- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3223 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. B. NAGESWARA RAO S/O HARI BABUBAPATLA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A NO.8-2-236/1, FLAT 505 VISHNU HOMES MURAL KRISHNA ENCLAVE, YOUSUF GUDA HYDERABAD TELANGANA-560045. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHATHABISH SHIVANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE SPP OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001. 2. SAWALE RAHUL SHANTARAM AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O SANTARAMBABURAOSAWALE BANGALO AMBIKA GEETANJALI COLONY BOMBAY AGRA RD. BEHIND TAPASWI HOTEL INDIRA NAGAR NASHIK CIDCO COLONY Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 MAHARASHTRA NASIK CITY MAHARASHTRA-420003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI .K, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NAVEED AHMED .S, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.0089/2025 DATED 25.02.2025 PURSUANT TO COMPLAINT DATED 25.02.2025 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT CHANDRA LAYOUT P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B), 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 503 AND 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF 4TH ADDL.C.M.M COURT NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by accused No.1 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.89/2025, for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 503 & 34 of IPC. 2. The petitioner, arraigned as accused No.1, seeks quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 present complaint, being the second complaint lodged at the instance of respondent No.2/complainant, is in direct contravention of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No. 5219/2023. In the said petition, this Court had quashed the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.149/2023, in which a similar set of allegations were raised in an earlier complaint. Relying on that judgment, the petitioner contends that the proceedings registered pursuant to the second complaint are not maintainable and, if allowed to continue, would constitute an abuse of the process of law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, and learned HCGP were heard. This Court has given anxious consideration to the judgment rendered in Criminal Petition No.5219/2023, as well as the Circular dated 30.07.2015 issued by the State. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 4. The short point that would arise for consideration is as follows: "Whether the registration of crime in Crime No.89/2025 based on a written complaint lodged by respondent No.2/complainant in pursuance of offences is sustainable in the light of the order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5219/2023 evidenced at Annexure-C?" 5. Before considering the matter further, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the first complaint, in which the petitioner was arraigned as accused No.9 pursuant to the registration of Crime No.149/2023. Paragraph 6 of the complaint is particularly relevant and is extracted below for ready reference: "6. In the early of December 21, Mallamma had arrange a meeting with Mr. D Srinivas at her house, where Mr. Sreenivas dishonestly and fraudulently represented as a Sr. Scientist of DRDO (Defense Research Development Organization) India, showed his forged identity card of DRDO, and also exhibited various forged government documents, that his company is having all sort of necessary licenses, permissions from DRDO, NASA, ISRO to commence this type of business. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 He also took the name of Mr. B Nageswar Rao(8794058128, 7601076323, 7839326467, 9990633333) from Hyderabad, who is the investor of 'Aurubis Metal Corp' as well as 'GRMT' in India and UAE. He had also falsely informed that his company used to purchase this type of products for international agency SPACEX, NASA etc. At this instance of time we have no doubt to believe this high rated representation of this posing Sr. Scientist. Mr. D. Sreenivas had quoted an amount of Rs.25.80Lakhs for conducting scanning to Sreenu Material and confirmed this business to be taken place by delivering a token amount of Rs.50 Crore on the day of testing and the total consideration will be decide on that day." 6. Challenging the registration of the crime against the petitioner, a petition was filed by him in Criminal Petition No.5219/2023. Upon examination of the averments made in the complaint, this Court found that there were no allegations whatsoever against the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was allowed. Paragraphs 4 to 7 of the said judgment, being relevant, are extracted below for ready reference: " 4. As stated supra, the petitioner - accused No.9 and other persons were sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 503 r/w 34 of IPC. However, except cryptic, vague, bald assertions in paragraph 6, the entire complaint does not disclose or reveal any other allegation made against the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.9 in the present petition. Under these circumstances, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 the impugned proceedings as against the present petitioner - accused No.9 without there being sufficient allegations deserves to be quashed. 5. At this stage, learned Addl. SPP submits that liberty may be reserved in favour of respondent No.1 - police authority to complete the investigation and submit a final report in accordance with law. So also, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that liberty may be reserved in favour of respondent No.2 to take recourse to such remedies as available in law as against the petitioner herein. