SHEWTA BAJAJ vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59880
WP No. 20892 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010457282026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 20892 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHEWTA BAJAJ,
W/O ANUJ ANEJA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO- B-29, ZONASHA
PARADISO APARTMENT,
DODDANEKKUNDI BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA-560048.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI P P HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI GAURAV SINGH GAUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
MAHADEVPURA PS,
WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION,
(REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT
BUILDING COMPLEX, BANGALORE 560 001).
2.
ANUJ ANEJA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O O.P ANEJA,
CURRENTLY R/AT NO-B-29,
ZONASHA, PARADISO APARTMENT,
DODDANEKUNDI, BENGALORE- 560048.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.V ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1;
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59880
WP No. 20892 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010457282026
SRI SURESH S LOKRE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRAMODAR GOWDA T.P, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS,
2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION(S) QUASHING THE ENTIRE FIR IN CRIME
NO.356/2026 DATED 23.06.2026 REGISTERED BY
MAHADEVAPURA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 316(4), 318(4), 351(2), 352
READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITA, 2023, WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE LD. 3RD
ADDL. CMM COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY
AND THE COMPLAINT DATED 23.06.2026 REGISTERED BY
MAHADEVPURA POLICE STATION (AT ANNEXURE -A AND B
RESPECTIVELY) AND/OR IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER CONCERN
ONLY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner the
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1
and the learned senior counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed to quash the complaint and FIR
in Crime No.356/2026, which is registered on 23.06.2026 by
Mahadevapura Police Station for the offences punishable under
Sections 316(4), 318(4), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59880
WP No. 20892 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010457282026
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. This petition is preferred
by accused No.2 in the FIR.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the petitioner/accused No.1 is the wife of
complainant/respondent No.2. It is submitted that the
petitioner is a partnership firm, of which, the complainant, the
petitioner and the complainant's mother are the partners.
4. It is the submission that the complaint is filed
alleging that a new bank account bearing No.369605001456 in
ICICI Bank is opened in the name of the partnership firm,
without the knowledge and consent of the complainant who is
one of the partners of the partnership firm.
5. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that there
is a dispute between the complainant and the petitioner. The
martial dispute between the complainant and the petitioner is
sought to be converted into a criminal case making false
allegations against the petitioner, who is one of the partners of
the partnership firm.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59880
WP No. 20892 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010457282026
6. It is the further submission that the Bank Manager
has furnished the records to indicate that the account is opened
with the consent of the complainant and there are records to
show that the amount is transferred to the account of the
complainant as such, there is no question of any
misappropriation or cheating as alleged in the complaint. Thus,
the learned senior counsel would urge that the complaint is not
tenable and the FIR so registered has to be quashed.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 – complainant would submit that the
partnership firm comprises of 3 partners, namely the
complainant, the complainant's wife/petitioner and the
complainant's mother. The bank account as per the
partnership deed has to be operated by the complainant, who is
the Managing Partner.
8. It is the further submission that the partnership
firm has one bank account in HDFC Bank and a new bank
account is opened in the name of the partnership firm in ICICI
Bank by accused No.1 and 2 without the knowledge and
consent of the complainant. It is the contention that there is a
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59880
WP No. 20892 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010457282026
conspiracy between accused Nos.1 and 2 and the documents
have been created to open the new bank account in the ICICI
Bank without the knowledge and consent of the complainant.
Thus, the learned Senior counsel would urge that the matter
requires investigation.
9. The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that
the bank account in ICICI bank is opened allegedly on the basis
of a deed of amendment, which does not bear the signatures of
the complainant and his mother and the bank account opening
form and necessary papers do not bear the signatures of the
complainant and his mother, who are also the partners of the
partnership firm.
10. The Court has considered the contentions raised at
the Bar and has perused the records.
11. Since there is an allegation that the bank account is
opened on the basis of created documents / fake documents and that
there is a conspiracy by the petitioner - and the Accountant in the
partnership firm, the Court is of the view that the matter requires
investigation.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59880
WP No. 20892 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010457282026
12. The police are required to investigate into the matter to
ascertain as to whether there was authorization by all the partners to
open the account in ICICI bank and whether the complainant alone was
authorised to operate the bank account of the partnership firm.
13. The Apex Court in the case of M/s Neeharika
1
Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and others in
paragraph No.33.15 has held as under:
33.15.
" When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by
the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the
power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider
whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of
a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to
consider on merits whether or not the merits of the
allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court
has to permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR."
14. As per the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex
Court, it is evident that the Court is not required to consider
the merit of the allegation. The Court is only required to
1
(2021) 19 SCC 401
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59880
WP No. 20892 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010457282026
consider whether the allegations would attract the ingredients
of the offences. Since there is an allegation that the account is
opened without the consent and knowledge, there has to be an
investigation into the allegations so made.
15. Though it is urged that there is an arbitration clause
to resolve the dispute, the settled position of law is, merely
because there is an arbitration clause in the partnership deed in
respect of the dispute between the partners, one cannot jump
to the conclusion that criminal case is untenable. Some acts
and omissions attract both civil and criminal consequences.
16. If the allegations are true, this case is one such
case which may attract both civil and criminal consequence.
17. Whether a case is made out for filing the charge
sheet or a case is made out for dropping the FIR can only be
ascertained after investigation.
18. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner at this
juncture would submit that when the complaint was filed and
the FIR came to be registered, the petitioner had filed an
application seeking anticipatory bail. Since the investigation
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59880
WP No. 20892 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010457282026
was stayed in terms of the order passed by the co-ordinate
bench of this Court, the bail application was withdrawn as the
counsel of the State made a submission that the investigation
is stayed and there is no apprehension of arrest.
19. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner be permitted to revive the said application
seeking anticipatory bail. Learned HCGP would submit that the
bail applications are not disposed of on merits. It is disposed of
in view of the submission made by the State that there is no
apprehension of arrest in view of the stay of investigation
granted by the Coordinate Bench of this Court. It is submitted
that petitioner may move the application before the Coordinate
Bench to revive the application seeking anticipatory bail.
20. Since the present petition is disposed of and interim
order is vacated, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to move
the application to revive the said bail petitions filed in
Criminal.Misc.Nos.6573/02026 and 6574/2026, if so advised in
law, as the said bail applications were not disposed of on
merits.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59880
WP No. 20892 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010457282026
21. Since it is submitted that there was interim order of
stay granted in favour of the petitioner earlier, in the peculiar
factual circumstances of the case, the interim order of stay
granted earlier stands extended by two weeks from today.
22. It is made clear that observations made in the
course of the order are not made on the merits or demerits of
the contentions raised by both the parties. All contentions kept
open.
23. With the observations, the petition stands
dismissed .
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
BRN
List No.: 2
...