Smt Lalitha S Nimbaragi Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:46857 CRL.P No. 10446 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10446 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. LALITHA S. NIMBARAGI W/O SHIVANADAN NIMBARAGI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.11-421/15/2, SAMATA COLONY MAIN ROAD, VIJAYNAGAR, BRHMAPUR, GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 103.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI NAGARAJA @ NAGANNA @ SAMAGARA S/O BASANNA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO HILL, ATNURU VILLAGE, ABJALAPURA, KALABURGI -585 101.

¶11

SRI. SATISH S/O SHIVANAND S NIMBARAGI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.11-421/15/2, SAMATA COLONY MAIN ROAD, VIJAYNAGAR, BRHMAPUR, GULBARGA DISTRICT - 585 103.

¶12

SRI SHREEMANTH

¶13

S/O PRABHULIG MADYAL, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶14

RESIDING AT HANUMAN CHOUK,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46857 CRL.P No. 10446 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

HATHANURU VILLAGE AND POST, ABJALAPURA, KALABURGI - 585 301.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. ASHOKA T., ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BYADARAHALLI P.S. BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶22

SMT. CHETHANA S/O SHIVARAYA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.203, NEAR SOUTH ASIAN SCHOOL, NAVILUNAGAR, KARIHOBANAHALLI, BENGALURU CITY - 560 058.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1;

¶25

R2 - SERVED)

¶26

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 15.11.2022 IN FIR NO.243/2021 IN CC.NO.16416/2024, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 451, 380, 411 OF IPC, 1860, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CJM, AT BENGALURU.

¶27

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

¶28

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:46857 CRL.P No. 10446 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶35

"WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to:

¶36

Quash the charge sheet dated 15.11.2022 for offences punishable Sec. 451, 380, 411 of IPC in FIR No.0243/2021 in C.C.No.16416/2024 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru and pass any other order/s as it may deem fit to the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice."

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶38

HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. Respondent No. 2 - defacto complainant having been served with notice of this petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.

¶39

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 - defacto complainant filed the instant complaint against petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 as well as accused No.3 - Smt. Neelamma and accused No.6 - Sri. Shivaputra for the

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:46857 CRL.P No. 10446 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, on 30.06.2021, which was registered as an FIR in Crime No.243/2021 by respondent No.1 - the police authorities.

¶44

In pursuance of the same, the police authorities have filed a charge sheet which is pending in C.C.No.16416/2024 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 451, 380 and 411 of the IPC, which is pending adjudication. Accused Nos.3 and 6 came before this Court in Criminal Petition No.3847/2025, which was allowed and the proceedings qua accused Nos.3 and 6 were quashed by this Court vide final order dated 30.06.2025, which is as under:

¶45

"In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶46

“Quash the charge sheet dated 15.11.2022 for offence punishable Sec. 451, 380, 411 of IPC in FIR No.243/2021, C.C.No.16416/2014 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru and pass any other order/s as it may deem fit to the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”

¶47

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

¶48

5 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:46857 CRL.P No. 10446 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

3. Though respondent No.2 was served with notice of this petition, he has not chosen to contest the petition and has remained unrepresented.

¶52

4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent – Police registered a case on 30.06.2021 against the accused in FIR in Crime No.243/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 R/w. Section 34 of IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶53

5. A perusal of the material on record comprising of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statement of witness, documents and etc., will clearly indicate that the same do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences. It is also relevant to state that the dispute between the parties is purely civil/commercial in nature in respect of the immovable property. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club and ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., - (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2248 , the two offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC cannot coexist simultaneously on the same set of facts/allegations and hence, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

¶54

6. In Delhi Race Club’s case supra, the Apex Court has held as under:

¶55

“36. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:46857 CRL.P No. 10446 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. [See: Lalit Chaturvedi And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another - 2024 SCC Online SC 171 and M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr -. 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301]

¶60

xxxx

¶61

42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins upon the magistrate a duty to meticulously examine the contents of the complaint so as to determine whether the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as the case may be is made out from the averments made in the complaint. The magistrate must carefully apply its mind to ascertain whether the allegations, as stated, genuinely constitute these specific offences. In contrast, when a case arises from a FIR, this responsibility is of the police – to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled by the informant indeed falls under the category of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Unfortunately, it has become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind.

¶62

43. It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. The two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each other. The two provisions of the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other.”

¶63

7. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference of this Court in the present petition.

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46857 CRL.P No. 10446 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

8. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶67

ORDER

¶68

i) The petition is allowed.

¶69

ii) The impugned proceedings C.C.No.16416/2024 (arising out of Crime No.243/2021 registered by respondent No.1Police) pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed."

¶70

In view of the quashment of the impugned proceedings qua accused Nos.3 and 6, petitioners in Crl.P.No.3847/2025 vide final order dated 30.06.2025 coupled with the fact that identical/common/similar allegations have been made against the petitioners - accused Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 also, I deem it just and appropriate to invoke/apply the doctrine of parity and quash the impugned proceedings insofar as they relate to the petitioners also.

¶71

In the result, I pass the following:

¶72

ORDER

¶73

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶74

(ii) The impugned proceedings - C.C.No.16416/2024 (arising out of Crime No.243/2021) registered by

¶75

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46857 CRL.P No. 10446 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

respondent No.1 - Police) pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶78

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶79

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT:BHK

Smt Lalitha S Nimbaragi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lalitha S Nimbaragi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Lead Factory Vs the Assistant Commissioner

M/S Mkr Enterprises Private Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

Sri. Sachin Narayan Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Gem Granites Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax

Sri. B Basavaiah Vs Assessment Unit

Mr.Prakash C Vs Sree Seetharamanjaneya Temple Trust