MR VARUN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

#1. STATE OF KARNATAKA HAL POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560 017 SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

#2. SRI. PADMANABHA S/O BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF J J INFRA COM RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 010 (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31674 CRL.P No. 2678 of 2023 HC-KAR SRI.S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.R.NO.54417/2022 IN CRIME NO.0177/2022 PENDING BEFORE IN COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE, AGAINST THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is the sole accused has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings in PCR.NO.54417/2022 Cr.No.177/2022 on the file of XXIX ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC.

#2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that he is innocent to the alleged offences and has been falsely implicated. The complaint averments does not attract the ingredients of the punishable under Sections 341, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC. Petitioner is said to have - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31674 CRL.P No. 2678 of 2023 HC-KAR awarded a contract of excavation in 2020 in favour of respondent No.2 for Rs.2,74,11,387/- and that a sum of Rs.1,90,00,000/- is paid by the petitioner to respondent No.2 on various dates. Therefore, non payment of subsequent instalments cannot be termed as cheating. The dispute is civil in nature. Instead of approaching the Civil Court, with oblique motive, this complaint is filed. By hook or crook to recover the balance amount, false complaint is filed. The continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court and hence, the petition.

#3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the following decisions: i) S.W.Palanitkar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. (S.W.Palanitkar)1 ii) Anil Mahajan Vs. Bhor Industries Ltd and Ors. (Anil Mahajan)2 iii) International Advanced Research Centre Poeder Metallurgy and New Materials (Arci) and Ors. Vs. Nimra Cerglass Technics (P)Ltd and Ors. (Nimra Cerglass)3 1 Appeal (Crl)1072/2001 Dt:18.10.2001 2 Crl.A.No.1164/2004 Dt:06.10.2004 3 Crl.A.No.2128/2011 Dt: 22.09.2015 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:31674 CRL.P No. 2678 of 2023 HC-KAR iv) The Commissioner of Police & Ors. Vs. Devender Anand & Ors. (Devender Anand)4 v) Mithesh Kumar J.Sha Vs. The State of Karnataka (Mithesh Kumar)5 vi) Randheer Singh Vs. The State of U.P & Ors. (Randheer Singh)6 vii) Sri. Amit Garg Vs. State of Karnataka (Amit Garg)7 viii) M N G Bharateesh Reddy Vs. Ramesh Anr.(M.N.G.Bharateesh Ranganathan Reddy)8 ix) Vijay Kumar Ghai & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. (Vijay Kumar Ghai)9 x) Syed Yaseer Ibrahim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Syed Yaseer Ibrahim)10 xi) Sarabjit Kaur Vs. The State of Punjab and Anr. (Sarabjit Kaur)11 xii) Mahmood Ali and Ors. Vs. State of U.P and Ors. (Mahmood Ali)12 4 Crl.A.No.834/2017 Dt:08.08.2019 5 Crl.A.No.1285/2021 Dt:26.10.2021 6 SLP(Crl)No.1190/2021 Dt:02.09.2021 7 Crl.P.No.4856/2021 Dt:26.07.2022 8 2022 Livelaw (SC) 701 Dt:18.08.2022 9 2022 Livelaw (SC) 305 Dt:22.03.2022 10 SLP(Crl)No.7955/2021 Dt:28.02.2022 11 2023 Livelaw (SC) 157 Dt:01.03.2023 12 2023 Livelaw (SC) 613 Dt: 08.08.2023 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31674 CRL.P No. 2678 of 2023 HC-KAR xiii) Gagan Banga Vs. Samit Mandal and Anr. (Gagan Banga)13 xiv) Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. (Naresh Kumar)14

#4. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.2 is running a company in the name and style of JJ Infracorn engaged in earth work excavation and rock excavation. In the second week of June 2020, petitioner approached the complainant for excavation and related work. On 30.06.2020, accused gave contract to the complainant for Rs.2,74,11,387/-. Petitioner paid only Rs.1,90,00,000/-. Rs.80,41,919/- is still due. Despite repeated request and demand, he has not paid balance. On

16.01.2022, he sought 15 days time. On 20.08.20222, petitioner called the respondent No.2 to settle the matter. However, he along with 2 other persons abused him. 13 Contempt Pet(Civil)No.774/2023 (Crl.A.No.463/2022) Dt:04.07.2023 14 SLP(Crl)No.1570/2021 Dt: 12.03.2024 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31674 CRL.P No. 2678 of 2023 HC-KAR Though respondent No.2 filed complaint on 31.05.2022 with the HAL police, they have not registered the case. He also approached the Commissioner of Police, but no action is taken. Therefore, respondent No.2 is forced to file the private complaint.

4.1 The trial Court referred the case to the concerned police and they have registered case in Cr.No.177/2022. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. It is not a case for quashing the criminal proceedings and pray to dismiss the petition.

#5. Heard arguments and perused the record.

#6. Thus petitioner who is the sole accused is seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him contending that the dispute between him and respondent No.2/complainant is purely civil in nature with regard to balance payment to be made by him to the complainant and to pressurize him a false complaint is filed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31674 CRL.P No. 2678 of 2023 HC-KAR

#7. However, complaint averment reveals respondent No.2 complainant is engaged in earth work excavation and rock excavation. It is not is dispute that petitioner gave contract of earth excavation to complainant and as per the agreement a total sum of Rs. 2,74,11,387/- was due. Admittedly the petitioner has pad Rs.1,90,000/-. Balance of Rs.80,41,919/- was due from him to the respondent No.2/complainant. It is specifically alleged that on 16.01.2022 petitioner called respondent No.2 complainant near hotel and promised to pay the balance within 15 days. Again on 28.05.2022 petitioner called complainant to a hotel near Doddanekkundi. With two other person, he abused respondent No.2/complainant and gave threat to his life demand the balance, giving rise to the cause of action to complainant.

#8. It may be true that the main dispute between the parties in civil in nature and having made part payment provision of Section 420 may not be attracted. However, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:31674 CRL.P No. 2678 of 2023 HC-KAR having regard to the specific allegation made that petitioner along with two other gave threat to complainant with dire consequence, if he demand balance due, certainly attract criminal liability. If ultimately charge sheet is filed the petitioner is at liberty to convince the Court about the charges that may be framed.

#9. So far as the decisions relied upon by the Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage they are not applicable to case on hand. There is prima facie material to conduct detailed investigation to unearth the truth. Certainly this is not case for quashing the criminal proceedings and accordingly, the following: ORDER i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:31674 CRL.P No. 2678 of 2023 HC-KAR ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e- mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44