- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37118 CRL.P No. 10938 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10938 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SANTU DAS S/O JOYDEB DAS, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT ASHURALI VILLAGE, KOLAGHAT, PURBA MEDINIPUR DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL - 721134. 2. PRASENJIT PANJA, S/O RANJIT PANJA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT BHATHANBERIA VILLAGE, UTTARAPARA TALUK, KOLA, KOLAGHAT, PURBA MEDINIPUR, WEST BENGAL - 721134. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. OMKAR BASAVA PRABHU, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37118 CRL.P No. 10938 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HALASURUGATE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. ANAND KUMAR, S/O HANUMAYYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13/23, 16TH MAIN ROAD, KALIDASA LAYOUT, SHREE NAGARA, BANASHANKARI 3RD PHASE, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INTIATED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 HALASURGATE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, AGAINST THE PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3) IN C.C.NO.4908/2025, ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.257/2023 AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 6th ACJM BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37118 CRL.P No. 10938 of 2025 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 This petition is filed by accused Nos.2 and 3 seeking quashing of proceedings pending in C.C.4908/2025 arising out of Crime No.257/2023 pending on the file of VI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The petitioners, arraigned as accused Nos.2 and 3, have approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings, contending that the material available on record, particularly the receipt vouchers issued by Subrata Gold Jewellers, indicate that accused No.1 alone, as the sole proprietor, had signed the said receipts in that capacity. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37118 CRL.P No. 10938 of 2025 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant entrusted 267 grams of gold ornaments to accused Nos.1 to 3, who assured him that the old gold would be converted into new designs. It is alleged that, with an intent to cheat respondent No.2/defacto complainant, all three accused absconded with the gold handed over to them. This led to the registration of a criminal case against the accused, based on a complaint lodged by respondent No.2, for offences punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The sum and substance of the grounds urged in the present petition is that, at best, the charge sheet discloses a prima facie case only against accused No.1, and there is no material implicating accused Nos.2 and 3. The petitioners contend that, in the absence of any specific overt act or direct inducement attributable to them, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. It is further urged that the charge - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37118 CRL.P No. 10938 of 2025 sheet does not disclose the requisite mens rea at the inception of the transaction insofar as these petitioners are concerned. 5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit, by referring to the charge sheet material, that a prima facie case is made out not only against accused No.1 but also against the present petitioners. It is further pointed out that there existed an inter se partnership between accused No.1 and accused Nos.2 and 3, wherein the petitioners were assigned the task of securing customers for the jewellery shop owned by accused No.1. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the charge sheet and other material on record. 7. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging, in unequivocal terms, that he had entrusted 267 grams of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37118 CRL.P No. 10938 of 2025 gold ornaments to accused Nos.1 to 3. In the written complaint submitted to the jurisdictional police, the respondent/defacto complainant specifically stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 were partners in the goldsmith business conducted by accused No.1 under the name and style of Subrata Gold Jewellers. It was further alleged that all three accused were actively involved in persuading customers to part with their old gold ornaments on the assurance that the ornaments would be remodelled into fresh, newly designed jewellery. The complaint also narrates that, in furtherance of this representation, accused Nos.1 to 3 initially delivered certain newly crafted rings; however, they subsequently absconded without returning the balance quantity of 267 grams of gold ornaments, thereby cheating the complainant. 8. Pursuant to the registration of the crime, the investigating authorities apprehended accused No.1 at Delhi, seized certain gold ornaments, and later returned - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37118 CRL.P No. 10938 of 2025 the recovered articles to respondent No.2/complainant. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer collected material suggesting the involvement of accused Nos.2 and 3 and consequently filed a charge sheet arraigning them as co-accused. Whether the petitioners had committed any specific overt act, whether they directly induced the complainant, and whether they were sharing profits with accused No.1 or were unconnected to the sole-proprietary concern, are matters which can only be determined after appreciation of evidence during trial. The material contained in the charge sheet, at this stage, constitutes sufficient prima facie evidence to warrant prosecution. The existence or otherwise of mens rea at the inception of the transaction, and the precise role played by the petitioners, are questions of fact that must be established by the prosecution at trial. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37118 CRL.P No. 10938 of 2025 9. In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the opinion that the case does not merit interference under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 119