- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15500 CRL.P No. 8812 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8812 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. ROHINI K. PATEL, W/O KAMALESH PADALIYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 502, VISHWA PLAZA, NEAR VISHAL NURSING HOME, KODALIAGUTTU WEST LAKE, MANGALURU CITY - 575 003. 2. VIMAL KUMAR VALLAB BAYI PADALIYA S/O VALLABA PADALIYA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT MENGLOR SUPARI AGENCY, NEAR CHANDRAVADI HOSPITAL, BANAWADA, AHMENDABAD, GUJARAT - 360 510. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARAYANA K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CEN CRIME POLICE STATION, MANGALURU CITY, REPRSENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15500 CRL.P No. 8812 of 2024 CUBBON PARK, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. HABBIB RAHIMAN K, S/O HAJI IBRAHIM K, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT D. NO. 1-38/1, KODIJAL HOME, KONAJE ULLALA TALUK, ULLAL MANGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MUZAFFAR AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.87/2024 OF THE CEN CRIME P.S., MANGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 409, 418, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT OF MR.HABIB RAHIMAN K DATED 20.07.2024, ORIGINALLY PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 2nd ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU CITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners, who are arrayed as Accused Nos. 2 and 5, have filed the present petition challenging the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 418, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15500 CRL.P No. 8812 of 2024 2. Respondent No. 2, the complainant, lodged the FIR stating that he is engaged in the business of trading in arecanut. Accused No. 1 is also a trader in arecanut, and from the year 2019 onwards, the complainant had been selling arecanut to Accused No. 1. According to the complainant, Accused No. 1 did not make full payment upfront but used to settle the amounts in installments over time. Trusting Accused No. 1, the complainant had supplied a total of 115 bags of arecanut worth Rs. 51,61,973/-. However, after receiving the said consignment, Accused No. 1 failed to make the payment and has since become untraceable. It is reliably learnt that Accused No. 1 has shut down his business. 3. The specific allegations against Accused No. 2 are that she is the wife of Accused No. 1 and used to assist him in the management of his business. As regards Accused No. 5, he is the brother of Accused No. 1, and the allegation is that Accused No. 1, after purchasing the arecanut from the complainant, supplied the same to Accused No. 5. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. 5. A perusal of the FIR and the complaint reveals that there are no specific allegations against Accused Nos. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15500 CRL.P No. 8812 of 2024 2 and 5 indicating that they had, with dishonest or fraudulent intent, induced the complainant to supply arecanut to Accused No. 1. Therefore, the essential ingredients required to attract the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC are absent. 6. Likewise, there is no allegation or material to show that the complainant had entrusted the arecanut to Accused Nos. 2 and 5, or that they had dishonestly misappropriated the same or induced the complainant to sell the arcenut to Accused No.1 with an intention to deceive. As such, the foundational elements to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Sections 406 and 409 IPC and 420 are also lacking. 7. The only reference to Accused No. 2 is that she is the wife of Accused No. 1 and used to assist him in his business, and the only allegation against Accused No. 5 is that he had received the arecanut from Accused No. 1. These statements, without more, do not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence as alleged in the FIR. 8. In such circumstances, allowing the investigation to continue against Accused Nos. 2 and 5, despite the absence of specific allegations or essential - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15500 CRL.P No. 8812 of 2024 elements constituting the offences alleged, would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. Accordingly, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners/Accused Nos. 2 and 5 is liable to be quashed. I, therefore, pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed. ii. The impugned FIR in Cr.No.87/2024 registered by CEN Crime Police Station, Mangaluru City, insofar as accused Nos.2 and 5 is hereby quashed. iii. The Investigating Officer to proceed with other accused in accordance with law. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62 CT: BHK