N Chandrashekhar @ Chandra @ Kotanotu Chandra Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

N Chandrashekhar @ Chandra @ Kotanotu Chandra Vs… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.567/2023 (Ss.120B & 420 r/w S.34 IPC, alleging inducement through promises of low-interest loans and cheating of Rs.90,00,000/-) should be quashed as being essentially a civil/money-recovery dispute. +1 more

Court's answer

Adopting its earlier decision in ROSHAN SALDANHA, the Court holds that where a prima facie case of criminal culpability is made out, civil and criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously, and the Court cannot interfere when there are seriously disputed questions of fact.

Ratio / Principle

Since the charge sheet has been filed in the subject petition and the fulcrum of the complaint and the modus operandi of the accused remain the same as in ROSHAN SALDANHA, the issue stands completely answered by that judgment; the proceedings call for no interference.

Key takeaways

For the aforesaid reasons the petition stands dismissed.ratio¶147

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS) by accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.567/2023 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga, for offences punishable under Sections 120B & 420 r/w Section 34 IPC. The complaint alleged that the petitioners, along with others, formed a crime syndicate and induced the complainant with the promise of securing loans at low interest rates, cheating him of Rs.90,00,000/- (Crime No.0233 of 2021); on investigation a charge sheet was filed and the case registered as C.C.No.567 of 2023. Following its earlier order in ROSHAN SALDANHA v. State of Karnataka, 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 1506 — which compiled Supreme Court authority (Rocky; Anurag Bhatnagar; Kathyayini; Punit Beriwala; Neeharika Infrastructure; State of M.P. v. Kunwar Singh; Somjeet Mallick) holding that a transaction may give rise to both civil and criminal proceedings, that mere availability of civil remedy or pendency of civil suits does not bar prosecution where a prima facie case is made out, and that courts at the threshold must not test the merits or thwart investigation — the Court held that the fulcrum of the complaint and the modus operandi of the accused remain the same and the issue stood completely answered by ROSHAN SALDANHA. Petition dismissed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10148 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC) / 528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

N CHANDRASHEKHAR @ CHANDRA @KOTANOTU CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O. LATE NARASIMHALU R/AT S.L.N NILAYA, KOTE ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501.

SHEKHARA S@ SURESHA

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

S/O. LATE SHESHANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT SRI. LAKSHMI NARAYANA NILAYA OPP ITI COLLEGE JAT PAT NAGARA CIRCLE JOGIMATTI ROAD CHITRADURGA -577501.

C.YADHU KUMAR @ YADHU @ GIRI S/O.CHANDRASHEKARA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA NILAYA THA. RAA.SU BEEDHI, KOTE ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501.

HARISHA

S/O. CHANDRASHEKARA

AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA NILAYA THA. RAA.SU BEEDHI, KOTE ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

N.GEETHA @ GEETHAMMA D/O H NARASIMHALU AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT SLN NILAYA THA. RAA.SU BEEDHI, KOTE ROAD CHITRADURGA-577501.

ROSHAN @ MANGALORE ROSHAN S/O JOHN SALDANHA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/ AT NO 1-30/2-A BAJAJ BOLLA GUDDA BAJAL CHURCH, BOLLA GUDDA HOUSE KANKANADY, AMBALAPADI GRAMA MANGALURU-575027.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. RAVI H K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY CHITRADURGA TOWN POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA-577501 BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.

T.SHIVAKUMAR S/O. LATE THAMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS 20/1, SANKRITI, 1ST CROSS GAVIPURAM BADAVANE BENGALURU-560009.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M M., HCGP FOR R1: SRI. P N MANMOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B R SRIVATSA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.567/2023 ON THE FILE OF COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B), 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner's who are accused No.1 and accused Nos.3 to 7 are before this Court, calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.567 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B & 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chitradurga.

2. Heard Sri. Ravi H.K. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. Waheeda M.M. learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 and Sri. P.N. Manmohan learned counsel for Sri B.R. Srivatasa learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The respondent No.2 - complainant lodges a complaint before the respondent No.1 - police alleging that the petitioners

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

along with others, had formed a crime syndicate, and by inducing the complainant with the promise of securing loans at low interest rates, they had cheated him of a sum of Rs.90,00,000/-. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.0233 of 2021. The police upon completion of investigation, file a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 120B & 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC, arraying the petitioners as accused in the case. On the basis of the said charge sheet, a case comes to be registered before the concerned Court in C.C.No.567 of 2023. It is challenging these proceedings which are pending before the concerned Court, the petitioners are before this Court, in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 - complainant would submit that the entire fulcrum of the lis is considered by this Court in the case of ROSHAN SALDANHA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA¹ . The accused in the said case is also an accused in the case before this Court. While noticing the facts of the case, this Court in ROSHAN SALDANHA supra has held as follows:

1 2026 SCC OnLine Kar 1506

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

“…… …… ……

10. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the matter which is purely money transaction is rendered a colour of crime and the complainants ought to have resorted to filing of civil suits against these petitioners for recovery of money. The said submission is noted only to be repelled. It is trite that a particular transaction can give rise to registration of two proceedings, one the civil proceedings and the other the criminal culpability. The criminal culpability in the cases are writ large albeit, prima facie . It is in such circumstances the Supreme Court has held that civil and criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously.

