Mr. Peyush Bansal v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2025CRL.P/806/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Mohammad Nawaz J, 18.12.2025), Crl.P. 806/2025 c/w W.P. 38465/2025 — FIR Crime No.100/2024, Devaraja PS Mysuru (ss.120B/420/477A/468/471/406 r/w 34 & 37 IPC) and notices dated 06.01.2025 quashed after settlement between petitioners (officials/ex-employees of Lenskart Solutions Ltd per joint memo) and complainant; Narinder Singh (2014) 6 SCC 466 relied on; petitions allowed, pending IAs disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petitions allowed; the FIR in Crime No.100/2024 of Devaraja Police Station, Mysuru City, and consequential proceedings quashed; pending IAs disposed of. ¶¶98

Mr. Peyush Bansal Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:54375 CRL.P No. 806 of 2025 C/W WP No. 38465 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 806 OF 2025 C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 38465 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶9

IN CRL.P No. 806/2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

MR. PEYUSH BANSAL SON OF BAL KISHAN BANSAL, AGED 41 YEARS, AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048.

¶12

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MS. NEHA BANSAL DAUGHTER OF BAL KISHAN BANSAL, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048.

¶14

MR. RAMNEEK KHURANA SON OF HARISH KHURANA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048.

¶15

MR. MAUSAM GHOSH SON OF SUBRATA KUMAR GHOSH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:54375 CRL.P No. 806 of 2025 C/W WP No. 38465 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048.

¶19

MR. AMIT DHALLA SON OF HEMANT KUMAR DHALLA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048.

¶20

MR. MOHAMMAD MUTAHER ZERGER SON OF GHULAM JEELANI ZERGER, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048.

¶21

MR. GR SUNIL MENON SON OF K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SMT. ANNAPOORNA S., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEVARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶26

MR. SOMA SHEKARA A. @ SOMASHEKARA @ SOMASHEKAR SON LATE ASHWATHA NARAYAN,

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:54375 CRL.P No. 806 of 2025 C/W WP No. 38465 of 2025

¶28

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

MANAGING PARTNER – M/S. RHEA LENSES, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.9, D. DEVARAJA URS ROAD, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU-570 001.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. BHARADWAJ SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶33

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO: (A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR DATED 26.10.2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.100/2024 BY DEVARAJA P.S. AND IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 26.10.2024 (ANNEXURE-B) ON THE FILE OF THE 4^TH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C COURT, JLB ROAD, MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 420, 477A, 468, 471, 406 R/W 34 AND 37 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860; (B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES DATED 06.01.2025 (ANNEXURES-E-E6) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN CRIME NO.100/2024 BY DEVARAJA P.S ON THE FILE OF THE 4^TH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C COURT, JLB ROAD, MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 420, 477A, 468, 471, 406 R/W 34 AND 37 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

¶34

IN WP NO. 38465/2025

¶35

BETWEEN:

¶36

MS. MUKTI HARIHARAN DAUGHTER OF ASHOK HARIHARAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048. ALSO AT PLOT NO.151, OHKLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-III, NEW DELHI-110 020.

¶37

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:54375 CRL.P No. 806 of 2025 C/W WP No. 38465 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

MR. BHARATH GARG SON OF HEM CHAND GARG, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048. ALSO AT PLOT NO.151, OHKLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-III, NEW DELHI-110 020.

¶40

MS. LEENA HIRANANDANI DAUGHTER OF HIRA LAL HIRANANDANI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048. ALSO AT PLOT NO.151, OHKLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-III, NEW DELHI-110 020.

¶41

MR. RUCHIN SHARMA SON OF SURESH SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048. ALSO AT PLOT NO.151, OHKLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-III, NEW DELHI-110 020.

¶42

MR. SHARATH RAJU SON OF K. KRISHNA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, AT W-123, GREATER KAILASH, PART - II, NEW DELHI-110 048. ALSO AT PLOT NO.151, OHKLA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PHASE-III, NEW DELHI-110 020.

¶43

...PETITIONERS

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:54375 CRL.P No. 806 of 2025 C/W WP No. 38465 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

(BY SMT. ANNAPOORNA S., ADVOCATE)

¶47

AND:

¶48

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEVARAJA POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALORE-560 001.

¶49

MR. SOMA SHEKARA A. @ SOMASHEKARA @ SOMASHEKAR, SON OF LATE MR. ASHWATHA NARAYAN, MANAGING PARTNER – M/S. RHEA LENSES, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, NO.9, D. DEVARAJA URS ROAD, DEVARAJA MOHALLA, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU-570 001.

¶50

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ECONOMIC OFFENCES DIVISION, CID NO.1, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶51

...RESPONDENTS

¶52

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. BHARADWAJ SHESHADRI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶53

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023, PRAYING TO: (A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR DATED 26.10.2024 (ANNEXURE A) AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN CRIME

¶54

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:54375 CRL.P No. 806 of 2025 C/W WP No. 38465 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

NO.0100 OF 2024 AND IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 26.10.2024 (ANNEXURE-B) ON THE FILE OF THE 4^TH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DVN) AND JMFC COURT, JLB ROAD, MYSORE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120 (B), 420, 477A, 468, 471,406, R/W 34 AND 37 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860; (B) QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES DATED 06.01.2025 (ANNEXURES C-C2) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CRIME 0100/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE 4^TH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DVN) AND JMFC COURT, JLB ROAD, MYSORE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 420, 477A, 468, 471,406, R/W 34 AND 37 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860, IN SO FAR PETITIONERS CONCERNED.

