Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/S ICICI Bank and its manager, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings in PCR No.8344/2009 on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, and the consequent FIR in Crime No.260/2009 registered with Tilaknagar Police Station, Bangalore. The second respondent, Mr. Venkateshwarlu Reddy, a constituent of ICICI Bank, had filed a private complaint alleging that the bank manager gave false information to the police and defamed him, leading to the registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 177, 182, 191, 199 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court, after hearing the petitioners' counsel and the Additional State Public Prosecutor, noted that the complaint did not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioners. The court observed that the allegations were vague and lacked specific material to support the charges. Consequently, the court held that the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court and allowed the petition, quashing the proceedings in PCR No.8344/2009, the order dated 6.5.2009, the FIR in Crime No.260/2009, and all proceedings pursuant thereto.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of Process - The High Court quashed criminal proceedings in Crime No.260/2009 registered for offences under Sections 177, 182, 191, 199 and 500 IPC, holding that the complaint did not disclose any prima facie case and the proceedings were an abuse of the process of court. (Paras 1-3)
B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 177, 182, 191, 199, 500 - False Information and Defamation - The complaint alleged that the bank manager gave false information to the police and defamed the complainant. The court found no material to support the allegations and quashed the proceedings. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings in Crime No.260/2009 registered pursuant to a private complaint filed by the second respondent against the petitioners for offences under Sections 177, 182, 191, 199 and 500 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC?
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The proceedings in PCR No.8344/2009 including the order dated 6.5.2009 on the file of II ACMM, Bangalore, and the FIR in Crime No.260/2009 pending investigation on the file of respondent No.1 and all proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed.
Law Points
- Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC
- Private complaint
- Offences under Sections 177
- 182
- 191
- 199
- 500 IPC
- Abuse of process of court
- No prima facie case
Case Details
2014 LawText (KAR) (06) 17
Criminal Petition No.5563/2009
Sri Brijesh Patel for petitioners, Sri Keshava Murthy (Addl. SPP) for R1, R2 served and unrepresented
M/S ICICI Bank, Head Office, Mumbai and M/S ICICI Bank, Bangalore Branch
State through Tilaknagar Police Station, Bangalore and Mr. Venkateshwarlu Reddy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated on a private complaint.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (ICICI Bank and its manager) sought to quash the proceedings in PCR No.8344/2009, the order dated 6.5.2009, the FIR in Crime No.260/2009, and all consequential proceedings.
Filing Reason
The second respondent filed a private complaint alleging that the bank manager gave false information to the police and defamed him, leading to registration of FIR for offences under Sections 177, 182, 191, 199 and 500 IPC.
Previous Decisions
The II ACMM, Bangalore, had taken cognizance and ordered investigation based on the private complaint.
Issues
Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed under Section 482 CrPC for lack of prima facie case and being an abuse of process of court?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the complaint did not disclose any prima facie case and the proceedings were an abuse of process.
Respondent No.1 (State) was represented by Addl. SPP, but no specific arguments are recorded in the judgment.
Respondent No.2 (complainant) was served but unrepresented.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the complaint did not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioners and the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court, warranting quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
Judgment Excerpts
Accused in Crime No.260/2009 registered with Thilaknagar Police Station, pending on the file of II ACMM Court, Bangalore, have come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid criminal proceeding which is registered for offences punishable under Sections 177, 182, 191, 199 and 500 of IPC.
Admittedly, the complaint in Crime No.260/2009 is registered pursuant to a private complaint filed by second respondent herein in PCR.No.8344/2009 on the file of II ACMM Court, Bangalore.
Procedural History
The second respondent filed a private complaint (PCR No.8344/2009) before the II ACMM, Bangalore, which ordered investigation, leading to registration of FIR in Crime No.260/2009 by Tilaknagar Police Station. The petitioners then filed Criminal Petition No.5563/2009 under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka seeking quashing of the proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 177, 182, 191, 199, 500
