Partly allowed

Sushil Pandurang Mantri v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2026WP/25583/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismisses a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR alleging criminal breach of trust and cheating. The court finds that the allegations, if true, constitute offences requiring trial. The interim restraint on coercive steps is extended for four weeks contingent on the petitioner's cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed. Interim order restraining coercive steps extended for four weeks, subject to petitioner's cooperation with investigation.

Sushil Pandurang Mantri Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19324 WP No. 25583 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 25583 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SUSHIL PANDURANG MANTRI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O PANDURANG MANTRI #41, VITTAL MALYA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR M.S., SR.COUNSEL FOR SMT. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA CUBBON PARK P.S. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.

¶14

MANYATA REALITY NO.9/2, 1^ST FLOOR CLASSIC COURT, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. REDDY VEERANNA.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. AYUB ALI KHAN, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. C.K.NANDAKUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. ABRAHAM JOSEPH & TANMAY RAI, ADVOCATES FOR SRI. MANU PRABHAKAR KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:19324 WP No. 25583 of 2023

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 2^ND NOVEMBER 2023, FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CRIME NO.223/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 34, 406, 420, 120-B OF IPC, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER ACTIONS INITIATED BY RESPONDENT NO.1-POLICE AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner and respondent no.2 had several transactions with regard to properties. On the ground that ,petitioner with common intention and also by conspiring with other persons committed the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating against the complainant, a complaint came to be lodged against the petitioner and several other persons and an FIR dated 02.11.2023 in Crime No.223/2023 came to be registered on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:19324 WP No. 25583 of 2023

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Magistrate, Bengaluru. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

¶29

The gist of the complaint as recorded in the FIR reads as

¶30

under:

¶31

"F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ ¦AiÀiÁðzsÀÄzÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ gÉrØ «ÃgÀtÚ gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£ÀåvÁ jAiÀiÁ°n PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ªÀiÁå£ÉÃfAUï ¥Álð£Àgï DVzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ PÉ.Dgï.¥ÀÄgÀ ºÉÆÃ§½AiÀÄ gÁZÉÃ£ÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ««zsÀ ¸ÀªÉÃð £ÀA§gÀUÀ¼À°è MlÄÖ 63.81 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ 2010 gÀ°è DgÉÆÃ¦- 1 ¸ÀÄ²Ã¯ï ªÀÄAwæ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁðzsÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹ ¸ÀzÀj ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C©üªÀÈ¢Ý¥Àr¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár CzÀgÀAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆÃ¦- 1 ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ DgÉÆÃ¦ 2 jAzÀ 6 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:26.08.2010 jAzÀ 01.07.2015 gÀ ªÀÄzÉå eÉ.r.J UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄÃ¤£À°è ªÀÄAwæ °xÉÆ¸ï ¥ÁæeÉPïÖ £À°è C¥ÁlðªÉÄAmï UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀlÄÖªÀÅzÁV PÀgÁj£À°è 39% ¦AiÀiÁðzsÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ºÁUÀÆ 61 % DgÉÆÃ¦- 1 gÀªÀjUÉ JAzÀÄ EzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj PÀgÁgÀÄ ««zÀ ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀÄAwæ °xÉÆ¸ï £À ±ÉÃ 39% µÉÃgï£À°è 124 C¥ÁlðªÉÄAmï UÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ vÁ£ÉÃ RjÃ¢¸ÀÄªÀÅzÁV ºÁUÀÆ CzÀgÀ MlÄÖ ªÀiË®å 87 PÉÆÃn gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ 87 PÉÆÃn gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ ªÀÄAwæ °xÉÆ¸ï ¥ÁæeÉPïÖ ¸ÀA§AzÀ J¯ï.L.¹ ºÉZï.J¥ï ¤AzÀ MlÄÖ 250 PÉÆÃn gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Á®ªÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀÄAwæ °xÉÆ¸ï ¥ÁæeÉPïÖ UÉ §¼À¸ÀzÉ ¸Á®ªÁV ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÀÝ 250 PÉÆÃn gÀÆUÀ¼À°è 80 PÉÆÃn gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß Xander Investment Holding XXIII Limited UÉÃ ¸ÉÃjzÀÝ SÁvÉUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ºÁUÀÆ 105 PÉÆÃn gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ ««zÀ ¨ÁåAPïUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÝ ¸Á®zÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. »ÃVgÀÄªÁUÀ 2019 gÀ°è J¯ï.L.¹ ºÉZï.J¥ï gÀªÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀ §UÉÎ £ÉÆÃn¸ï eÁj ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ J¯ï.L.¹ ºÉZï.J¥ï £À°è

