SURESH AGARWAL, S/O LATE. K.L. AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF BY ULSOORGATE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE AND SRI. SHIVAKUMAR, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. S.R.R FABRICS, NO.15/1, K.R. SETTYPET, PAPANNA LANE, CUBBONPET, BANGALORE - 560002

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners, said to be A -5 and A -6 in the private complaint, seeks quashing of the proceedings against them pending on the file of the VI Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore in P.C.R.No.28348/10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, even a perusal of the complaint, which is at Annex -A, will not make out any case against the petitioners and moreover the complainant's main grievance is against A -1, A -3 and A -4 and not against the petitioners and because the petitioners are also included in an omnibus manner in the complaint without specifying the particular act of these petitioners, the question of there being any allegation against the petitioners does not arise to attract any one of the offences alleged in the complaint viz., 420, 506 and 506 -B r/w 34 of the IPC. Moreover, in respect of cheques said to have been issued to the complainant by A -3, the complainant has taken necessary steps u/s 138 of the N.I. Act and as such, the proceedings quashed in respect of the present petitioners.

(2.) HAVING thus heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for the respondent -State and on a perusal of the complaint contents. there is enough force in the submission put forward by the petitioners' counsel. In the complaint, at para.4 it is stated that, it was A -3 who had issued the cheques numbering 7 to the complainant and those cheques have been dishonoured. In respect of the said act, the complainant has taken steps under the 138 Act proceedings. As far as the present petitioners are concerned, except saying in a general term at paras.8 and 9 about phone calls having been made, there is no other particulars given as to which of the petitioners arid on what date they threatened the complainant.