Shri. Veerendra Shetty Vs Smt. Padmaja Rao

SHRI. VEERENDRA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, SON OF SHRI. VISHWANATHA SHETTY, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 210, MATHA RESIDENCY, MARY HILL, MANGALURU-575 008 ALSO AT NO. 18, 3RD FLOOR, SUMUKHA, HBCS LAYOUT, 24TH MAIN, J. P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶11

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. PALLAVA R, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

SMT. PADMAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WIFE OF PRAKASH PEDNEKAR, RESIDING AT NO. 799, AVANI, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, 80 FEET ROAD, BCC HS LAYOUT, VAJARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 062.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

(BY SMT/KUM. NAYANA TARA B.G, ADVOCATE)

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶18

2 -

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.11574/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE XXX A.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC, 1860 GIVEN HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶21

IN CRL.P NO. 6694/2021

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SHRI VEERENDRA SHETTY AGED 41 YEARS S/O SHRI VISHWANATHA SHETTY R/AT FLAT NO 210, MATHA RESIDENCY MARY HILL, MANGALURU-575008

¶24

ALSO AT NO 18, 3RD FLOOR SUMUKHA , HBCS LAYOUT 24TH MAIN, J P NAGAR, 2ND PHASE BENGALURU-560078

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI. PALLAVA R, ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

SMT PADMAJA RAO AGED 54 YEARS WIFE OF PRAKASH PEDNEKAR R/AT NO 799, AVANI, 2ND MAIN 2ND CROSS, 80 FEET ROAD BCC HS LAYOUT, VAJARAHALLI BENGALURU-560062

¶29

...RESPONDENT

¶30

(BY SMT/KUM. NAYANA TARA BG, ADVOCATE)

¶31

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.07.2020 PASSED BY THE COURT OF XXX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN P.C.R.NO.7120/2020 WHEREIN COGNIZANCE IS TAKEN FOR AN OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER WHICH IS GIVEN HEREIN AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,

¶35

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶36

COMMON ORDER

¶37

In these petitions, petitioner who is arraigned as accused has challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.11574/2021 on the file of XXX ACMM, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC.

¶38

While in Crl.P.No.5669/2021 he has challenged

¶39

the entire criminal proceedings, in Crl.P.No.6694/2021 he has challenged the order dated 30.07.2020 in PCR.No.7120/2020 taking cognizance and order dated 10.05.2021 issuing summons to him.

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

In support of the petition, petitioner has contended that he is a producer and director of Kannada Cinemas and TV shows by profession. Respondent is predominantly an actor in the Kannada Cinemas. Petitioner produced cinemas and TV shows under the banner "M/s Veeru Talkies". He is ordinarily resides at Mangaluru City. During 2014, petitioner produced and directed a Tulu movie by name Chali Polilu in which respondent was casted for a role and this is how he came to know her.

¶43

3.1 Respondent out of the said acquaintance with the petitioner introduced him to certain business heads at Udaya TV with respect to producing 2 TV shows viz., 'Savalige Sye' (Season 1 and 2) and 'Tutta Mutta' which petitioner successfully produced in between 2017-2019. Petitioner even paid Rs.4 lakhs through account transfer to the respondent for the gratuitous help rendered by her referring to the said TV channel.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

3.2 During 2019, petitioner directed and produced

¶47

Kannada Movie 'Savarna Dheerga Sandhi' in which respondent was casted for a role. She even lent her house for the purpose of shooting the said cinema for 3 days. She was also given the role of Executive Producer and for all theses roles, she was duly remunerated by the petitioner.

¶48

3.3 Respondent out of acquaintance with the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.41.5 lakhs on various dates in between 2015 to 01.10.2019. After October 2019, when petitioner sought repayment of the said amount, in order to avoid payment, respondent started making baseless claims that petitioner is liable to pay her money for having earned income from the TV shows produced by him on account of she introducing him to the TV channel. Of course petitioner refuted and resisted her claim. Respondent went to the extent of filing a false complaint against petitioner on 18.03.2020, with the Commissioner of Police. He forwarded the same to J.P.Nagar Police. The said Police after making

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

enquiry and finding that it is a civil dispute, refused to register the case.