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I deem it just and appropriate to quash the impugned proceedings insofar as the petitioner - accused No.9 is concerned by issuing certain directions. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in FIR in Crime No.149/2023 pending on the file of the 4th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner - accused No.9 is concerned. (iii) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.1 to complete investigation and submit a final report in accordance with law. (iv) Liberty is also reserved in favour of respondent No.2 to take recourse to such remedies as available in law as against the petitioner. (v) Petitioner is directed to co-operate with the investigation to be conducted by respondent No.1. (vi) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open and no opinion is expressed on the same. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 (vii) It is needless to state that in addition to liberty reserved in favour of respondent No.2, all other persons similarly situated to respondent No.2 would also be entitled to take recourse to such remedies as available in law." (Emphasis Supplied) 7. Upon perusal of the findings recorded by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, it is evident that the proceedings were quashed by the coordinate Bench on the ground that there was absolutely no incriminating material against the petitioner, who was arraigned as accused No.9 in Crime No.149/2023. The operative portion of the judgment, as extracted supra, also expressly reserved liberty in favour of respondent No.2 and all other persons similarly situated to avail of such remedies as may be available to them under law. Further, liberty was reserved to the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation and submit the final report in accordance with law, while the petitioner herein was directed to cooperate with the investigation conducted by respondent No.1. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 8. Contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the earlier petition, respondent No.2, in an apparent attempt to circumvent the order passed in Criminal Petition No. 5219/2023, has filed a second complaint containing exaggerated allegations that were not present in the first complaint. While lodging the second complaint, respondent No.2 has asserted that this Court had granted liberty to file a second complaint. This assertion is factually incorrect and is in direct contravention of the directions issued by this Court, which, as culled out supra, did not confer any such liberty. 9. The relevant portion of the second complaint, wherein allegations are specifically attributed against the petitioner has been extracted for ready reference. This portion also includes respondent No.2’s claim that this Court purportedly granted liberty to file the second complaint. The relevant extract of the second complaint reads as follows: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 "On 12.10.2021, Nageshwar Rao assured me that the process had started. On 22.10.2021, Brajesh asked me to pay INR 14,35,000/-to a company called Spay Technology for legal charges, and I transferred the same amount from my Union Bank, Nasik Branch account. On 26.10.2021, Nageshwar Rao stated that he would communicate with DRDO regarding NOC with a middleman named Dharanesh. On 28th October 2021, Nageswar Rao sent company registration documents through courier to Santhosh Panjabi's residential address. On 05.12.2021, Nageswar informed me that an amount of INR 2.50 CR (Two Crore Fifty Lakhs) owed by Brajesh was pending with DRDO. Since Brajesh was the contact person with DRDO, they were not signing our documents due to this pending amount. He then asked me to come to Hyderabad, assuring me that Brajesh would resolve everything with DRDO. Consequently, Santoshbhai and I went to Hyderabad. On 06.12.2021, Nageswar requested me to obtain the signature of the pot owner. Therefore, Santoshbhai and I went to Belgaum; after securing the signature, we returned to Hyderabad for a meeting with Nageswar Rao at Hotel Westin. On 07.12.2021, I again travelled to Belgaum to collect the documents and then came back to Hyderabad for another meeting with Nageswar Rao. On 18.12.2021, NageswaR RaO called me and mentioned that a representative from DRDO was available. A meeting took place at Hotel Awasa, situated behind the Westin, at 1:30 am, where I was introduced to Dharnesha, a close friend of the DRDO officers. He would manage all licensing matters for the work mentioned and assured me that the DRDO NOC would be obtained within 2 to 3 days. He requested INR 10 crore, but we agreed on INR 6 crore. Subsequently, he prepared a written schedule on the letterhead of Awasa Hotel to ensure that everything appeared legal in order to deceive us." XXXXXXXX "Meanwhile, Mr. Girish informed me that he had been cheated by them and had filed an FIR under Cr. No. 149/2023 at the Chandra Layout Police Station. I also provided my statement regarding the case. When Brajesh - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 was arrested and acknowledged his fraudulent actions, he admitted that the money collected from me, Rahul through various company accounts was invested in Air Pushpak Aviation. Consequently, he returned part of the amount of Rs. 1 crore from the Air Pushpak Aviation company account to my bank account. The accused has taken approximately Rs. 32 crore by cheating me, and the entire episode was with the sole intention of deceiving me. Nageshwar Rao, who was accused in Cr No 149/2023, has filed Crl. No. 5219/2023 before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceedings against Nageshwar Rao and granted me the liberty to file a fresh complaint against him by its order dated 