P. Pawan Kumar Reddy vs State Of Karnataka & Others

H.P. Sandesh, J

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the I Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, whereby the learned Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the ‘B’ Report and consequently registered the criminal case

against the accused/ petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408 and 420 of IPC in C.C.No.23708/2019 and also consequently to

quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.23708/2019 and pass such other orders as deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein had lodged the complaint with respondent No.1 and the police after the investigation

have filed the ‘B’ Report, against which respondent No.2 filed a protest petition and thereafter, the sworn statement of the complainant was

recorded and also examined another witness as P.W.2. The Trial Court, after considering the sworn statement, protest petition and material placed

before the Court, rejected the ‘B’ Report and issued the process against the petitioner herein.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court is that learned Magistrate has committed an error in issuing the

process when the complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 on 17.08.2015 for committing a fraud, cheating and financial irregularities in the

Company. Based on the said complaint, a Crime in No.162/2015 was registered on 04.07.2015 after the unexplained and inordinate delay of two years

from the date of the offence. The allegation made in the complaint is that the act of crime has been committed between 07.01.2011 and 30.09.2013.

The respondent No.2 had not given any explanation with regard to the inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. The averments made in the complaint

are bald and vague. It is manifestly clear that the proceedings initiated as against the petitioner is only with a sole intention to harass him. Learned

Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind while issuing the process and rejecting the ‘B’ report. The sworn statement of the complainant

was recorded. Learned Magistrate after examining the protest petition and also the sworn statement, proceeded to reject the ‘B’ Report but

failed to consider the reason given by the Investigating Officer while filing the ‘B’ Report. In the absence of any material, if any criminal

prosecution is initiated against the petitioner herein, it amounts to an abuse of process.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that learned Magistrate while issuing the process passed

a detailed order and assigned the reasons for rejecting the ‘B’ Report and then proceeded with the prosecution against the petitioner. In his

arguments, he placed the copy of the sworn statement of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the copy of the protest petition filed before the learned Magistrate.

Learned counsel would vehemently contend that the averments made in the protest petition were reiterated by P.Ws.1 and 2 in their sworn

statements. Learned Magistrate has applied his judicious mind and issued the process. Hence, it does not require interference of this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also on perusal of the material available

on record, particularly the protest petition as well as the sworn statement, the witnesses have reiterated the averments made in the protest petition.

Apart from that learned Magistrate while issuing the process invoked Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and has assigned the reasons relying upon the

documents, particularly, Annexures-A and B and also the other documents placed before the learned Magistrate and has come to the conclusion that

the statement of witnesses clearly shows that there is a material against the petitioner, which support and corroborate the allegations made in the

complaint. The allegation that the petitioner misused his position in the Company and misappropriated the funds to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/- has also

been made in the complaint. Learned Magistrate while rejecting the ‘B’ Report assigned the reasons that on perusal, the oral evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 and the documents produced before the Court is sufficient to establish the existence of the prima facie case to proceed against the

accused for the alleged offences.

Having perused the reasons and materials placed before the Court and also the sworn statements of P.Ws.1 and 2, the process is issued only for

the offence punishable under Sections 406, 408 and 420 of IPC. The prima facie material discloses that the learned Magistrate has rightly invoked

Section 204 of Cr.P.C. and issued the process. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to quash the order impugned. The order passed by the

learned Magistrate is a reasoned order considering the material and also the sworn statement of the witnesses. Hence, it is not a fit case to exercise

the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the learned Magistrate.

In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The petition is hereby dismissed.

In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2020 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.