Usha Kumari Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AND FIR IN CR.NO.552/2024 REGISTERED BY SAMPIGEHALLI P.S., BENGALURU ON 03.10.2024, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC, UNDER SECTIONS 66(C) AND 66(D) OF IT ACT, 2008, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 41^st ACJM COURT AT BENGALURU CITY.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This captioned petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 66(C) and 66(D) of Information Technology Act.

¶25

The second respondent – complainant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the conduct of the petitioner – travel agency in not issuing the flight tickets despite the fact that the complainant had remitted the requisite amount towards flight and hotel booking expenses. The gist of the allegations in the complaint is that, notwithstanding full payment made well in advance, the petitioner agency failed to make the necessary bookings and ultimately cancelled the trip just three days prior to the scheduled travel. According to the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37722 CRL.P No. 1030 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

complainant, this abrupt cancellation, on the ground that visa details had not been furnished, has caused considerable hardship and loss, which compelled the lodging of the present complaint.

¶29

The petitioner, on the other hand, has taken a categorical stand that under its Company policy, booking of international flight tickets and hotel accommodation is conditional upon the production of valid visa details. Since the complainant did not furnish the visa particulars within the stipulated time, the agency was unable to confirm the bookings. The petitioner asserts that the complainant was duly intimated about this requirement, and it was further assured that the entire remitted amount would be refunded within a period of 4 to 8 weeks. It is inspite of such assurance and partial compliance by way of refund that the complainant has chosen to file a complaint, which has culminated in registration of a criminal case, thereby driving the petitioner to seek relief before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶30

Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 – State, has however sought to

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37722 CRL.P No. 1030 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

oppose the petition by contending that the allegations made in

¶34

the complaint prima facie disclose the ingredients of cheating. She submits that since the complainant was induced to part with a substantial amount on the representation that travel arrangements would be made, and the agency ultimately failed to honour the commitment, the criminal prosecution cannot be interdicted at the threshold. She therefore prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

Having considered the rival submissions and on a close reading of the complaint as a whole, this Court finds that the nature of the dispute essentially arises out of reciprocal allegations of breach. While the complainant contends that despite payment of money, the petitioner agency failed to secure tickets and accommodation, the agency contends that it was disabled from completing the booking solely because of the complainant’s failure to supply visa details. The dispute, therefore, is in the realm of mutual contractual obligations and performance thereof, and such contested questions of fact are not amenable to adjudication in criminal proceedings.

¶36

5 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:37722 CRL.P No. 1030 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

The record further discloses that the petitioner agency has already refunded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and has deposited the balance sum of Rs.3,40,000/before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Such conduct of the petitioner is in consonance with its stated Company policy and evinces a bona fide intention to resolve the issue. Once the entirety of the amount is secured by way of deposit, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no fruitful purpose and would, on the contrary, amount to an abuse of the process of Court.

¶40

This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the complainant has himself filed an application under Section 457 of Cr.P.C. seeking release of the balance deposit of Rs.3,40,000/-. The complainant has further chosen not to contest the proceedings before this Court at this stage, which is an additional circumstance justifying exercise of inherent jurisdiction to quash the pending case. These factors, cumulatively, persuade this Court to hold that no useful purpose will be served by allowing the prosecution to linger.

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:37722 CRL.P No. 1030 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition

¶45

deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C. No.552 of 2024 pending before the Sampigehalli Police Station stand quashed. The Investigating Officer is directed to forthwith communicate this order to the concerned Bank and ensure that the restrictions imposed by way of locking the petitioner’s account are lifted. The said communication shall be effected within a period of one week from the date of receipt of this order, so that the petitioner is not subjected to any further

¶46

prejudice.

¶47

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶48

BGN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19

Usha Kumari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Usha Kumari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rekha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kiran Mohan Jiragyala Vs the State by Lokayukta Police

Wortgage Finance Private Limited Vs State by Thalaghattapura P S

Dharmaraj H R Vs State by Hosanagar Police

Sri Venkataramana Vs the State of Karnataka

K.S Kumaraswamy @ Jayanna Vs State of Karnataka