¶52

3.4 Thereafter, on much persuasion by the petitioner, respondent issued cheque No.009667 dated 17.06.2020 for Rs.40 lakhs towards repayment of loan taken from the petitioner. When presented it came to be dishonoured. After issuing legal notice and receiving untenable reply that petitioner has stolen the said cheque, he filed complaint in C.C.No.941/2020, for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶53

3.5 Alleging that petitioner has stolen the cheque, respondent lodged a complaint with Thalaghattapura Police in Cr.No.103/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 406, 471, 467, 420 and 468 IPC. However, after investigation, the concerned police filed 'B' report.

¶54

3.6 However, the respondent has on 13.07.2020 chosen to file a private complaint in PCR.No.7120/2020 against the petitioner for the offence punishable under

¶55

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

Section 420 IPC, alleging that she bagged the offer for producing TV shows 'Savalige Sye' (Season 1 and 2) and 'Tutta Mutta' and since at that time, she was constructing her house and was short of funds, she allowed the petitioner to produce them; however, she got involved in activity such as designing, management, editing, etc.. and petitioner was liable to pay Rs.34.7 lakhs towards her remuneration as promised; she has also worked with petitioner in 'Savarna Dheerga Sandhi' as Executive Producer, costume designer and also petitioner's mentor and therefore, he is liable to pay Rs.18 lakhs; colluding with the concerned police, he managed to get a 'B' report. However, the trial Court without any application of mind vide order dated 30.07.2020 taken cognizance and ordered for registering the case.

¶58

3.7 Even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are accepted to be true, they do not make out a prima facie case. As a counter blast to the complaint filed in C.C.No.941/2020, respondent has chosen to file a false

¶59

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

complaint. At the most the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. Deliberately, respondent is giving criminal over tone to it. There is no written agreement between petitioner and respondent with regard to sharing of profits or payment of remuneration. Without conducting enquiry

¶62

under Section 202 Cr.P.C, the trial Court has mechanically taken cognizance and issued summons. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and pray to quash the same.

¶63

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for

¶64

petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

¶65

(i) State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Ch.Bhajan Lal and Ors. ( Ch.Bhajan Lal )¹

¶66

(ii) Mahendra Singh Dhoni Vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar and Ors.

¶67

( Mahendra Singh Dhoni )²

¶68

(iii) Govind Prasad Kejriwal Vs. State of Bihar ( Govind Prasad Kejriwal )³

¶69

1 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶70

2 (2017) 7 SCC 760

¶71

3 AIR 2020 SC 1079

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

(iv) Vesa Holdings P. Ltd. and Ors Vs. State of Kerala ( Vesa Holdings )⁴

¶75

On the other hand learned counsel representing respondent would submit that respondent is a renowned, acclaimed and versatile actress of Kannada Film Industry. The contract for production of serials 'Savalige Sye' (Season 1 and 2) and 'Tutta Mutta' were bagged by her. Since at that time, she was constructing house and was not having surplus funds, she brought in petitioner to produce the same. However, he lacked any experience in the field. He only invested Rs.25 to Rs.30 lakhs for a project worth Rs.4.5 Crores and started getting income after three months by rotating his investment. It was respondent who worked towards designing, management, editing, production, anchor briefing, channel meeting, payment follow-ups, management of entire accounts, TRP demands and point of communication at every possible steps. However, despite exchange of hundreds of e-mails, texts,

¶76

4 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶78

10 -

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

as promised petitioner failed to pay Rs.34,70,000/-

¶81

towards her remuneration.

¶82

5.1 Respondent also worked as a mentor, in story discussion, script, dialogue writing and other preproduction work for the movie "Savarna Dheerga Sandhi'. She also borne the food expenses of the entire caste and crew on few occasions, which comes upto Rs.3.5 lakhs. With regard to the said movie, petitioner is due in a sum of Rs.18 lakhs.

