Mahindra Cie Automotive Ltd. Vs State by Jigani Police Station

PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S CIE AUTOMOTIVE INDIA LTD (FORGING DIVISION ) PLANT - 2 PLOT NO. 98, L7M, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE -2, JIGANI , BENGALURU - 560 105 BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER SRI SUNIL PANCHAPPANARKE S/O PANCHAPPA NARKE AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRI SURSH BABU L S/O LAKSHMINARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS SENIOR EXECUTIVE HR

¶12

SRI. DHANASEKARAN PALANI S/O PALANI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS HEAD PLANT MAINTENANCE

¶13

SRI.C.J. TERRENCE S/O P J CHERIAN AGE ABOUT 49 YEARS

¶14

DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER PURCHASE

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI SRITHAR S S/O SAMBASIVAM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

¶19

SRI GIRISH SUBRAMANYAM S/O V S SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS SENIOR EXECUTIVE - PURCHASE

¶20

SRI SUNIL KUMAR MOHINI S/O BIPRA CHARAN MOHINI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER FINANCE

¶21

SRI BOPANNA K D S/O DEVAIAH K S AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS GROUP PLANT HEAD

¶22

SRI. SANTOSH N K S/O BASAVARAJAPPA H AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER - HR IR

¶23

SRI SRINIVASAN R S/O RANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER - I R

¶24

HARISH C M S/O MAHESH C S AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS SENIOR EXECUTIVE PURCHASE

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

PETITIONER NO.2 TO 11 WORKING AT PRESENTLY KNOWN AS M/S CIE AUTOMOTIVE INDIA LTD (FORGING DIVISION ) PLANT - 2 PLOT NO 98, L7M, KIADB INDUSTRIAL AREA, PHASE -2 JIGANI , BENGALURU - 560 105

¶28

…PETITIONERS

¶29

(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

STATE BY JIGANI POLICE STATION ANEKAL SUB DIVISION ANEKAL BENGALURU DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR , HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001

¶32

BASLICA ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR OPP KEB OFFICE, MAIN ROAD, JIGANI TOWN, AND POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 105 REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI. AROCKIYASWMAY

¶33

…RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. R.V. SHIVANANDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶35

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 14.08.2024 PASSED IN PCR.NO.343/2024 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.171/2024 REGISTERED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT JIGANI P.S., BY ARRAYING THE PETITIONERS AS ACCUSED, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 AND 61(2) OF BNS ACT, 2023.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

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

¶40

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶41

ORAL ORDER

¶42

The petitioner-company along with it's employees has filed the captioned petition seeking to set-aside the order dated 14.08.2024 in PCR No.343/2024 passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal and to quash the proceedings pending in Crime No.171 of 2024 registered in the Jigani Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶43

The facts leading to the case are as under:

¶44

As per the version of the second respondent– complainant, it is engaged in the business of fabrication and allied works. It is alleged that, pursuant to a purchase order placed by the first petitioner–company during the year 2019, the complainant was entrusted with certain

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

fabrication works. Upon completion of the said work, the complainant claims to have raised bills and invoices which were duly tendered to the first petitioner–company, asserting that a sum of Rs.80,00,000/- remains due towards the fabrication work executed.

¶48

The complainant further contends that despite submission of invoices and repeated demands, the first petitioner–company, by referring to its internal records, denied any liability. This, according to the complainant, compelled it to lodge a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate, upon receiving the complaint, referred the matter for investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNS, 2023. Aggrieved by the issuance of summons, the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners, reiterating

¶50

the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the allegations, even if taken at face value, disclose a dispute

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

which is essentially civil in nature arising out of a contractual relationship. Hence, continuation of the proceedings in Crime No.171/2024 is legally unsustainable. It is further urged that the learned Magistrate has failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 175(3) of the BNS, 2023 inasmuch as no report from the jurisdictional police officer was secured before making a reference for investigation. On this ground alone, it is contended, the order of reference stands vitiated.

¶55

In support of his submissions, learned counsel

¶56

for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of

¶57

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club Ltd. and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another , wherein it has been held that the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot co-exist in the same factual setting.

¶58

On this principle also, it is argued, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the

¶62

second respondent–complainant seeks to justify the order of reference passed by the learned Magistrate. He submits that despite completion of the entrusted fabrication work, the petitioners have unlawfully withheld payment of the legitimate dues of the complainant. It is further contended that when the complainant demanded payment, petitioner Nos.2 to 11 allegedly threatened the complainant, thereby constituting cognizable offences. On these grounds, it is argued that the private complaint has been rightly entertained and no interference is called for at this stage.

¶63

I have heard the rival submissions of the

¶64

learned counsel appearing for the parties and have carefully perused the material on record, including the private complaint lodged by the second respondent– complainant.

¶65

In order to bring the allegations within the ambit of Section 318 of the BNS, 2023 (corresponding to

¶66

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Section 420 of the IPC), it is not sufficient for the complainant to merely allege that an act of cheating has taken place. The law mandates that there must be specific and tangible material to prima facie demonstrate the existence of dishonest inducement on the part of the accused, coupled with the intention to deceive at the very inception of the transaction. The essential ingredients of the offence require that the person alleged to have been deceived was fraudulently or dishonestly induced to deliver property, or to consent to the retention of property, or was intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not have done or omitted if he were not so deceived, and such act or omission caused or was likely to cause damage or harm.

¶69

Therefore, it becomes the duty of this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to carefully scrutinize whether the complaint averments, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the basic ingredients necessary to

¶70

9 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

constitute the offence under Section 318 of the BNS, 2023. A mere allegation of non-payment for work executed or a simple breach of contractual obligation, without any foundation of fraudulent or dishonest intent at the inception, would at best give rise to a civil dispute and cannot, by itself, amount to cheating punishable under criminal law.

