- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9202 CRL.P No. 5875 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5875 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. VITTAL KULAL KONAJE S/O LATE KUTTY MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO. 405, MILAN HORIZON YEYYADI MANGALORE 575 008. 2. VINUTHA B D/O LATE BABU MOOLYA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO. 398, OPPOSITE KULAL MANDIR KOLYA SOMESHWAR VILLAGE, KOTEKAR MANAGLORE, D.K 575 002. (IDENTITY OF THE PETITIONER AS PER AADHAR CARD) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KETHAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION, MANGALORE CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 575 001. 2. VIKARAM P MALI S/O PRAKASH MALI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9202 CRL.P No. 5875 of 2024 M/S BALAJI HARDWARE, BUNDER MANGALORE MANGALORE CITY 575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M R PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. HALEEMA AMEEN., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS REGISTERED BY THE MANGALORE NORTH POLICE STATION, MANGALORE IN CR.NO.82/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 409, 420, 34 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM COURT, MANGALORE CITY VIDE ANNEXURE-A. 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 petitioners, Accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are facing investigation for offences punishable under Sections 409 and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC, have approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The second respondent lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioners are the owners of M/s Manishk Enterprises and V.K. Sofa Makers and were customers of the complainant, who is engaged in the hardware business. The complainant and the petitioners had business transactions for several years, during which the petitioners purchased hardware materials from the complainant. It is further alleged that, between 2019 and 31.03.2023, M/s Manishk Enterprises purchased materials worth ₹40,93,570/-, and between 16.04.2018 and 19.03.2023, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9202 CRL.P No. 5875 of 2024 V.K. Sofa Makers purchased materials worth ₹3,98,058/-. Out of the total amount, the petitioners have allegedly failed to pay the balance of ₹12,70,000/-. Consequently, the police registered the FIR for the aforementioned offences. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no allegation that the petitioners induced the second respondent to supply hardware materials with an intent to deceive, which is an essential element of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. He further contends that the offence under Section 409 of the IPC is not attracted, as the petitioners were not entrusted with any property by the complainant. 4. In response, the learned counsel for the second respondent submits that the petitioners, being customers of the complainant, have failed to pay the outstanding amount of ₹12,70,000/- despite purchasing hardware materials. Therefore, the veracity of the allegations requires investigation. He further states that copies of GST returns have been submitted to substantiate that the petitioners owe the said amount, as they have claimed a refund of the GST amount. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State reiterates the submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent. 6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9202 CRL.P No. 5875 of 2024 7. A perusal of the FIR indicates that the petitioners have allegedly been customers of the second respondent for several years. The allegation against them is that they purchased hardware materials between 16.04.2018 and 19.03.2023 but failed to pay the balance amount of ₹12,70,000/- out of a total sum exceeding ₹41,00,000/-. 8. The second respondent has categorically admitted that, out of the total amount of over ₹41 lakhs, only ₹12,70,000/- remains due from the petitioners. There is no allegation in the complaint that the petitioners induced the second respondent to supply hardware materials with an intent to deceive, which is an essential element to constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC. 9. Further, there is no assertion in the complaint that the property was entrusted to the petitioners. Instead, the materials were purchased from the complainant, and thus, there is no question of misappropriation of entrusted property. At most, the issue amounts to a breach of the terms and conditions of an agreement. Consequently, the essential elements required to constitute an offence under Section 409 of the IPC are conspicuously absent. In such circumstances, continuing the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. If the petitioners have failed to pay the balance amount of ₹12,70,000/-, the complainant has the remedy of approaching the appropriate forum for recovery of the said amount. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9202 CRL.P No. 5875 of 2024 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No. 82/2024, registered by the Mangaluru North Police Station and pending before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge & Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangaluru City, insofar as it relates to the petitioners (Accused Nos. 1 and 2), is hereby quashed. 11. This order shall not preclude the second respondent from claiming any amount due from the petitioners in accordance with the law. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 128