The Apex Court in the case of ROCKY v. STATE OF TELANGANA² has held as follows:

“….

24. The appellant's core contention, that the dispute is purely civil in nature, is untenable at this stage. Although courts must guard against giving criminal colour to civil disputes, it is equally well settled that the existence of civil remedies does not preclude criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose the essential ingredients of an offence. Civil and criminal proceedings may validly coexist if the factual matrix supports both.”

11.1. Again, the Apex Court in the case of ANURAG BHATNAGAR v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)³ has held as follows:

“….

45. The allegations in the application moved under Section 156(3) CrPC and the material in support thereof reveals that SHL is contending breach of the conditions of MoU dated 11.03.1995 and that it has been induced and deceived by VLS for entering into the aforesaid MoU. VLS has cheated SHL and

2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2713

3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

its officers by making a false promise which was legally impossible to be carried out. The allegations of breach of conditions of the MoU or of making a false promise by itself may not give rise to any criminal action as no criminality is attached to it. However, there are elements of inducement, criminal conspiracy and cheating which are also borne out from the allegations made in the application and the complaint, which if proved, may amount to commission of an offence. Therefore, once such allegations are made out, it is difficult for the court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with the FIR, only for the reason that some of the disputes are of civil nature which may or may not be having any criminality attached to it.

46. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court, especially in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal Singh, that the discretion to quash an FIR at a nascent stage has to be exercised with great caution and circumspection. In this connection, it would be beneficial to refer to an old case of Privy Council in King Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad Khwaja wherein the law was well settled that the courts would not thwart any investigation or that the courts should be very slow in interfering with the process of investigation. It is only in rare cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR that the court may stop the investigation so as to avoid the harassment of the alleged accused. Even in such exercise of power, the court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint which have to be examined only after the evidence is collected.

47. The breach of conditions of the MoU or allegations of false promises in relation to the aforesaid MoU are undisputedly subject matter of the different FIRs lodged by VLS itself. Therefore, violation of those conditions for some reasons have been considered by VLS to be offensive. Therefore, the High Court rightly held that if breach of those conditions of the MoU itself has been considered to be of criminal nature by VLS, it cannot be permitted to turn around and allege that such

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

breach of conditions would be of pure civil nature.

48. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances, we do not consider to go into detail as to the exact nature of disputes involved in the FIR and leave the same to be adjudicated upon by the appropriate court where the chargesheets have been submitted.”

11.2. In the case of KATHYAYINI v. SIDHARTH P.S. REDDY⁴ the Apex Court has held as follows:

“….

19. We now come to the issue of bar against prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We hereby hold that no such bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit. Learned senior counsel Dr.MenakaGuruswamy has rightly placed the relevant judicial precedents to support the above submission. In the case of K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.³ , this Court has reviewed its precedents which clarify the position. The relevant paragraph from the above judgment is extracted below:

“8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law.”

20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kuma r⁴ , this Court summed up the distinction between the two remedies as under:

“21. … There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State

4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real intent of the law.”

21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B.,

“17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.”

22. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this Court in K. Jagadish (supra) set aside the holding of High Court to quash the criminal proceedings and held that criminal proceedings shall continue to its logical end.

23. The above precedents set by this Court make it crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. In present case certainly such prima facie case exists against the respondents. Considering the long chain of events from creation of family tree excluding the daughters of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, partition deed among only the sons and grandsons of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, distribution of compensation award among the respondents is sufficient to conclude that there was active effort by respondents to reap off the benefits from the land in question. Further, the alleged threat to appellant and her sisters on revelation of the above chain of events further affirms the motive of respondents. All the above factors suggest that a criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the appellant.”

11.3. Later, in the case of PUNIT BERIWALA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)⁵ the Apex Court holds as follows:

“… …. …. MERE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS CANNOT ACT AS A BAR TO INVESTIGATION OF COGNIZABLE OFFENCES

28. It is trite law that mere institution of civil proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This Court in various judgments, has held that simply because there is a remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to conclude that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court. This Court is of the view that because the offence was committed during a commercial transaction , it would not be sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further investigation and if necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.), (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP, (2012) 3 SCC

5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

132 and Trisuns Chemicals v. Rajesh Aggarwal, (1999) 8 SCC 686 ]”.

(Emphasis supplied at each instance)

The Apex Court in ROCKY 's case supra reaffirmed the settled principle, that a mere availability of a civil remedy does not by itself eclipse the jurisdiction of the criminal law, where the allegations on their face disclose essential ingredients of a recognizable offence. In the said matter, the allegations levelled were invoking Sections 406, 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC. Upon a careful and nuanced examination of the factual matrix, the Apex Court deemed it appropriate to interdict the prosecution, only insofar as the offence under Section 406 of the IPC was concerned, while allowing the remaining charges to stand and the criminal trial to proceed. This course was adopted upon Court's satisfaction, that notwithstanding the presence of civil elements, the controversy could not be characterized as one of a purely civil complexion.

