexure - F) by the Office of Regional Passport Office, Bengaluru to the Basavanagudi Police Station, Sri Amit Vikrm is a permanent resident of No.91, Surveyor Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru-560 004. This false statement is the second ground on which Criminal Petition was disposed of in favour of Sri Amith Vikram and against the interests of the complainant herein. Reference paragraph 5 of judgement dated 02.02.2015 of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.2872/2011 (Annexure - D) Offence committed is punishable under Section 177 of Indian Penal Code. 3. FALSE AFFIDAVIT Smt. Jayalakshmi has also sworn to an affidavit dated 11.05.2011 duly notarized to the effect that averments made by her son in the interlocutory application submitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.2872/2011 are true and correct whereas memorandum of petition - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13059 WP No. 6557 of 2022 which is reiterated to be a part and parcel of the application contain false statements. (Annexure-G) Office committed punishable under Sections 193, 196 and 199 of Indian Penal Code. 4. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY As could be seen from the document (Annexure-H) submitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru on 29.07.2011 by Dr. N.S. Shankar, Father-in-law of Sri Amith Vikram, both Dr. N.S. Shankar and Smt. Jayalakshmi, mother of Sri Amith Vikram have joined hands in supporting Sri Amith Vikram commit offence punishable under various provisions of Indian Penal Code. Offence committed is punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code. Thus, I have suffered injustice at the hands of the accused persons and incurred a loss of Rs.15 lakhs lent to Sri Amit Vikram through his father late Sri Sathyanarayana apart from other incidental expenses running to over Rs.2 lakhs. I have also undergone mental harassment and ignominy which cannot be weighed in terms of money. I, H.G. Prashanth, therefore, request you to initiate criminal proceedings against the above mentioned - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13059 WP No. 6557 of 2022 accused persons for the crimes committed by them as detailed above in the interest of justice." 4. After investigation, the jurisdictional police have filed a 'B' report. The same has been challenged by respondent No.2 by filing a protest petition and the learned Magistrate has passed the following: "ORDER Cognizance is taken for the offences punishable under section 120-B, 177, 193, 196, 199 and 473 of IPC against the accused. Office is register criminal case against the accused and issue summons to the accused if PF is paid and list of witnesses is furnished. Returnable by Call on 20/11/21" Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 5. The allegation in brief against the petitioners herein is that they have submitted a forged and concocted vakalat and sworn to a false affidavit and filed the same before this Court in Criminal Petition No.2872/2011. It is the case of respondent No.2 that the signature and seal of the Notary on the vakalat executed by petitioner no.1 herein are forged and concocted. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13059 WP No. 6557 of 2022 The vakalat shows that the same has been executed by petitioner no.1 in USA authorising his Advocate to represent his case in Criminal Petition No.2872/2011. The vakalat is not executed in the presence of his Advocate and the signature of petitioner No.1 is identified by a Notary in USA, who has put his signature and seal. 6. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No.1 had authorized his Advocate to represent him in Criminal petition No.2872/2011. It is further submitted that his Advocate also has not disputed the same and telephonically, they had the necessary conversation also. Sufficient time was granted to respondent No.2/Complainant and also to the State to obtain necessary affidavit or statement from the concerned Notary as to the veracity of his signature and seal. They have failed to obtain the same. 7. Further, this Court has deemed it fit to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.9592/2011 in respect of the offences alleged against petitioner no.1 in Criminal Petition No.2872/2011. Under the circumstances, the present petition filed against the petitioners herein has to be considered as a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13059 WP No. 6557 of 2022 harassment on them being perpetuated by respondent no.2. The State, after due investigation, has found it fit to file a 'B' report stating that no offence has been committed by the petitioners herein. 8. Apart from making bald allegations against the petitioners, the allegations are not supported by any prima facie evidence of the respondents. Under the circumstances, the trial court ought to have accepted the 'B' report and closed the case against the petitioners. Not having done so, the same should be considered as erroneous. 9. Hence the following: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed; (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.27693/2021 pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the petitioners herein are quashed. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52