- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8479 CRL.P No. 3539 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3539 OF 2018 BETWEEN: MOHAN H.S. S/O SHANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, NO.166, SRI SOUPARNIKA NILAYA, D.S. PALYA , ANTAPPA LAYOUT, NEAR KALYANI MAGNUM, BILEKAHALLI, BANGALORE CITY - 560 076 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARVIND .N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MOHAN KUMAR .D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASURU POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001 2. KOTA NAGENDRA, S/O SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OM SAI LAXMI VENKATESHWAR P.G., NO.35, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, KRISHNA REDDY LAYOUT, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE CITY - 560 100 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1 R2 - SD - U/R) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8479 CRL.P No. 3539 of 2018 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.447/2017 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406 AND 420 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 4TH A.C.M.M., COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.1 in Crime No.447/2017 of Halasur Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the first information with Halasur Police Station against the petitioner and accused No.2 alleging commission of the offences as stated above. It is the specific contention of the informant that the petitioner-accused No.1 along with the co- accused induced him to invest an amount of Rs.3,16,075/- by promising to pay back good returns. Later even though the informant on many occasions requested the accused to pay - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8479 CRL.P No. 3539 of 2018 back the amount, the accused had not returned the amount as agreed, but on the other hand, he started proclaiming that the informant had purchased some articles with the said amount. Therefore, it is stated that the accused has committed breach of trust and cheated the informant. 3. On the basis of first information, the FIR was registered and the investigation was undertaken. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. 4. Heard Sri. Arvind N., learned counsel for Sri.Mohankumar D., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is served but unrepresented. Perused the materials on record. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8479 CRL.P No. 3539 of 2018 My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following: REASONS 6. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was a written agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2 in the matter of entering into the business. Respondent No.2 was making investment and since payment of the amount by respondent No.2 was in terms of the agreement, the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and no criminal offence could be made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of the agreement said to have entered into between the parties and contended that as per the business model, it is a chain link business called QNET, and respondent No.2 was permitted to purchase the products by paying the amount. If he enrolls some other customers keeping the chain unbroken, he will be entitled to have commission. Therefore, dealings between the parties are included in the terms of contract and hence no offence is made out. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8479 CRL.P No. 3539 of 2018 7. I have gone through the terms and conditions of the agreement said to have entered into between the parties. The agreement is rather silent regarding the transactions between the two. There is a reference to QNET business which is said to be the chain link business. Clause 5 of the agreement reads as under: "5. I have purchased product of QNET for my personal usage and for resale. Purchasing this product does not guarantee that I will earn any commissions/income. QNET pays commissions based on my hard work, performance and success in marketing activities." 8. As per the agreement, the petitioner is an independent representative (IR) and he is not an employee of QNET. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any explanation to condition No.5 extracted above, according to which respondent No.2 purchased the products from QNET for his personal usage and to resell. When such being the case respondent No.2 being entitled for commission based on his hard work, performance and success in marketing activities does not arise. Therefore, it is clear that the agreement produced before the Court is a self-serving one and prima-facie I am of the opinion that it is a net spread over to catch the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8479 CRL.P No. 3539 of 2018 innocent customers. There are prima-facie materials to constitute the offence under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. 9. Learned High Court Government Pleader draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.4877/2017 and connected with Crl.P.Nos.4876/2017 and 4878/2017, where the similar offence alleged against the accused was considered and request for quashing the criminal petitions was rejected. 10. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that there are prima-facie materials which go against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12