¶57

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR SETTLEMENT, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶58

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶59

ORAL ORDER

¶60

The above petitions arise out of Crime No.100/2024 of Devaraja Police Station, Mysuru City registered for the offence punishable under Section 120B, 420, 477A, 468, 471, 406, 34 and 37 of the IPC.

¶61

Petitioners are seeking to quash the investigation and impugned notices issued against them.

¶62

The law was set in motion by the respondent

¶63

No.2. The complainant has alleged falsification of accounts, financial frauds etc., by the petitioners.

¶64

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:54375 CRL.P No. 806 of 2025 C/W WP No. 38465 of 2025

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

The learned counsel appearing for the parties

¶67

submitted that the dispute has been resolved and in pursuance of a detailed and comprehensive reconciliation, all disputes/issues raised by respondent No.2, stand completely closed. Further, even the persons named in the complaint in this regard are also filing affidavits along with the joint memo.

¶68

A joint memo is filed signed by the learned

¶69

counsel for petitioners and respondent No.2, as well as respondent No.2/defacto complainant.

¶70

Para 1 to 7 of the joint memo reads as under:

¶71

“1. On the basis of the Impugned Complaint dated 26.10.2024 filed by the de-facto complainantRespondent No.2, Respondent No.1 Police has registered the Impugned FIR bearing Crime No.0100/2024 on the same date, i.e., 26.10.2024.

¶72

2. The Petitioners are high ranking officials and exemployees of Lenskart Solutions Limited ("Company") who have filed the captioned criminal petition before this Hon'ble Court seeking quashing of the Impugned Complaint and FIR.

¶73

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:54375 CRL.P No. 806 of 2025 C/W WP No. 38465 of 2025

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

3. It is submitted that all franchise arrangements and related agreements have been severed as on date on account of termination/expiry by efflux of time.

¶76

4. It is submitted that pursuant to ongoing discussions and deliberations between Respondent No.2, individuals/entities mentioned in the Impugned Complaint and the Company and in pursuance of a detailed and comprehensive reconciliation exercise, all issues/disputes raised by Respondent No.2, individuals/entities stand completely closed. Affidavits have been executed by persons named in the complaint in this regard. The affidavits are produced herewith as AnnexureA-A12 to this joint memo. The Respondent No.2 and other persons named in the Impugned Complaint and Impugned FIR have agreed that in acknowledgment of the closure of all their issues as contractual and commercial disputes, no further issues remain between the parties and the same are closed as on date.

¶77

5. It is submitted that upon discussions with the Company, the issues and concerns of all persons/entities named in the complaint with respect to books and PoS have been resolved.

¶78

6. It is submitted that there is a clear and unequivocal understanding and undertaking by the franchisees including Respondent No.2 and other persons named in the Impugned Complaint and all

¶79

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:54375 CRL.P No. 806 of 2025 C/W WP No. 38465 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

persons/entities claiming through or under any and/all of them, that all and/ any issues, disputes, claims, debts and dues raised are purely commercial/contractual in nature and no criminality exists to continue any investigation under the Impugned FIR. 7. In view of the above, the Petitioners and Respondent No.2 jointly pray that appropriate orders be passed quashing the Impugned Complaint (Annexure-B) and Impugned FIR (Annexure-A) initiated by Respondent No.2 (and any/all other franchisees through or in Respondent No.2's name against the Company and/or any of its promoters, founders, employees (including former employees), officers, directors, representatives, agents, subsidiaries etc and consequently quash the Impugned Notices (Annexure E-E5).”

¶82

Respondent No.2 is present before the Court.

¶83

He submits that the dispute has been resolved and therefore, he has no objection to quash the FIR registered on his complaint.

¶84

The dispute is purely private in nature, wherein respondent No.2, the defacto complainant has resolved the issue raised by him and he has no objection to quash

¶85

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:54375 CRL.P No. 806 of 2025 C/W WP No. 38465 of 2025

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

the proceedings. Along with the joint memo, the affidavits

¶88

of the persons mentioned in the complaint are enclosed.

¶89

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Narinder Singh and

¶90

Others V. State of Punjab and Another reported in (2014) 6 SCC 466 has held that when the parties have reached the settlement and on that basis, petition for quashing the criminal proceedings is filed, the guiding factor in such cases would be:(i) to secure the ends of justice; or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court. It is further held that the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil character, particularly those arising out of commercial transactions or arising out of matrimonial relationship or family disputes should be quashed when the parties have resolved their entire disputes among themselves.

¶91

In the above facts and circumstances, the continuation of investigation in the impugned FIR would not serve any purpose. Hence, in the interest of justice,

¶92