Mohit Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

M/s FAMILY OF DRY FRUITS INDIA PVT LTD., Digitally signed HAVING OFFICE AT by ANUSHA V KIRANA MANDI, GHAZIABAD Location: High U P - 201 001. Court of Karnataka

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THROUGH RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560 098.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

HEMA B., D/O LATE K RAJASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT NO 917/1, 8^TH MAIN 9^TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

[BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI M. VINAYA KEERTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)]

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.12.2019 INC RIME NO.216/2019 (THE SAID COMPLAINT) FIVEN BY R2 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 506, 34, 120B, 420, 504, 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS IPC) ANNEXUREA, QUASH THE FIR NO.216/2019 DATED 14.12.2019 (IMPUGNED FIR) REGISTERED BY R1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 506, 34, 120B, 420, 504, 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 ANNEXURE-B, DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 506, 34, 120B, 420, 504, 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AS ALLEGED IN COMPLAINT DATED 14.12.2019 IN CRIME NO.216/2019 ANNEXURE-A.

¶25

IN CRL.P NO. 1349/2021

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

SANDEEP KUMAR SANGHAL S/O LATE GOPAL SHARAN SHANGAL

¶28

3 -

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A NO.1, SECTOR -3/C HANSAL SUSHANT CITY, MEERUT (U.P) - 250 103.

¶32

...PETITIONER

¶33

(BY SMT. SHAHIDA KHANAM J., ADVOCATE A/W SRI MASKOOR HASHMI M.D., ADVOCATE)

¶34

AND:

¶35

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR P.S., REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PRSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶36

HEMA B D/O LATE K RAJASHEKHAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/A NO.917/1, 8^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶37

...RESPONDENTS

¶38

[BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 SMT. H.M.BHANU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)]

¶39

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CASE FIR BEARING NO.216/2019 DATED 14.12.2019 U/S 406, 420, 504, 506, 120B, 34 OF IPC., REGISTERED AT P.S., RAJARAJESHWARI, BENGALURU AND ALL THE CONSEQUENCES PROCEEDING ARISING OUT OF SAME.

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

IN WP NO. 9609/2020

¶44

BETWEEN:

¶45

PRADEEP SINGH NIRWAN S/O SRI MOOL SINGH NIRWAN AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/A D-68, SRI RAM NAGAR, D JOTHWARA JAIPUR, KHORA BISAL, RAJASTHAN - 302 012.

¶46

...PETITIONER

¶47

(BY SRI ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)

¶48

AND:

¶49

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, POLICE STATION

¶50

HEMA B., D/O LATE K. RAJASHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.917/1, 8^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶51

...RESPONDENTS

¶52

[BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. H.M.BHANU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)]

¶53

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.12.2019 IN CRIME NO.216/2019 (THE SAID COMPLAINT) GIVEN BY R-2 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 506, 34, 120B, 420, 504, 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS IPC) ANNEXURE-B. QUASH THE FIR NO.216/2019

¶54

5 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

DATED 14.12.2019 (IMPUGNED FIR) REGISTERED BY R-1 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 506, 34, 120B, 420, 504, 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 ANNEXURE-A, DECLARE THAT THE PETITIONER HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 506, 34, 120B, 420, 504, 406 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AS ALLEGED IN FIR DATED 14.12.2019 IN CRIME NO.216/2019 ANNEXURE-A.

¶58

IN WP NO. 4778/2021

¶59

BETWEEN:

¶60

MOHIT KUMAR GOEL S/O RAJESH GOEL, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, THROUGH PAIROKAR MRS. DHARNA GARG, R/A MEGHADUTAM SOCIETY PARK, TOWER Y, FLAT NO.21A, NOIDA, U.P - 201 303.

¶61

DHARNA GARG W/O MOHIT GOEL AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/A MEGHADUTAM SOCIETY PARK, TOWER-Y FLAT NO.21A, NOIDA, U.P. - 201 303.

¶62

...PETITIONERS

¶63

(BY SRI ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)

¶64

AND:

¶65

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560 098.

