- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 22834 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: HARIHARA PALANI S/O PALANIMURTHY SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 1886/15 20TH B CROSS,21ST MAIN VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU 560040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJESH KUMAR S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY INDIRANAGAR POLICE INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU 560038. 2. H VINAYAK NAYAK S/O SRI VISWANATH NAYAK AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 201,VESPERS 11/1, EAGLE STREET LONGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. G C HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 THIS WP FILED PRAYING TOQUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DTD 11.07.2017 APPENDED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-C AND ORDER DTD 10.06.2021 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.52876/2021 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE APPENDED HERETO AS ANNEXURE-D AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS PETITION, 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 the sole accused is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.28/2015 of Indiranagar police station, now pending in C.C.No.52876 of 2021, on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offence under Section 420 of IPC. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the complaint with Indiranagar police station against the accused alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 of IPC. On the basis of complaint the First Information Report was registered, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 3. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the petitioner is a Gym trainer, who came in contact with the wife and mother-in-law of the complainant. The accused won their confidence proclaiming that he is very close to Reebok company and is in a position to get the gym equipments free of cost. He also promised that if a gym centre is opened, the investors can make profit out of it. Believing the words of the petitioner, the wife and mother- in-law of the complainant invested and started a gym centre by getting the premises on lease by entering into the lease agreement on 27-06-2013. Subsequently, on 22.01.2014, the petitioner, with an intention to cheat the investors, entered into a supplementary lease agreement with the owner of the premises, claiming that he himself is the owner of the gym centre. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 4. It is also stated that the petitioner entered into the Memorandum of Understanding with Reebok Company on 24.06.2014 without the knowledge of CWs-1 and 2, proclaiming himself as the owner of gym centre and managed to get the equipment installed in the premises that was taken on lease by CWs-1 & 2. The petitioner was inducing the customers who were coming to the gym centre not to attend the gym centre but to contact him personally as he can give gym training for half of the amount. Under such circumstances, the fitness centre established by CWs-1 and 2 could not make any profit and suffered loss. When they wanted to sell the gym centre, the accused started to adopt arm-twisting tactics and CW1 came to know that the accused had entered into an agreement with JW Marriot proclaiming that he is the owner of the Centre. Thereby, he has cheated CWs-1 and 2 and accordingly, committed the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 5. Heard Sri Ajesh Kumar S, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. G.C. Harsha, learned counsel for Sri. Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on records. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is only an employee and he was not either the Director or owner of the gym centre. He was only a gym trainer or a fitness trainer. By making use of his influence, he was able to get the gym equipments from Reebok company free of cost and installed in the leased premises. Under such circumstances, no offence under Section 420 of IPC could be made out against the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that, respondent No.2 is neither the owner nor the Director of the company who was running the fitness centre. Under such circumstances, the complainant has no locus standi - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 to file and maintain the complaint and hence, prays for allowing the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposing the petition submitted that, taking advantage of the ignorance and innocence of CWs1 & 2, the petitioner induced them to invest huge amount and get the premises on lease. Subsequently he proclaimed himself as the owner of the gym centre and entered into the Memorandum of Understanding with Reebok company for installing the gym equipment without referring to the company for which CW2 is the owner. It is a clear case of cheating committed by the petitioner. There are sufficient materials to constitute the offence and thereby, prays for rejection of the petition. 9. Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 supporting the contentions taken by respondent No.2 submitted that specific allegations are made against the petitioner for having committed the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 offence. There are strong prima-facie materials to constitute the offence under Section 420 of Cr.P.C. After investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed by the Investigating Officer. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief in the petition and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the petition. 10. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for 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?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 11. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that initially, the petitioner used to give personal training to his - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 mother-in-law and his wife, since then they were known to each other. The petitioner induced them to open a fitness centre stating that he knew someone close to Reebok Company, where he will get equipment for free. Accordingly, the wife of respondent No.2 formed a company along with the petitioner which was incorporated under the name and style of 'Super Curves India Private Limited'. Thus, the petitioner induced the wife of respondent No.2 to invest a huge amount and accordingly she entered into a lease agreement with the owner of the premises and took it on lease by paying the rent. It is the allegation made against the petitioner that he suppressed the fact that he is only a gym trainer and it is the 'Super Curves India Private Limited Company' which is the actual owner of the gym in question. By suppressing the same, the petitioner is said to have entered into the Memorandum of Understanding with Reebok India company on 24.06.2014. A copy of the said Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.06.2014 is produced before the Court, wherein, it is specifically stated - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 that the Reebok India company has entered into agreement with the petitioner who is said to be responsible for opening, the interiors and operations of Reebok Cross Fit, at its own cost and expenses at the premises situated at No.949, 1st Floor, 12th Main, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560038. Admittedly, this premise was taken on lease by the wife of respondent No.2. But unfortunately, in this Memorandum of Understanding, there is no reference either to the Company i.e., the 'Super Curves India Private Limited' or to the name of the Director i.e. the wife of respondent No.2. There is no reasonable explanation offered by the petitioner as to why all these facts were suppressed while entering into Memorandum of Understanding with Reebok India Company. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the allegations made against the petitioner is to be taken into consideration. 12. It is the contention of the complainant that the petitioner induced the mother-in-law and his wife to invest for commencing gym business under the name and style - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 as 'Super Curves India Private Limited'. Accordingly, the wife of respondent No.2 entered into lease agreement and started paying rent. The petitioner was appointed as gym trainer. But the petitioner taking advantage of his position as gym trainer, started having acquaintance with the customers and induced them not to visit the gym centre and offered to visit their houses to give fitness training by accepting half of the rate which was payable in the gym centre. Therefore, it is the contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioner started making money while the company which started the gym centre suffered heavy loss. 13. It is also alleged that the petitioner gave an impression that he himself is the owner and entered into Memorandum of Understanding with the Reebok India Company. The very fact that there is no reference either to the Company or to the wife of respondent No.2 in the Memorandum of Understanding dated 24.06.2014, prima- facie discloses that the petitioner was suppressing the fact that he was only the gym trainer and he was associated - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 with the wife of respondent No.2 who is the owner of gym centre. 14. It is also brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that, the bank statement of the petitioner collected by the Investigating Officer shows that he used to collect money from various persons. The statements of charge sheet witnesses, in particular, Mr. Suresh Kumar and Roshan V are relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 to contend that they have given their statements, supporting the contention taken by respondent No.2 that it was the petitioner who asked them to stop visiting the gym centre and offering that he himself will come to their houses to give fitness training for half the amount which they are paying to the gym centre. All these materials on record prima-facie supports the contention taken by respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any grounds for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2472 WP No. 22834 of 2022 15. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The Petition is dismissed. The observations made herein-above are only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and the same shall not influence the Trial Court for disposing off the criminal case on merits. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV/SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22