Dismissed¶58

Sri. Puttarangaswamy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2025CRL.P/12074/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; Justice J.M.Khazi; CRL.P No. 12074 of 2023; decided 04-07-2025; Section 482 Cr.P.C quashing refused; FIR Cr.No.88/2022 Vijayanagar PS Mysuru; IPC Sections 406, 420, 471, 468, 504, 506 r/w 34 (cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, intimidation, common intention); petitioner Puttarangaswamy, proprietor Multi Impex, accused No.2; complainant Chandru R; Kusum Packaging Enterprises/Industries; Mount Kailash Print Pack Machines Company; KSFC loan; fake documents; ₹2,55,44,452/- transferred to Multi Impex account; allegations grave, investigation required; petition rejected/dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The allegations made against the accused persons, including the petitioner, are very grave; hence the question of quashing the proceedings against the petitioner does not arise. ¶52

Sri. Puttarangaswamy Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Cr.No.88/2022 of Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysuru, and the criminal proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 471, 468, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C on the ground that the allegations do not constitute any offence and their continuation amounts to abuse of process of the Court. +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

The criminal petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is rejected, and the Registry is directed to send a copy of the order to the trial Court through e-mail.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

The allegations made against the accused persons, including the petitioner, are very grave; hence the question of quashing the proceedings against the petitioner does not arise.

¶52

Key takeaways

Although accused No.2 contends he has nothing to do with accused No.1, the aspects concerning the transactions and the participation of accused Nos.1 and 3 are required to be investigated and ascertained, the amount cheated running into crores.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 12074 of 2023) under Section 482 Cr.P.C by accused No.2, proprietor of Multi Impex, seeking quashing of FIR Cr.No.88/2022 of Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysuru, and proceedings pending before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 471, 468, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Complainant's case: Kusum Packaging Enterprises, intending to import printing machines from China, lost a ₹10 lakhs advance on cancelling its Mount Kailash Print Pack Machines Company contract after accused No.1 offered the machines cheaper; ₹2,55,44,452/- was transferred to the petitioner's Multi Impex account with funding partly by KSFC loan; machines were never supplied; documents furnished were fake; accused Nos.1 and 2 gave a written admission before KSFC/KSIC officials to repay but failed. Held: the amount cheated runs into crores; the allegations are very grave; the role and participation of accused Nos.1 to 3 require investigation; therefore the question of quashing the proceedings against the petitioner does not arise. Petition rejected; Registry directed to communicate the order to the trial Court by e-mail.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:24553 CRL.P No. 12074 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12074 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. PUTTARANGASWAMY S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF MULTI IMPEX, NO.10, 4TH MAIN, BYRESHWARANAGAR, NAGARABHAVI MAIN ROAD, MOODLUPALYA, BENGALURU-560072.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. KESHAVA K V., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THROUGH THE POLICE STATION SUB INSPECTOR, VIJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY-570017 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001

¶15

SRI. CHANDRU R S/O RAJRAM N GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.1030/1, KARIGOWDA STREET HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT-571105

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. P.PRITHVI KIRAN SHETTY., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:24553 CRL.P No. 12074 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER Section 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR AND ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.88/2022 BY THE VIJAYANAGAR POLICE MYSURU CITY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER Section 406,420,471,468,504,506 READ WITH Section 34 OF IPC AGAINST THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2, ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.88/2022 of Vijayanagar PS, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 471, 468, 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:24553 CRL.P No. 12074 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred

¶30

to by their ranks in the crime stage.

¶31

In support of the petition, accused No.2 has contended that the allegations made against him does not constitute any offence. Complainant has managed to get a false complaint registered with an ulterior motive to harass accused No.2. He is the father of accused No.1. Accused No.2 is the wife of accused No.1. In order to pressurize them to settle the amount, they have been implicated along with this case. No transaction as alleged has taken place and no amount is deposited into the account of Multi Impex company run by accused No.2. Accused No.2 is running business independent of accused Nos.1 and 3. The continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No.2 would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 complainant and learned High Court

¶33

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24553 CRL.P No. 12074 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State submit that complainant is working as Company Manager in Kusum Packaging Enterprises. The said company wanted to modernize and improve the business and therefore decided to install new and improved machines. It decided to import machines from China for ₹3,30,00,000/- through Mount Kailash Print Pack Machines Company and advance of ₹10 lakhs was also paid.

¶36

When complainant and the supervisor of the company Karthik M.R were planning to visit China, accused No.1 Hemant Kumar, who is the relative of Karthik M.R intervened saying that he is knowing about the machines and accompanied them to China. After returning from China, accused No.1 Hemant Kumar offered to get the same machines for ₹2,50,00,000/- and therefore the contract with Mount Kailash Print Pack Machines Company was cancelled, forfeiting ₹10 lakhs paid as advance. In all 2,55,44,452/- were transferred to the Multi Impex Company account. Kusum Packaging Industries also

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24553 CRL.P No. 12074 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

borrowed loan from KSFC. However, accused No.1 did not

¶40

get the machines supplied.

¶41

Only when the documents furnished by him were examined by the complainant, he realised that they are fake documents and that they have been cheated. When complainant and owners brought this fact to the notice of accused Nos.1 and 3, accused Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Manager of KSFC and admitted in writing that complainant and the company are cheated and offered to pay the amount at the earliest. However, they have failed to repay the same. In the meanwhile, recovery proceedings have been initiated against the accused person of Kusum Packaging Industries. After waiting for reasonable time, the complaint is filed. Allegations made against the accused persons, including the petitioner are very grave and requires a thorough investigation. It is not a case for quashing the proceedings against the accused, including the petitioner and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶42

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24553 CRL.P No. 12074 of 2023

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶45

The complaint reveal that when Kusum

¶46

Packaging Industries in order to improve their business, wanted to purchase new machines and in fact had decided to purchase the same through Mount Kailash Print Pack Machines Company for ₹3,30,00,000/- and paid advance of ₹10 lakhs, accused No.1 intervened and offered to get them for ₹2,55,44,452/- through the company run by his father and wife. In fact, payment have been made on behalf of Kusum Packaging Industries. In this regard, the said company has borrowed loan from KSFC. However the accused persons failed to get the machines supplied and on the insistence of the KSFC, when the receipts and other documents furnished by the accused persons were shown to them, it came to light that the said documents are fake. When insisted upon the complainant and the owners of Kusum Packaging Industries, accused Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the KSIC officials and gave in writing that, they would return the money taken from Kusum Packaging

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:24553 CRL.P No. 12074 of 2023

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Industries. However, when they failed to keep up with their

¶51

promise, complaint is filed.

¶52

Admittedly, accused No.2 is the Proprietor of Multi Impex Company and accused No.2 is the Proprietor of Exoterior Enterprises. Accused No.1, being the son and husband of accused Nos.1 and 3 offered to get the machines through them for a concessional price and got the money transferred to the account of accused No.2. Amount cheated runs into Crores. Even though accused No.2 is contending that he has nothing to do with the accused No.1, these aspects are required to be investigated and the participation of accused Nos.1 and 3 is required to be ascertained. The allegations made are very grave. Hence, question of quashing the proceedings against petitioner not arise.

¶53