- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20858 CRL.P No. 2708 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2708 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: MR SARDAR NAVEED AKTHAR AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, S/O ABDUL KHADIR S, R/AT J.M ROAD, GANGOLLI KUNDAPURA, UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 216 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAZEEFA M MULLA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS KUNDAPURA POLICE STATION, KUNDAPURA CITY REP BY HIGH COURT SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001 2. MR.IRSHAD GULZAR AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O L T ABDUL AHMED R/AT DATHATHREYA FLAT NO 401A KASABA VILLAGE, KUNDAPURA, UDUPI KARNATAKA – 576 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; NOTICE SERVED TO R-2 & UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20858 CRL.P No. 2708 of 2025 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIME NO. 0031/2021 REGISTERED BY KUNDAPURA P.S 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AS PER THE ANNEXURE NO.-C AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C 0042/2022, AS PER THE ANNEXURE NO.-D, REGISTERED FOR THE O/U/S 149, 406, 420, 120B OF THE IPC, 1860 AND ALSO SECTION 9 OF THE KARNATAKA PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF DEPOSITORS IN FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENT ACT 2004, SECTION 21 AND 22 OF BANNING OF UNREGULATED DEPOSIT SCHEME ACT 2019 ON PENDING FILE OF THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, UDUPI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a. Quash the charge sheet in Crime No.31/2021 registered by Kundapura PS by the 1st Respondent Police as per the Annexure-No-C, & entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.42/2022, as per the Annexure No-D, registered for the offences under Section 149, 406, 420, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of interest of depositors in Financial Establishment Act 2004, Section 21 and 22, of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act 2019 on pending file of the Court of the Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Udupi. b. Pass such other writ or directions or orders, as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20858 CRL.P No. 2708 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. Though respondent No.2 was served with notice, he has remained unrepresented and has not chosen to contest the petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint against the petitioner, accused No.19 and 23 other accused persons i.e., accused Nos.1 to 18 and 20 to 24 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 420 r/w. 149 of IPC, Section 9 of the Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishment Act, 2004 and Sections 21 and 22 of Banning of Unregulated Deposit Scheme Act, 2019, which culminated in a charge sheet, which is currently pending in Spl.C.No.42/2022 before the Sessions Court. In this context, it is relevant to state that it is a specific contention of respondent No.2-complainant invested in a jewelry shop by name “Gold Jewellery” located in Nandikeshwara Complex, Kundapura, in as much as, he has invested 31 grams of gold and cash in a sum of Rs.6 Lakhs on 01.10.2018, which was owned by accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20858 CRL.P No. 2708 of 2025 Nos.1 to 6, who promised monthly returns made in gold or cash. It is alleged that based on the assurance made by accused Nos.1 to 6, the complainant invested cash and gold and since the said shop was closed in January,2021, the complainant arraigned the petitioner along with owners of the shop as accused. 5. In this context it is relevant to note that the petitioner is only an employee of the said shop and he could not have been incriminated as the petitioner as alleged by respondent No.2-complainant, as can been seen from the complaint, FIR, chargesheet and statement of witnesses. Under these circumstances, since the petitioner is only an employee of the shop and not the owner, continuation of proceedings against him would amount to abuse of process of law and the same deserves to be quashed. 6. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.C.No.42/2022, arising out of Crime No.31/2021 registered by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20858 CRL.P No. 2708 of 2025 respondent No.1-Police, pending on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udupi, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45