¶74

In the present case, having regard to the submissions made, this Court finds it appropriate to reproduce paragraphs 4 to 6 of the private complaint, which form the core of the allegations sought to be pressed into service against the petitioners. The said paragraphs read as under:

¶75

"4. The complainant submits that, when such being the facts, the Complainant was completed the Fabrication work as per the orders issued by the Accused company since from 2019-2020 financial years, the total cost of the fabrication work amount of Rs.80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Only), in this regard the complainant was handed over all the Delivery Challans and Quotation receipts to Accused

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

company, when such being the facts, the Accused company was agreed/promise to settle the outstanding bills in favour of the complainant and demanded the complainant to hand over the entire original receipts to accused company in order to finalized the Bills, as believing the words of the Accused company, the complainant was handed over original invoice and bills to Accused company, since from the date of handed over, the complainant was waiting for bill amount of Rs.80,00,000/- by taking the advantage of the same, every time the Accused company was postpone to clear the payment to complainant, after some time accused try to avoid the complainant on such complainant demanded to clear payment amount, also complainant warned them that he will lodge police complaint, but accused with criminal back ground who is having don’t bother attitude keep on escaping, since from 2019-20 till today Accused failed to clear the payment to Complainant. The copy of the Quotations and Delivery Challans are furnished are produced herewith as DOCUMENT No.1 to 30.

¶80

5. The complainant submits that, when complainant questioned 1^st Accused for such act, he always threatened of dire consequences and that he would go to any extent if the officials of the

¶81

11 -

¶82

NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

Complainant enters the premises of Accused company and further, the has given life threat to the representative of the Complainant stating that he will not leave if anyone tries to enter the premises of Accused company. It is pertinent to mentioned here that, the Complainant having invested the amount of Rs.80,00,000/- towards the work which is done by the company, such being the case, 1^st Accused who is locality of the area has high influence in the society and fraud committed by the accused only when acted hostile and given life threat to him.

¶85

6. The complainant submits that, Under these circumstances, the Complainant had approached the jurisdictional Police Station on 14.05.2024 and filed the complaint before it, but however for the reason best known to the Officer in charge, an NCR bearing No.408/2024 was registered. Further, no action was taken as against the Accused persons by the concerned Officer. Left with no other option, the Complainant approached the DYSP and Superintendent of Police on 04.07.2024, filed its complaint but yet again no action whatsoever was taken against the Accused persons. The copies of the NCR No.408/2024 registered by the jurisdictional Police Station is produced herewith as DOCUMENT No.31. The copy

¶86

12 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

of Postal receipts are produced herewith as DOCUMNENT NO.32 & 33."

¶90

On a meticulous examination of the extracted portions of the private complaint, this Court is of the considered view that the substratum of the allegations made by the second respondent–complainant is that he had completed the fabrication work entrusted to him by the first petitioner–company, whereas the first petitioner– company, on the other hand, is contending that the entire contractual liability has already been discharged and that no amount whatsoever is due and payable. The pleadings in the complaint, when read as a whole, unmistakably disclose that the controversy revolves around an alleged outstanding monetary claim. The dispute, therefore, essentially relates to the determination of whether any sum is in fact legally due to the complainant, which is a matter falling squarely within the province of civil adjudication.

¶91

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

A bare reading of the complaint averments

¶94

further reveals that the complainant, instead of approaching the competent Civil Court for recovery of the alleged outstanding dues, has attempted to give a criminal

¶95

colour to a dispute which is fundamentally civil in nature. Whether or not the first petitioner–company has paid the entire amount claimed, whether the invoices raised by the complainant are justified, and whether any balance is in fact due, are all disputed questions of fact which necessarily require adjudication by a Civil Court upon appreciation of evidence, and not by the machinery of criminal law. It is in this context that this Court is constrained to observe that the learned Magistrate, without applying his judicial mind to the nature of the dispute and without satisfying himself as to the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, has mechanically referred the complaint for investigation under Section 175(3) of the BNS, 2023. An investigating officer is neither empowered nor competent to adjudicate upon disputed

¶96

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

civil claims relating to payments under a contract. Permitting such an investigation would amount to misusing the criminal process for a purpose not contemplated by law.

¶99

Even otherwise, the private complaint is styled as alleging both criminal breach of trust and cheating. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that a complaint alleging these two offences simultaneously is inherently unsustainable, inasmuch as the ingredients of both offences are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist in the same transaction. In the absence of specific and foundational allegations to establish dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction, the offence of cheating under Section 318 of the BNS, 2023 is not made out. Similarly, in the absence of any clear entrustment and subsequent dishonest misappropriation, the offence of criminal breach of trust cannot be sustained. On this ground also, the continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is wholly untenable.

¶100

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:32372 CRL.P No. 9758 of 2024

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

For all the foregoing reasons, this Court is of

¶103

the opinion that the continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would result in miscarriage of justice. This Court is, therefore, inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the ends of justice.

¶104

ORDER

¶105

(i) The petition is hereby allowed;

¶106

(ii) The order dated 14.08.2024 passed in PCR No.343/2024 by the Court of the III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, is set aside;

¶107

(iii) Consequently, the proceedings in Crime No.171/2024 registered at Jigani Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 351(3), 352 and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are hereby quashed.

¶108

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶109

YN; List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Mahindra Cie Automotive Ltd. v. State by Jigani Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahindra Cie Automotive Ltd. v. State by Jigani Police Station

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

Mr. Kaushik. S. Raj Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Usman T @ Usman Thang Ethail Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. Venugopal. K. v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Imran Khan Vs State by Basvangudi Women P S

Lakshmi Ranagaiah P Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Hari Prasad M Vs State by