¶66

6 -

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

HEMA B., D/O LATE K.RAJASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO.917/1, 8^TH MAIN, 9^TH CROSS, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWRINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

¶70

...RESPONDENTS

¶71

[BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. H.M.BHANU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)]

¶72

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE BODY WARRANT DATED 19.02.2021 AS WELL AS ORDERS DATED 19.02.2021 AND 15.02.2021 AS ISSUED / PASSED BY THE COURT OF LD IV ACMM, BENGALURU QUA THE PETITIONER NO.1 IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED FIR REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.0216 OF 2019 AT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR PS FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 504, 506, 420, 120B AND 34 OF IPC AND ALL CONSEQUENT STEPS TAKEN PURSUANT TO REGISTRATION OF THE SAME ANNEXURE-B AND C. QUASH ALL COERCIVE MEASURES, IF ANY TAKEN BY THE INVESTIGATING OFFICIAL AND PASSED BY THE IV ACMM, BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER NO.2 IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED FIR REGISTERED AS CRIME NO.0216 OF 2019 AT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR PS FOR OFFENCE PUNISHALBE U/S 406, 504, 506, 420, 120B AND 34 OF IPC AND ALL CONSEQUENT STEPS TAKEN PURSUANT TO REGISTRATION OF THE SAME ANNEXURE-A.

¶73

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

¶74

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶75

7 -

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

ORAL ORDER

¶79

Seeking for quashing of FIR in Crime no.216/2019 registered by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station (Annexure-A) for offences punishable under Sections 506, 120B, 420, 504, 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ) etc., these petitions are filed. While WP no.9609/2020 was by accused no.1; WP no.4778/2021 and WP no.14449/2021 were by accused no.3 and Crl.P.no.1349/2021 was by accused no.4.

¶80

Smt.Anuparna Bordoloi, learned counsel for petitioners in WP no.14449/2021, WP no.9609/2021 and in WP no.4778/2021 submitted that respondent no.2 - Smt.Hema Rajashekhar filed complaint stating that she was in business of supplying Copra since 20 years under name and style of 'SS Traders', managed by her son Nikhil Raj. She stated that Sandeep Sangal (accused no.4) contacted Nikhil for supply of Copra to his friends' company by name 'Sri Shyam Trading Company', Gurugram, Haryana, ( STC ). Thereafter on 17.09.2019 accused no.4 and Musrafil Lashkar @ Rajeev Kumar (accused no.2) claiming to be associated with purchasing department of Company, came to Bengaluru, inspected Copra

¶81

8 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 AND 1 OTHER

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

samples, finalized quantities to be supplied. On 21.09.2019 as per purchase order ( PO ) no.272/2019-20, issued by STC, 15 tons of Copra worth Rs.18,90,000/- was delivered to STC under Bill no.001 dated 24.09.2019. On 27.09.2019, STC transferred Rs.18,00,000/through RTGS. Thereafter, as per PO no.284/2019-20 dated 26.09.2019 complainant delivered another 15 tons of Copra under Bill no.003 and received payment of Rs.17,00,000/-. Likewise, against POs, complainant delivered 155 tons of Copra worth Rs.2,10,09,581/-. However, complainants had received only Rs.50,00,000/- in total. Though STC was due Rs.1,62,89,581.25/-, accused gave untenable reasons on demand of balance amount.

¶85

It was stated Kavitha (accused no.6) who had issued POs to complainant had falsely assured payment. Likewise, Amit Sharma (accused no.3) accountant of STC said company and Archana - HR of STC (accused no.5) had conspired with other accused in cheating complainant.

¶86

On 06.11.2019, when her son Nikhil along with his friend demanded payment from STC, they were abused in foul language and threatened with dire consequences. A cheque

¶87

9 -

¶88

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶89

bearing no.001277 drawn on ICICI bank was given to them. Nikhil also learnt that accused no.4 had supplied Copra to M/s Family of Dry Fruits India Pvt. Ltd. On 14.12.2019 at 9:47 am. Nikhil telephoned accused no.2 - Purchase Officer to discuss about arrears of payment, but was threatened with dire consequences. It was stated that STC was supplied 185 tons of Copra worth Rs.2,47,89,581/by complainant, received Rs.85,00,000/- leaving Rs.1,62,89,581.25/- as outstanding. It was stated accused with common intention had induced complainant to supply Copra on false promise of payment and dishonestly misappropriated goods and failed to dues and thereby cheated complainant and also abused Nikhil and his friend in filthy language intimidated and threatened them and sought for taking action. Same was registered as Crime no.216/2019 by Rajarajeshwarinagar PS for offences punishable under Sections 506, 120B, 420, 504, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC against accused no.1 to 7.

¶90

It was submitted complaint did not bear ingredients for offences alleged and there was no basis for registration of FIR. Transactions at best gave rise to claim for money before

¶91

10 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶93

Civil Court. But, till today no civil suit was filed. There were no overt acts of offences against accused no.1 and 3. And relying on ratio in Delhi Race Club v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

¶94

Another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690 , invocation of Sections 406 and 420 for same incident was illegal. It was also contended that last payment received by complainant was on 06.11.2019 whereas complaint was filed on 14.12.2019. Thus there was inordinate delay in filing complaint. On above grounds, prayed for allowing petitions.

