ORDER : Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused records. 2. This petition is filed seeking for quashing of the FIR No.108/2017 registered by Basavanagudi Police against the petitioner and others for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 471 and 468 of IPC. 3. A careful perusal of the complaint averments filed by one Sri. Venkatesh, who is the Manager of the 2nd respondent-Charan Souhardha Co-Operative Bank Ltd (for short, ‘Bank’) herein reveals that, one Sudhamani P.R. (Accused No.1) has obtained loan from the 2nd respondent-Bank stating that she has lost the original documents pertaining to her property bearing katha No.88/3, House List No.19 (old) and new No. 347 situated at Kathriguppe Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, and on the basis of original documents and by saying so, she obtained loan from the 2nd respondent3 Bank. It is further alleged that after taking the loan, the said Sudhamani has sold the said property in favour of the petitioner by name Sri. Girish Raj and in turn, he took loan from Millanium Co-operative Society and thereafter, he sold the property in favour of one Mayanna on 27.06.2016 by a registered sale deed. It is alleged that when the loan taken by Sudhamani from the 2nd Respondent-Bank was still pending, the said Sudhamani, in order to defeat the rights of the 2nd Respondent-Bank has sold the said property in favour of Girish Raj. Therefore, the complainant-Venkatesh M.V., lodged a complaint including the petitioner as also one of the accused, who is arraigned as Accused No.2. 4. On careful perusal of the complaint allegations, as there is absolutely no allegation whatsoever made against the petitioner, what is the role of the petitioner in the said Sudhamani taking loan from the Bank and his involvement in causing any loss to the Bank or committing any mischief in respect of the Bank is concerned and more over there is no allegation of cheating by this petitioner in any manner. 5. In this background, learned counsel has also produced certain materials before this court, which is not disputed by the 2nd respondent-Bank, as the 2nd respondent-Bank though served with a notice, remained absent before this court. 6. 5. In this background, learned counsel has also produced certain materials before this court, which is not disputed by the 2nd respondent-Bank, as the 2nd respondent-Bank though served with a notice, remained absent before this court. 6. It is seen from the records produced before the court, particularly, the certified copy of the judgment rendered by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Appeal No.134/2014 dated 05.11.2014 revels that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru, has allowed the appeal filed by the present petitioner and it set aside a portion of the order passed by the Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 10.03.2004 in sofar as it relates to permitting the 2nd Respondent-Bank herein to recover the awarded amount on public auction of the schedule property belonging to the petitioner herein. Therefore, on the civil side also it is clear that Respondent No.2 is prevented from recovering any amount by selling the schedule property by means of public auction. 7. In the above said facts and circumstances, when there is no specific allegation mentioned in the complaint so as attract the provisions under Section 420, 406 of IPC as alleged, so far as it relates to this petitioner is concerned, in my opinion, registration of a case for the above said offences, without there being any allegation in the complaint, is bad in law and such proceedings cannot be ordered to be continued. 8. In the above circumstances, I have no hesitation to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, as prayed for. Hence, I pass the following order:- ORDER Petition is allowed. Consequently, all further investigation in FIR No.108/2017 on the file of Basavanagudi Police Station registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 471 and 468 of IPC, so far as it relates to the petitioner concerned, is hereby quashed.