Allowed

Sri.K.S.Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2021CRL.P/2868/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings filed by an employee against a company's MD for alleged breach of employment terms. The court held the allegations were inherently improbable, lacked basic employment documents, and the subsequent civil dispute was maliciously converted into a criminal case.

What did the court decide?

The complaint in C.C.No.1208/2015 and all consequential proceedings are quashed.

Sri.K.S.Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2868/2017

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

SRI K.S.RAMESH M.D. AND CEO, IDEA INFINITY IT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.42 THAMBUCHETTY ROAD COX TOWN BENGALURU-560 005 … PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND :

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL

¶13

SRI MOHAN KUMAR L S/O LOKESH AGED ABOUT MAJOR RESIDING AT YELLAPPA BUILDING ATTIBELE MAIN ROAD ANEKAL TOWN ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE DISTRICT KARNATAKA

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; SRI BIKKANNAVAR S.T., ADV. FOR R2)

¶16

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN C.C.NO.1208/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard.

¶22

“Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.1208/2015 against the petitioner pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Anekal amounts to abuse of the process of the Court?” is the question involved in this case.

¶23

The petitioner is the Managing Director of Idea Infinity IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limited Company with its registered office at Cox Town, Bengaluru. Respondent No.2 filed complaint dated 28.02.2013 against the said company before respondent No.1 – Police.

¶24

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶25

¶26

The gist of the said complaint is as

¶27

follows:

¶28

The Idea Infinity IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., appointed him as District Coordinator for Anekal. As per the terms of the agreement, he had to employ Data Entry Operators. The company assured him to pay monthly salary of Rs.13,000/- and experience certificate and payment of salary of Rs.6,000/- p.m., to each Data Entry Operator. But the company failed to pay his salary and the salary of Data Entry Operators and issue them experience certificates. Therefore, he had to shed Rs.1,86,000/- to the Data Entry Operators appointed by him. When he insisted for payment of his salary and the amount paid to the Data Entry Operators and experience certificates the company declined to pay the salary and issue certificate. Thereby the company had cheated him.

¶29

The endorsement on Annexure – B shows that respondent No.1 received the complaint on

¶30

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶31

¶32

15.05.2013. However, respondent No.1 registered FIR in Crime No.226/2013 against the company on 27.07.2013 i.e., after two months of the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 420, 114 of IPC.

¶33

On registering the FIR, respondent No.1 summoned the Idea Infinity IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., for enquiry. The petitioner as Managing Director of the said company, appeared before the Investigating Officer on 06.08.2013 and submitted his statement as per Annexure-D along with the enclosures. In the said statement, the petitioner denied that respondent No.2 was appointed as District Coordinator. He contended that as per the employment agreement dated 26.10.2011 respondent No.2 was appointed as Charge Centre In charge of the company. The other terms of the employment regarding the authorization of respondent No.2 to recruit the Data Entry Operators or rate of salary were all disputed.

¶34

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶35

¶36

Annexure-D bears the seal and signature

¶37

of the Investigating Officer for having received the same. Thereafter, on 26.08.2014 respondent No.1 charge sheeted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 114, 420 and 506 of IPC alleging that the petitioner appointing respondent No.2 as District Coordinator, in breach of the terms of the employment agreement declined to pay the salary of respondent No.2 and Data Entry Operators, thereby cheated him.

¶38

The Trial Court vide order dated 02.12.2015 as per Annexure - A took cognizance of the offence and registered the case in C.C.No.1208/2015 and issued non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. The Trial Court in its order does not even say for which offences cognizance was taken.

¶39

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶40

¶41

The petitioner seeks to quash the

¶42

complaint in C.C.No.1208/2015 and the proceedings therein on the following grounds:

¶43

(i) The complaint and charge sheet records

¶44

themselves do not make out the offences alleged;

¶45

(ii) The petitioner is charge sheeted for the offence of abetment and criminal intimidation for which there are no allegations either in the complaint or in the charge sheet records;

¶46

(iii) According to respondent No.2 himself, the alleged act is breach of terms of employment contract which constitutes a civil remedy. In such case, the remedy of respondent No.2 is to seek the relief under the Civil proceedings. Only to harass the petitioner, the Civil case is given the color of criminal case;

¶47

(iv) There are no documents in proof of respondent

¶48

No.2 paying Rs.1,86,000/- to CWs.2 to 16. The employment agreement was executed in Bengaluru.

¶49

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶50

¶51

Therefore, respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to register the FIR and investigate the matter.

¶52

Reiterating the grounds of the petition, Sri. Shamanth Naik learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others¹ .

