B Nageswara Rao Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:6392 CRL.P No. 5219 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5219 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

B. NAGESWARA RAO, S/O HARI BABU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO.8-2-236/1, FLAT NO.505, VISHNU HOMES, YUSUF GUDA, HYDERABAD 560045

¶8

ALSO R/AT NO.19/11,4^TH CROSS, AMC MAIN ROAD, BASVANAGAR, K G HALLI, BANGALORE 560045

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI. SHATHABISH SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE SPP OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560001

¶14

GIRISH TULJARAM PAHILAJANI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS NO.07, SUBHA LAKSHMI SOC, JAGTAP MAULA, BEHIND BYTO COLELGE, NASHIK ROAD, NASIK CITY, MAHARASTRA 422101

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP A/W SRI. THEJESH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH, ADV. FOR R2)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:6392 CRL.P No. 5219 of 2023

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 24.05.2023 IN CR.NO.149/2023 REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120(B), 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 503 AND 34 OF IPC, 1860, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 4^TH ADDL. CMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION , THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶24

“Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for records and quash the FIR dated 24.05.2023 in Crime No. 0149/2023 registered by the 1^st Respondent Chandra Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 120(B), 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 503 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending on the file of 4^th Addl. CMM Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru, in the interest of justice.”

¶25

Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶26

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 24.05.2023, respondent No.2 submitted a complaint pursuant to

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:6392 CRL.P No. 5219 of 2023

¶29

which the impugned FIR in Crime No.149/2023 came to be registered against various accused persons including the petitioner who was arraigned as accused No.9 in the FIR. In this context, it is relevant to extract relevant submissions made in the complaint, which reads as under:

¶30

“6. In the early of December 21, Mallamma had arrange a meeting with Mr. D. Srinivas at her house, where Mr. Sreenivas dishonestly and fraudulently represented as a Sr. Scientist of DRDO (Defence Research Development Organization), India, showed his forged identity card of DRDO, and also exhibited various forged government documents, that his company is having all sort of necessary licenses, permissions from DRDO, NASA, ISRO to commence this type of business. He also took the name of Mr.B. Nageswar Rao (879058128, 7601076323, 7839326467, 9990633333) from Hyderabad, who is the investor of Aurubis Metal Corp’ as well as ‘GRMT’ in India and UAE. He has also falsely informed that his company used to purchase this type of products for international agency SPACEX, NASA, etc. At this instance of time we have no doubt to believe this high rated representation of this posing Sr. Scientist Mr. D. Sreenivas had quoted an amount of Rs. 25.80 lakhs for conducting scanning to Sreenu Material and confirmed this business to be taken place by delivering a token amount of Rs.50 Crore on the day of testing and the total consideration will be decide on that day.”

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:6392 CRL.P No. 5219 of 2023

¶33

As stated supra, the petitioner – accused No.9 and

¶34

other persons were sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 503 r/w 34 of IPC. However, except cryptic, vague, bald assertions in paragraph 6, the entire complaint does not disclose or reveal any other allegation made against the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.9 in the present petition. Under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings as against the present petitioner – accused No.9 without there being sufficient allegations deserves to be quashed.

¶35

At this stage, learned Addl. SPP submits that liberty may be reserved in favour of respondent No.1 – police authority to complete the investigation and submit a final report in accordance with law. So also, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that liberty may be reserved in favour of respondent No.2 to take recourse to such remedies as available in law as against the petitioner herein.

¶36

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:6392 CRL.P No. 5219 of 2023

¶39

insofar as the petitioner – accused No.9 is concerned by issuing certain directions

¶40

In the result, I pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The petition is hereby allowed .

¶43

(ii) The impugned proceedings in FIR in Crime No.149/2023 pending on the file of the 4^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner – accused No.9 is concerned.

¶44

(iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.1 to complete investigation and submit a final report in accordance with law.

¶45

(iv) Liberty is also reserved in favour of respondent No.2 to take recourse to such remedies as available in law as against the petitioner.

¶46

(v) Petitioner is directed to co-operate with the investigation to be conducted by respondent No.1.

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:6392 CRL.P No. 5219 of 2023

¶49

(vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter

¶50

are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same.

¶51

(vii) It is needless to state that in addition to liberty

¶52

reserved in favour of respondent No.2, all other persons similarly situated to respondent No.2 would also be entitled to take recourse to such remedies as available in law.

¶53

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶54

SV

¶55

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 0

B Nageswara Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B Nageswara Rao v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivalingappa Sahadeva Gombigudda Alias Vs the State of Karnataka by

Aditya Pai Vs the State by

Byragonda Siddalinganna Silpa Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammad Sadik Vs State of Karnataka

Dr. Amrutha B. Ujjamma Vs Smt. Anitha. N

B H Ramesh Vs State by