Mr. Vedaraman Kailasam v. M/S Sandur Fluid Controls Private Limited

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025CRL.P/9643/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 CrPC quashing petition; cognizance order dated 31.03.2023 in PCR No.12039/2022; proceedings C.C.No.10382/2023 before IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore; offences under Section 420 read with Section 34 IPC from private complaint by M/s Sandur Fluid Controls Private Limited; accused from M/s Iconic Engineering Technology Pvt Ltd; dispute civil in nature pertaining to business transaction; disputes amicably resolved; joint memo dated 12.11.2025; petition allowed and C.C. proceedings quashed; High Court of Karnataka, Justice M.I. Arun, 12.11.2025.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.10382/2023 pending on the file of the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore quashed. ¶¶41

Mr. Vedaraman Kailasam Vs M/S Sandur Fluid Controls… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46087 CRL.P No. 9643 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9643 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. VEDARAMAN KAILASAM MANAGING DIRECTOR IN M/S ICONIC ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD SON OF LATE KAILASAM AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1, 5 AND 12 GROUND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI HEIGHTS -B WING MUMBAI PUNE HIGHWAY PIMPRI, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411 018.

¶9

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

MRS. LALITHA VEDARAMAN DIRECTOR IN M/S ICONIC ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY PVT LTD AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O VEDARAMAN HAVING OFFICE AT NO.1, 5 AND 12 GROUND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI HEIGHTS -B WING MUMBAI PUNE HIGHWAY PIMPRI, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411 018.

¶11

DR. SHRUTHI VEDARAMAN IYER AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶12

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46087 CRL.P No. 9643 of 2023

¶13

HC-KAR

¶14

DAUGHTER OF VEDARAMAN NO.1, 5 AND 12 GROUND FLOOR, MAHALAKSHMI HEIGHTS -B WING MUMBAI PUNE HIGHWAY PIMPRI, PUNE, MAHARASHTRA-411 018.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. P B RAJU, ADVOCATES)

¶17

AND:

¶18

M/S SANDUR FLUID CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED NO.103, (BEHIND TEXPORT OVERSEAS UNIT -5) 2^ND STAGE, INDUSTRIALS SUBURB YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE 560 022 A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956 REP. BY SRI B V KUMARASWAMY COMMERCIAL MANAGER.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SMT.VEENA J.KAMATH., ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 31.03.2023 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE IX ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE IN PCR.NO.12039/2022 AT ANNEXURE-A, ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶24

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:46087 CRL.P No. 9643 of 2023

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The criminal petition is filed with the following

¶29

prayers:

¶30

"1. Quash the orders taking cognizance dated 31/3/2023 passed by the Hon'ble IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore in PCR No.12039/2022 at Annexure-A.

¶31

2. Quash the Proceedings C.C.No.10382/2023 before the Hon'ble IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bangalore at Annexure-B.

¶32

3. Pass any such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interests of justice and equity."

¶33

The trial Court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') as against the petitioners herein, based on a private complaint filed by the respondent herein.

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46087 CRL.P No. 9643 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners as well as

¶37

the respondent together submit that the matter is civil in nature and it pertains to a business transaction between the parties concerned and that they have resolved their disputes amicably and that the respondent is not interested in prosecuting the case against the petitioners herein. Their submission is placed on record. They have also filed a joint memo dated 12.11.2025 which is taken on record.

¶38

4. As the dispute is primarily civil in nature and

¶39

the parties have resolved their dispute in the interest of justice, I am of the opinion that the petition requires to be allowed. Hence the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i. The criminal petition is allowed ;

¶42

ii. The proceedings in C.C.

¶43

No.10382/2023, pending on the file

¶44

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:46087 CRL.P No. 9643 of 2023

¶46