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:19324 WP No. 25583 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ªÀÄAwæ °xÉÆ¸ï ¥ÁæeÉPïÖPÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÀÄ¥ÁªÀw¸ÀzÉ r¥Á®Ögï DVgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ 2022 gÀ°è DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ Xander Investment Holding XXIII Limited «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÁUÀ F »AzÉ ªÀÄAwæ °xÉÆ¸ï £À°è zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÝ µÉÃgï£À°è 124 C¥ÁlðªÉÄAmï UÀ¼À£ÀÄß RjÃ¢¹zÀPÉÌ 87 PÉÆÃn gÀÆ UÀ¼À£ÀÄß Xander PÀA¥À¤UÉ zÀÆgÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÝ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß CqÀªÀiÁ£À«lÄÖ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶36

DzÀPÁgÀt CgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ EvÀgÉ 5 PÀA¥À¤UÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¦vÀÆj £ÀqÉ¹ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝÃ±ÉEªÀÄzÀ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀ £ÀqÀÄªÉ £ÀqÉ¢zÀÝ PÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß G®èAX¹ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ d«ÄÃ¤£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸Á® ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉÆAzÀÄ GzÉÝÃ±ÀPÉÌ §¼À¹ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæÃºÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ, EvÁå¢."

¶37

The case of the petitioner is that, the complaint made against him is false and baseless and he has not committed any of the offences as alleged. It is further contended that the transactions between the petitioner and respondent no.2/complainant are of civil in nature and there are several litigations pending in this regard. However respondent no.2 with the sole intention of harassing the petitioner has filed a false complaint against him and that the State without application of mind has registered the same and is conducting an investigation. On the said ground, it is prayed that proceedings against the petitioner be quashed.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2026:KHC:19324 WP No. 25583 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

On the contrary, Learned Additional SPP as well as the learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.2 together submit that, if we consider the complaint made by respondent no.2 it reveals that there have been several transactions regarding immovable property between respondent no.2 and the petitioner and several other persons. It also reveals that petitioner with common intention conspiring with certain other persons deliberately has not developed the property as agreed upon and has indulged in several actions causing huge financial loss to respondent no.2, and the actions alleged against the petitioner satisfy the ingredients of criminal breach of trust in certain cases and cheating in certain other cases. It is submitted that, if the allegations made against the petitioner are held to be true, then in that event the petitioner would be liable to be convicted of the offences alleged.

¶42

Learned Additional SPP further submits that, due to the interim orders of this Court, no coercive steps were initiated against the petitioner, but he is refusing to co-operate with the investigation and police report can be filed only upon due investigation which requires co-operation of the petitioner in

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19324 WP No. 25583 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

this regard. He further submits that if the petitioner does not co-operate, then in that event it may be required for the authorities concerned to take him into custody and further investigate the matter.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has extended fullest cooperation for investigation and denies the statement made by the learned Additional SPP.

¶47

Be that as it may, the allegations made in the complaint and in the FIR if held to be true on the face of it will amount to commission of offences as alleged against the petitioner and other persons named in the FIR. Whether the petitioner is guilty of the offences alleged or not is a matter of trial. Under the said circumstances, it may not be appropriate for this Court to entertain this petition positively.

¶48

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, this Court had granted interim orders in his favour restraining the State from initiating coercive steps against him, because of which he did not pursue his bail application before the trial Court and he submits that he may

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:19324 WP No. 25583 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

be extended the protection accorded to him by way of interim

¶53

order for four weeks.

¶54

Hence, the following:

¶55

ORDER

¶56

(i) The writ petition is hereby dismissed ;

¶57

(ii) However, the interim order granted in favour of the petitioner directing the State not to initiate coercive steps against the petitioner with the condition that the petitioner shall cooperate with investigation stands extended for a further period of four weeks;

¶58

(iii) If the petitioner were to make an application for bail, the trial Court will consider the same in accordance with law based on the merits of the case without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

¶59

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶60

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶61

PGG

Sushil Pandurang Mantri v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Pandurang Mantri v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. N. Bhagya Vs the Commissioner

Mohammad Rafeeq Alias Mudipu Rafeeq Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M. Gundappa Vs the Chief Commissioner

Smt. Leelamma Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Iris Lifescapes Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri. B.G. Sujay Vs the Chief Commissioner