¶95

Shahida Khanam J, learned counsel appearing for Hashmi MD, advocate for petitioner in Crl.P.no.1349/2021 while adopting above submissions, submitted that petitioner therein was accused no.4 in impugned complainant and admittedly only an introducer. It was submitted transactions under POs he was associated with were completed and payments made. And that he had no role in subsequent POs. Further, he was not beneficiary in any of alleged transactions. Therefore, his arraignment was abuse of process and sought for quashing. Relying on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in AM Mohan v. State and Anr. reported in (2024) 12 SCC 181 , it was

¶96

11 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶98

submitted in absence of dishonest intention invocation of Section 415 and 420 of IPC, would be abuse of process of law. On said grounds prayed for allowing petition.

¶99

On other hand, Smt.Sowmya R, learned HCGP for respondent State opposed petitions. There is no representation on behalf of complainant - respondent no.2.

¶100

Heard learned counsel and perused material on record.

¶101

These petitions are by accused no.1, 3 and 4 challenging registration of FIR for offences punishable under Sections 506, 120B, 420, 504, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶102

Perusal of complaint at Annexure-A reveals that complainant claiming to be supplier of Copra had supplied Copra to STC. Though it is alleged complainant was due some payments from accused, it is seen that there is part payment. Allegations do not disclose that petitioners had fraudulent or dishonest intention at inception of transaction.

¶103

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand reported in (2013) 11 SCC

¶104

12 -

¶105

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶106

673 , held though inherent powers under Section 482 of CrPC should be exercised sparingly, High Court must verify if complaint discloses civil transactions, whether dispute is essentially of civil nature and if a civil remedy is available and adopted, it should not hesitate to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of Court. Said view is reiterated in Naresh Kumar v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 268 . It is further held in Sachin Garg v. State of U.P. reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82 , that a commercial dispute ought to be resolved through forum of Civil Court and cannot be given criminal color by implanting words or phrases from Penal Code in complaint. In instant case grievance in complaint is essentially about non-payment of balance amount in commercial transaction, which at best gives rise to a civil dispute. And though it is admitted that complainant was given cheque, there is no clarification or explanation about tendering it for collection and non-filing of Civil Suit. In view of above, it has to be held that initiation of criminal proceedings instead of civil remedies would amount to abuse of process.

¶107

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶108

13 -

¶109

Further, whether offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC would arise in respect of same incident, has been dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club 's case (supra), wherein it held:

¶110

"40. To put it in other words, the case of cheating and dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. But in the case of criminal breach of trust, a person who comes into possession of the movable property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms of the contract, then the question is, in a case like this, whether the retention is with dishonest intention or not, whether the retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would depend upon the facts of each case."

¶111

Same view is reiterated in Arshad Neyaz Khan v

¶112

State of Jharkhand [2025 INSC 1151] and ratio squarely

¶113

applies to facts and circumstances herein. Further, there are neither allegation of dishonest intention to induce complainant to part with any property nor about dishonest misappropriation thereof after lawful entrustment. Consequently, invocation of offences under Section 406 and 420 would not be justified.

¶114

Even insofar as offence under Section 120B of IPC, in complaint there are allegations of conspiracy only against Amit Sharma (accused no.3), Archana (accused no.5) and Kavita (accused no.6). There are no allegations against any of

¶115

14 -

¶116

NC: 2026:KHC:33571 WP No. 14449 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 1349 of 2021 WP No. 9609 of 2020 HC-KAR AND 1 OTHER

¶117

petitioners herein. Thus, proceedings against petitioners would be illegal.

¶118

For aforesaid reasons, petitions succeed; FIR in Crime no.216/2019 registered by Rajarajeshwarinagar Police Station (Annexure-A) for offences punishable under Sections 506, 120B, 420, 504, 406 read with Section 34 of IPC etc., stand quashed qua petitioners namely - Sandeep Sanghal, Pradeep Singh Nirvan, Mohit Kumar and Dharna Garg only.

¶119

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶120

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Mohit Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Kumar v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri H S Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.M.Ramesh Babu Vs Miss.Dharani R.Babu

Sri. Ravikumar M T Vs Smt. Chaitra

Mr. Mohan Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Premamma Vs Sri G Dayalu

Sri M Vijayanna Vs Smt Muddamma T v