12.02.2025, and hence this complaint." (Emphasis Supplied) 10. The petitioner contends that there is absolutely no incriminating material against him, either in the first complaint or in the subsequent complaint, which is the subject matter of the present petition. In order to clarify and demonstrate his actual role in the matter, the petitioner places reliance on the consultancy agreements executed between him and respondent No.2. Both agreements have been produced before this Court and are marked as Annexures-F and G. 11. A perusal of these agreements prima facie indicates that the petitioner’s role was limited to that of a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 consultant, and the scope of his duties and responsibilities is expressly delineated in both documents. The agreements further demonstrate that the petitioner had no involvement in the allegations raised in either complaint. 12. In view of the above, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portions of the consultancy agreements for ready reference, to highlight the petitioner’s limited role and to underscore the absence of any material implicating him in the alleged offences: "CONSULTANT'S DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS a) CONSULTANT shall have the following duties and obligations under this Agreement. b) CONSULTANT will provide his expertise to the CLIENT for all things pertaining to financial transactions in the banks. c) CONSULTANT will perform all the services of behalf of S and F consulting Firm Asia as a wealth manager services. d) CONSULTANT shall perform all the services related to Banking and Auditing. e) CONSULTANT shall never disclose any information related to the CLIENT to any, unless with the CLIENTS Authorization. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 f) CONSULTANT will raise invoice for all his compensations and reimbursements" "The client understands and agrees that the consultant's role is to present the process, and not to provide supervision to course of process, therefore, consultant shall not be held liable or responsible for damages out of the actions of course. Client further acknowledges and agrees that consultant is not liable or responsible for any damages arising. Therefore, the client knowingly and voluntarily, with the intention of binding itself and its successors, heirs and/or assigns, covenants to never institute any suit or action at law or in equity against consultant, its agents, employees, contractors, successors and/or assigns by reason of any claim or thereafter and will indemnify and hold harmless the consultant for and from any such suit or action at law instituted by a current or former employee or agent of the client." 13. On a careful reading of the petitioner’s duties and obligations, as extracted supra, it is evident that his role was strictly confined to providing professional expertise to the client. This includes offering consultancy services related to banking and auditing, as well as expertise in financial transactions conducted through banks. In this context, this Court observes that the coordinate Bench, having considered the absence of any incriminating material against the petitioner, was rightly pleased to quash the proceedings in Crime No.149/2023. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 14. The lodging of the second complaint, coupled with the misrepresentation that this Court had purportedly reserved liberty to file a subsequent complaint, amounts to nothing less than an abuse of the process of law. Learned HCGP has raised a strong objection to granting relief on the ground that the petitioner is allegedly not cooperating with the investigation. However, such objection appears to be misconceived and misplaced. The Investigating Officer is obligated to consider the consultancy agreements, evidenced at Annexures-F and G, which clearly define the petitioner’s role as limited to providing consultancy. Beyond the scope of these engagements, the petitioner may not be in a position to furnish further information. 15. It is further noted that the first crime was registered on 24.05.2023, and yet, in 2025, the Investigating Officer continues to insist on interrogating and investigating the petitioner. Despite repeated queries by this Court to the learned HCGP regarding the specific assistance required from the petitioner and the materials - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 that need to be secured from him, no plausible explanation has been provided by the State. It is therefore clear that under the pretext of investigation, the petitioner cannot be subjected to harassment, particularly in light of the observations made by this Court, as extracted supra. While serious allegations have been attributed against other accused, it is the responsibility of the Investigating Officer to gather material sufficient to build a case against those individuals. Any incidental or additional information required from the petitioner must be clearly specified by the Investigating Officer before summoning him. Furthermore, the Circular dated 30.07.2015 issued by the State (No. L&O/MISC/24/2015-16) expressly prohibits the lodging of successive complaints relating to the same transaction. 16. In view of the foregoing observations, this Court proceeds to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed; - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38433 CRL.P No. 3223 of 2025 (ii) The proceedings in Crime No.0089/2025, registered by the respondent/Police and pending before the learned IV Additional CMM Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City, for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 503 & 34 of the IPC, insofar as they relate to the petitioner, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66