- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14515 WP No. 8181 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 8181 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: HONNEGOWDA, S/O DANEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT AGS LAYOUT, BEHIND RELIANCE MART, ITTUMUDI, BANGALORE - 560 085. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SADDAM R. MULLA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY BASAVANAGUDI P.S., REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE HIGH COURT COMPLEX, OPPOSITE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. GEETHA W/O NAGARAJA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.71/1, 5TH MAIN, NAGASANDRA CIRCLE, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 24.03.2025) Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14515 WP No. 8181 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 20/12/2017 AT ANNEXURE-C RESTRICTED TO PETITIONER, REGISTERED AS CC NO 17607/2018 UNDER SECTION 380 AND 454, OF IPC ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO 207/2017 OF RESPONDENT BASAVANAGUDI POLICE AND THE SAME IS PENDING IN THE FILES OF 2ND ACMM, BANGALORE, WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO. 4. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner/accused No.4, who has been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 454, 380, and 413 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), is before this Court seeking the following relief: "WHEREFORE, it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash the charge sheet dated 02.12.2017 (as per Annexure-C), restricted to the petitioner, registered as CC No.17607/218 under Sections 380 and 454 of the IPC, arising out of Crime No.207/2017 registered by the Basavanagudi Police. The said charge sheet is currently pending in the files of the 2nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.4, and such relief is sought in the interests of justice and equity." 2. The prosecution alleges that Accused Nos.1 to 3, who are charged with the theft of jewellery belonging to the complainant, sold the stolen items to Attica Gold - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14515 WP No. 8181 of 2025 Company Private Limited, of which the petitioner/accused No.4 is an employee. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State were heard. 4. It is relevant to note that Accused No.5 had previously approached this Court in W.P. No.1353/2018, challenging the very same impugned proceedings. This Court, by its order dated 05.01.2023, had quashed those proceedings, insofar as they related to Accused No.5, an employee of Attica Gold Company Private Limited, observing as follows: The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R.Kalyani -vs- Janak C Mehta and Others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516 held that, "If a person thus, has to be proceeded with as being vicariously liable for the acts of the company, the company must be made an accused. In any event, it would be a fair thing to do so, as legal fiction is raised both against the company as well as the person responsible for the acts of the company". In the instance case, the charge sheet is laid against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 alleging that the company in which they are working as an employees have purchased the stolen gold jewelleries. In the absence of the company not being arraigned as a accused, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 cannot be held vicariously guilty of the same. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:14515 WP No. 8181 of 2025 Even otherwise, there is no material produced to substantiate the allegation that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 as employees of the said company fully knowing that the gold jewelleries were stolen from the respondent No.2 have purchased the same, the registration of the FIR culminating in laying of the charge sheet is impermissible. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 will be an abuse of process of law. 5. In light of the above, this petition should be disposed of in accordance with the order passed in the earlier related petition. ORDERS i. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.17607/2018 on the file of 2nd ACMM, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to accused No.4 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE VS, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 104 CT: BHK