¶53

Per contra, Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri. Bikkannavar S.T., learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that the charge sheet is already filed and at this stage the proceedings cannot be quashed. They further contend that the statements of CWs.2 to 16 make out a case against the petitioner and the contentions raised in this petition at the most can be defence at the trial.

¶54

It is no doubt true that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., have to be sparingly used to 1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶55

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶56

¶57

quash the proceedings. However, if it is shown to the Court that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are abuse of the process of the Court and continuation of the proceedings lead to failure of justice, this Court can certainly invoke powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and quash the proceedings.

¶58

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para No.108 of the judgment in Bhajan Lal’s case referred to Supra identified categories of cases in which power could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of the Court and to secure ends of justice. For the purpose of this case, paragraphs 108(1),(3),(5),(7) are relevant which read as follows:

¶59

“108. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be

¶60

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶61

¶62

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should exercised.

¶63

Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶64

¶65

Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused ;

¶66

¶67

Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused ;

¶68

¶69

Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted

¶70

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶71

¶72

with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶73

(Emphasis supplied)

¶74

In the light of the above observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations in the FIR and the charge sheet constitute the offences alleged. The basic contention of respondent No.2 is that he was appointed as the District Coordinator. But along with the complaint he has not produced his employment agreement. The Investigating Officer has not chosen to collect the said agreement.

¶75

Respondent No.1 does not dispute that on registration of the FIR the petitioner appeared before the Investigating Officer and submitted his statement as per Annexure-D along with the employment agreement of respondent No.2, the salary paid receipts etc. Respondent No.1 has not made them the part of the charge sheet.

¶76

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶77

¶78

The basic fact to be established was that respondent No.2 was appointed as District Coordinator and under the said employment agreement, he was authorized to appoint the Data Entry Operators. But that basic document itself was not collected by the Investigating Officer. The employment agreement dated 06.08.2013 produced with Annexure-D is not disputed by the respondents. That does not authorize respondent No.2 to employ any Data Entry Operators for the company.

¶79

Further in Annexure-B the complaint dated 28.02.2013 respondent No.2 claimed that he had appointed certain Data Entry Operators. In that he has not mentioned how many employees were appointed and their names. The alleged applications of CWs.2 to 16 were all dated 22.06.2014 and 23.06.2014. That was ten months post the complaint.

¶80

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶81

¶82

Nothing is forthcoming in the charge sheet

¶83

to show that respondent No.2 paid salary to CWs.2 to 16. The said material produced in the charge sheet to prove the alleged employment of CWs.2 to 16 by respondent No.2 is absurd and inherently improbable to persuade any person to reach the conclusion that he had appointed CWs.2 to 16 prior to the complaint dated 28.02.2013. Therefore, this case fits into category Nos.1, 3 and 5 of para 108 of the judgment in Bajanlal’s case.

¶84

One more thing to be noticed is that the complaint was against the company. Even the FIR was registered against the company. While filing the charge sheet, the petitioner was not arrayed as accused. It was not even stated in the complaint or in the statements of the witnesses that the petitioner was responsible for and incharge of the affairs of company relating to employment agreement or he

¶85

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶86

¶87

had some role in the alleged breach of terms of the employment agreement.

¶88

If there was breach of employment agreement, the remedy of respondent No.2 was to approach the forums under the Labour or Industrial Laws. He cannot divert the Civil Justice Administration System by filing criminal case.

¶89

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others² observed that in commercial transaction and disputes there is a tendency of turning them into the criminal dispute with an intention to bring the other side to terms. It was also held that the test whether the allegations in the complaint disclosed criminal offence or not is whether there was any criminal intention.

¶90

It is material to note that though there is only one accused, the Investigating Officer has filed 2(2006) 6 SCC 736

¶91

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶92

¶93

the charge sheet for the offences under Section 114 of IPC i.e., abetment to commit crime. When there are no allegations of criminal intimidation in the complaint the charge sheet is filed for offence under Section 506 of IPC. Without the basic documents of the employment agreement, the charge sheet is filed. The said circumstances show that there is sufficient force in the contention of the petitioner that the FIR and charge sheet are manifestly attended with malafides and the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to settle the private disputes.

¶94

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the complaint and consequent proceedings are abuse of the process of the Court and their continuation lead to failure of ends of justice. Therefore, the petition is allowed.

¶95

The complaint in C.C.No.1208/2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Anekal and

¶96

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

¶97

¶98

all the consequential proceedings are hereby

¶99

quashed.

¶100

Sd/JUDGE

¶101

Sri.K.S.Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.K.S.Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Srikanth Guptha Vs Sri Gangadhar Mallappa

Sri. Padmanabha v Vs the State of Karnataka

Jaffer Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Savio Pereira Vs State of Karnataka

Jamsheer Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadeesh N Vs State by Devanahalli Police Station