- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26231 WP No. 6963 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6963 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: ROOPA W/O MURLI, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, ATTICA GOLD COMPANY, OFFICE AT, SUVARNA BHAVANA, QUEENS ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. ALSO AT NO.1437, 2ND CROSS, CORPORATION COLONY, GOVINDARAJA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560079. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAMMED TAHIR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY HANUMANTHANAGAR P.S REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE AT HIGH COURT COMPLEX, OPPOSITE TO VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001. 2. DR. RAMESH KASHYAP S/O K.B. RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO 552, 2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS, SRINAGAR, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26231 WP No. 6963 of 2025 BSK 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE-560050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, LEARNED HCGP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DTD 17.06.2022 AT ANNX-C FILED BY THE R-1 HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE REGISTERED AS CC NO. 22552/2022 U/S 380, 411, 120B AND 413 OF IPC., ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 121/2021 OF R-1 HANUMANTHANAGAR POLICE AND THE SAME IS PENDING IN THE FILES OF 37TH ACMM BANGALORE WHEREIN THE PETITIONER IS ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.4 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.22552/2022 arising out of Crime No.121/2021 registered by the 1st respondent – police, pending on the file of the Addl. CMM, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 120B, 411 and 413 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26231 WP No. 6963 of 2025 material on record. For the order proposed, notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arraigned as accused No. 4 in C.C.No.22552/2022 along with 7 other accused. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner being the Administrative Officer of the Attica Gold Company, the said company not being made a party in the charge sheet has vitiated the proceedings. The counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the petitioner being an administrative office has no role in the alleged offence and has been falsely implicated in the complaint and charge sheet. 4. In this context, learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to an order of the co- ordinate bench of this Court passed in W.P.No. 1353/2018 dated 05.01.2023 in order to point out that proceedings against other accused persons in the same incident were quashed since the said accused persons were merely - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26231 WP No. 6963 of 2025 employees of the said company and had no nexus with the alleged incident. 5. This Court in the case of Honnegowda and another vs. State of Karnataka and another – W.P.No.1353/2018 dated 05.01.2023, quashed the criminal proceedings against similarly placed accused persons and held as under: The FIR was lodged for the offence punishable under Sections 454, 380 and 413 of IPC alleging that the gold jewelieries belonging to the complainant was stolen by the accused and sold the same to the Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd., in various branches. 2. The Police after investigation submitted the charge sheet against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 4 before the learned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate after perusal of the charge sheet has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offence and the same is impugned in this petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26231 WP No. 6963 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 4 submits that petitioners- accused Nos.2 and 4 were the employees of the Attica Gold company which is alleged to have purchased the stolen gold jewelleries and in the company having not been arraigned as an accused, the cognizance taken is impermissible. 4. He further submits that there is no material that the accused Nos.2 arid 4 as employees of the company have purchased the stolen gold jewelleries belonging to the complainant. 5. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the State submits that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 who are the employees of the company having purchased the stolen jewelleries have committed the aforesaid offences. Hence, the cognizance taken does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26231 WP No. 6963 of 2025 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of R. Kalyani -vs- Janak C. Mehta and Others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 516 held that, "If a person, thus, has to be proceeded with as being vicariously liable for the acts of the company, the company must be made an accused. In any event, it would be a fair thing to do so, as legal fiction is raised both against the company as well as the person: responsible for the acts of the company". 8. In the instant case, the charge sheet is laid against the petitioners-accused Nos. 2 and 4 alleging that the company in which they are working as an employees have purchased the stolen gold jewelleries. In the absence of the company not being arraigned as a accused, the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 cannot be held vicariously guilty of the same. 9. Even otherwise, there is no material produced to substantiate the allegation that the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 4 as employees of the said company fully knowing that the gold jewelleries were stolen from the respondent No.2 have purchased the same, the registration of the FIR culminating in laying of the charge - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26231 WP No. 6963 of 2025 sheet is impermissible. Hence, the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners -accused Nos.2 and 4 will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER 1) The Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.23225/2017 on the file of the 24th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in so far it relates to petitioners- accused nos.2 and 4 are hereby quashed. 6. In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that the Petitioner is neither the director nor an administrative head of the said company. The petitioner merely being an administrative officer cannot be implicated in the alleged offence and so also the petitioner being an employee of the said company cannot be implicated in the alleged offence without the company being made a party to the alleged offence. For the reasons stated above and in view of the judgment Honnegowda’s case supra, I am of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26231 WP No. 6963 of 2025 considered opinion that the proceedings in C.C. No.: 22552/2022 pursuant to F.I.R. in Crime No.: 121/2021 registered by the respondent no.1 – police as against the Petitioner is liable to be quashed. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.22552/2022 arising out of FIR in Crime No.121/2021 registered by the 1st respondent – Police, pending on the file of the 37th Addl. CMM, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 380, 120B, 411 and 413 of IPC., insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SRK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 50