¶83

5.2 Despite repeated request , petitioner has fails to pay said amount. In the this regard respondent gave complaint to the commissioner of police. Despite direction JP Nagar police fails to registered case and issued NCR. Therefore, she has filed private complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate. after recoding her sworn statement, cognizance taken by the jurisdictional magistrate and issued summons. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner and therefore,

¶84

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

the proceeding cannot be quashed and prays to dismiss the petition.

¶87

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶88

The undisputed facts are that petitioner is a producer and director of Kannada cinemas and TV shows and respondent is a senior actor in Kannada cinemas and TV shows. It is also not in dispute that respondent acted in a Tulu movie produced and directed by the petitioner and came to be acquainted with him. It is also not in dispute that the contract for production of TV serials 'Savalige Sye' and 'Tutta Mutta' (Season 1 and 2) were given to the petitioner by Udaya TV and later he also directed and produced Kannada movie 'Savarna Dheerga Sandhi' in which also respondent was given a role. Her house was also rented for 3 days for shooting of the said cinema. While petitioner has alleged that for construction of house, respondent borrowed Rs.41.5 lakhs and failed to repay the

¶89

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

same and on insistence, issued a cheque. It is also not in dispute that when the said cheque was dishonoured, petitioner after issuing legal notice filed complaint in C.C.No.941/2020 before JMFC V Court, Dakshina Kannada

¶92

for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act.

¶93

On the other hand respondent has alleged that

¶94

though the contract for production and direction of 'Savalige Sye' and 'Tutta Mutta' (Season 1 and 2) and Kannada movie 'Savarna Dheerga Sandhi' were bagged by petitioner, he only produced them and all the work behind the camera was carried out by respondent, for which he is liable to pay Rs.52.7 lakhs and when the shooting of 'Savarna Dheerga Sandhi' was carried out for 3 days in her house, petitioner has committed theft of cheque and based on it has filed false complaint.

¶95

Admittedly, there is no written contract between respondent and petitioner with regard to payment of Rs.52.7 lakhs. On the other hand, the petitioner has claimed that the loan of Rs.41 lakhs was paid to the

¶96

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

respondent through account transfer. So far as payments made by petitioner to the respondent are concerned, respondent has claimed that they were payments due to her.

¶99

Thus, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. While the J.P.Nagar police on making preliminary enquiry on the complaint filed by respondent, refused to register the case and issued NCR dated 10.06.2020, the Thalaghattapura Police though registered case in Cr.No.103/2020, after conducting detailed investigation, filed 'B' report. Admittedly, respondent has not challenged the 'B' report. On the other hand, she has chosen to file a private complaint in PCR.No.7120/2020.

¶100

It is pertinent to note that in the complaint filed in PCR.No.7120/2020, though the respondent has pleaded that being influenced by the petitioner, the J.P.Nagar police failed to register the case, she has not disclose the fact of filing the complaint before Thalaghattapura Police on

¶101

14 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

09.07.2020 and registering a case in Cr.No.103/2020 and

¶105

ultimate filing of 'B' report by the said police and the fact that she has not challenged the 'B' report. In the light of the same, the trial Court did not have the occasion to examine whether after filing of the 'B' report and on the failure of respondent challenged the same, she is still entitled to file the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

¶106

Anyhow, fact remains that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. In the light of the assertion by the respondent that certain payments have been made by the petitioner towards the amount due to her and has cheated her with regard to the balance payment, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vesa Holdings , offence under Section 420 is not attracted. Of course, the respondent is at liberty to file civil suit and recover the amount allegedly due to her. In the trial for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act pending against her, it is also open to the respondent to prove that Rs.41 lakhs paid by petitioner is not a loan, but an amount

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:34419 CRL.P No. 5669 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6694 of 2021

¶108