11.4. In ANURAG BHATNAGAR 's case supra, the Apex Court once again declined to exercise its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceedings, noting that the memorandum of understanding between the parties was not a mere commercial arrangement simpliciter, but one imbued with allegations of inducement and criminal breach of trust, as borne out from the averments contained in the complaint. The Court held that the allegations, if taken to its face value, were sufficient to constitute the commission of a criminal offence and therefore, warranted adjudication through the rigours of a criminal trial.

11.5. In KATHYAYINI's case supra, where civil suits involving identical parties arising out of the same transaction were admittedly pending, the Apex Court held that pendency of civil proceedings cannot be employed as a shield to thwart criminal prosecution. The Court underscored that where the allegations disclose a prima facie case against the accused, the continuance of criminal

11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

proceedings is neither impermissible nor an abuse of the process, notwithstanding the existence of parallel civil litigation between the same parties.

11.6. Echoing this well entrenched jurisprudence, the Apex Court in PUNIT BERIWALA supra categorically held that mere institution of civil proceedings does not operate as a legal embargo upon the investigation or prosecution of a cognizable criminal offence. The Court, thus, reinforced the salutary principle that civil and criminal remedies though they may arise from the same set of facts, operate in distinct spheres and pursue fundamentally different objectives , a caveat, it would depend on facts obtaining in each of the cases.

The matter is still at the stage of crime. Even before the ink on the crime could dry, the accused are before this Court calling in question the crimes so registered on the afore-quoted offences and the criminal law being set into motion for the purpose of recovery of money. It is by now a too well settled principle of law that the FIR is not of offence, what is alleged is to be investigated into and the investigation must ensue. The Apex Court in the case of NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA⁶ , has held as follows:

“….

33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the

6 (2021) 19 SCC 401

12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure .”

12.1. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. KUNWAR SINGH⁷ , has held as follows:

“…. …. ….

8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrP C by enquiring into the merits of the allegations at the present stage. The fact that the respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in dispute. This, in fact, has been adverted to in the judgment of the High Court. The High Court has also noted that a person who is required to approve a financial proposal is duty bound to observe due care and responsibility. There are specific allegations in regard to the irregularities which have been committed in the course of the work of the ‘Janani Mobility Express’ under the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage, the High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material in the manner in which the trial court would do in the course of the criminal trial after evidence is adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded the well-settled limits on the exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrP C. A detailed enquiry into the merits of the allegations was not warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving financial irregularities in the course of the administration of a public scheme. A final report has been submitted under Section 1 73 of C rP C, after investigation. ”

7 2021 SCC OnLine SC 3668

13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

12.2. In the case of SOMJEET MALLICK v. STATE OF JHARKHAND ,⁸ has held as follows:

“….

15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage.

16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused . As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation.

17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie,

8 (2024) 10 SCC 527

14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed.

18. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the court, the court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.

19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173(2)CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the accused. ”

(Emphasis supplied at each instance)

If the complaints quoted hereinabove are considered on the bedrock of the elucidation of the Apex Court in the judgments noted hereinabove what would unmistakably emerge is, the matter requires investigation in the least. The accused are said to have hoodwinked several people after luring them into respective transactions. Therefore, there can be no question of interdicting the investigation in such cases. The projection of the learned senior counsel that it is purely a civil transaction and there is no nexus between the amounts deposited into the accounts to which the petitioners/accused have no nexus, are all matter of investigation as it is not one case or one complainant, there are 11

15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

complaints by different complainants against the same accused. In the seriously disputes questions of fact if this Court would interfere, it would run foul of plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court all of which are noted hereinabove.

For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in these petitions, the petitions stand dismissed .”

(Emphasis supplied)

This Court in the afore-quoted judgment observed that, a particular transaction can give rise to registration of two types of proceedings, one civil proceedings and the other criminal proceedings. After noticing the entire law laid down by the Apex Court on the issue, this Court held that where a prima facie case of criminal culpability is made out, civil and criminal proceedings can go on simultaneously and this Court cannot interfere when there are seriously disputed questions of fact.

5. The case before this Court in ROSHAN SALDHANA supra , which was decided as noted hereinabove was at the stage of crime. But in the subject petition, charge sheet is also filed by the jurisdictional police. Those matters were stayed at the hands of this Court and therefore the charge sheet was not filed. However, the fulcrum of the complaint remains the same.

16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:31047 CRL.P No. 10148 of 2025

HC-KAR

The modus operandi of the accused also remains the same. Therefore, the issue stands completely answered by what is observed by this Court in the afore-quoted judgment.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands

dismissed .

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

CM

LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 3