- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101339 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI LAXMINARAYAN S/O RAJAM BOINA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR OF SREE BHAGYALAXMI COAL AND MINERALS TRADING PVT. LTD., R/O 7-24/12, KOLA VOORU AT POST PEDDAPPALLI DIST. KARIM NAGAR, ANDHRA PRADESH NOW RESIDING AT POLICE LANE OPP, DCP OFFICE, AMBERPET, HYDERBAD, TELANGANA STATE. 2. SMT. BHAGYALAXMI W/O LAXMINARAYAN BOINA AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR OF SREE BHAGYALAXMI COAL AND MINERALS TRADING PVT. LTD., R/O 7-24/12, KOLA VOORU AT POST PEDDAPPALLI DIST. KARIM NAGAR, ANDHRA PRADESH NOW RESIDING AT POLICE LANE OPP, DCP OFFICE, AMBERPET, HYDERBAD, TELANGANA STATE …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STAE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BAGALKOT TOWN POLICE STATION R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNAAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 2. BAGALKOT CEMENT AND INDUSTRIES LTD., A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BAGALKOT TQ AND DIST. BAGALKOT 578111 R/BY ITS MANAGER LEGAL, SHRI A R NIDASHESHI …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. S.B.HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC 528 OF BNSS, 2023 SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 99/2024 (CRIME NO. 03/2017 BAGALKOT TOWN PS (OUT OF PCR NO. 06/2016) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION. 406, 420, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, BAGALKOT IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS HEREIN (ACCUSED NO. 1 AND 2) ARE CONCERNED AND IMPOSE EXEMPLARY COSTS ON RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR FILING FALSE AND BASELESS COMPLAINT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Prashant S. Kadadevar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Girija S. Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent and Sri.S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer: A. Quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No. 99/2024 (Crime No. 03/2017) Bagalkot Town P.S (out of PCR No. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 06/2016) for the offences punishable under section. 406, 420, 120(b) R/w. 34 of IPC on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkot in so far as petitioners herein (accused no. 1 and 2) are concerned; B. Impose exemplary costs on Respondent No.2 for filing false and baseless complaint against the petitioners. C. Pass any such other order (s) as this Court may deem fit based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. 3. In fact, it is a second petition filed by the petitioners with the same relief. Earlier, the petition filed by the petitioners was disposed of by considered ordered dated 13.07.2023 when the petitioners had approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR in Crl.P.No.101074/2018. 4. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the petition are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by respondent No.2 herein which was registered in PC No.06/2016 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagalkot. As per the prayer of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 learned counsel for the complainant, matter was referred to jurisdictional police for investigation by exercising the power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 5. Based on the directions issued by the learned Trial Magistrate, jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No.03/2017 for the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners and one more accused. 6. Gist of the complaint averments as per the private complaint reveals that respondent No.2 herein passed an order for supply of coal to M/s. Bhagyalakshmi Coal and Minerals Trading Private Limited, Kola Vooru, Karim Nagar, Andra Pradesh. Petitioners herein are the only Directors of the said company being the husband and wife and therefore, it is a closely held company. 7. As per the order passed by respondent No.2, money was transferred to the petitioners. It is further complaint of respondent No.2 that despite transfer of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 money, said company failed to supply the coal to respondent No.2 and therefore, they sought for action against the petitioners herein who being the Directors and another accused. 8. Police after thorough investigation, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet and case is now pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagalkot in CC No.99/2024. 9. After the charge sheet is filed and cognizance of the offences is taken by the learned Trial Magistrate. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have approached this Court with the aforesaid prayer on the following grounds: 14. The Petitioners have not committed any offence leave alone the offences levelled against them in CC 99/2024 of Bagalkot Town Police Station arising out of PCR No.No.6/2016 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Bagalkot. Hence interference iso sought for. 15. Looking into the entire allegations and documents, it is clear that the entire case is on contract and therefore, criminal liability does not arise. Further the respondent no.2 also proceeded against the petitioners in civil suit. Hence interference is sought for. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 16. It is pertinent mention here that even otherwise, looking into the entire facts, it is between two companies, but the respondent no.2 has not at all made petitioners' company as accused in the company. Hence in the absence of company as party to the proceedings, the entire proceedings became abuse of process of law. Hence interference is sought for. 17. It is further submitted that after dispose of the Crl. P no.101074/2018 by this Hon'ble Court, the investigation agency has not at taken any pain to make any enquiry the petitioners and also not asked to produce any documents and even otherwise, the documents already produced in Crl P no.101074/2018 has not at all looked into by the investigation agency. Hence in the absence of the same, the present charge sheet has submitted and on the basis of the same, cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court which is contrary to the decision passed in Crl P no.101074/2018. Hence interference is sought for. 18. It is submitted that, upon bare perusal of the Complair it is crystal clear that, none of the ingredients of the offence alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner have be fulfilled and hence warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court. 19. It is submitted that there is no single allegations against the petitioner no.2. Hence interference is sought for. 20. It is submitted that, the very fact that Respondent No.2 has filed the complaint before the Trial Court after a lapse of almost two months that too for making false allegation of non-supplying of goods which is very clear from the annexure-D series that the petitioner's company has supplied as agreed. Hence allegations are baseless allegations against the Petitioners and the complaint has been filed by Respondent No.2 with malafides to force the Petitioners to agree to the illegal demands made by Respondent No.2 and hence warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court. 21. It is submitted that the acknowledgments issued by Respondent No.2 on the tax invoices issued by Petitioners clearly indicate that Respondent No.2 has received the goods from the Petitioners and has filed the instant case - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 with a malafide to gain unjust enrichment at the cost of the Petitioners and hence the entire proceedings initiated against the Petitioners are liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 22. It is submitted that if at all Respondent No.2 had any issue with regard to the quality of the goods supplied by the Petitioners, the proper remedy available with Respondent No 2 to agitate its concern would be an Petitioners appropriate civil case against the However, Respondent No.2 has chosen the path of knocking the doors of a criminal court to settle a civil dispute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Hon'ble Court have time and again frowned upon the frivolous criminal litigation initiated by the parties to gain commercial gain and hence the entire proceedings against the Petitioners are liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 23. The allegations made in the complaint do not disclose the essential ingredients of any offence alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner. It is pertinent mention here that already the complainant has also instituted civil suit in respect of the same issue and also the same was disposed of by placing the petitioners as ex parte. Copy of the judgment passed in Os no.32/2019 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-j Therefore, this criminal proceedings is unsustainable in law. Hence interference is sought for. 24. The allegations made in the complaint against the Petitioner are patently absurd and inherently improbable and no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the Petitioners when the Petitioners has enough and prima facie proof to show that the goods in question have been duly delivered by the Petitioners to Respondent No.2 and hence warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court. 25. The fact that Respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint against the Petitioners only with a mala-fide intention to force the Petitioners to agree to the illegal demands of Respondent No.2 can be gathered from the fact that, Respondent No.2 has deliberately given the old/native address of the Petitioners in the Complaint so that the summons issued by the Trial Court is not served on the Petitioners and hence the Petition could be arrested by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 issuance of warrant against them. Hence entire proceedings initiated against the Petitioners are liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 26. It is submitted that, Respondent No.2 is abusing the process of law and court by filing a false criminal case against the Petitioner and hence Respondent No 2 and its officers are guilty of contempt of court. 27. The cognizance of the offences by the Magistrate against the Petitioners is capricious, arbitrary and illegal based on no-evidence, materials which are wholly irrelevant and inadmissible and the chances of conviction are very bleak as the material produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the Petitioner has committed any offences as alleged and thus the proceedings initiated against the Petitioners are abuse of process of law and are liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 28. It is most respectfully submitted that, continuance of criminal proceedings against the Petitioners would be abuse of process of law and hence warrants interference by this Hon'ble Court. 29. The Petitioners are law-abiding citizens and are small time businesspersons running small scale business for the livelihood and that there are no previous criminal records their names. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that very complaint itself was not maintainable in view of the authoritative principles of law enunciated in the case of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 12. He would further contend that in respect of same transaction, respondent No.2 herein had approached the Civil Court in O.S.No.32/2019 and same is decreed as ex-parte. Therefore, parallel criminal proceedings are not maintainable in respect of same transaction and sought for quashing of the proceedings. 13. He would also contend that M/s. Bhagyalakshmi Pvt. Ltd. is not made as a party and therefore, proceedings against the petitioners is not maintainable. 14. He would also contend that as per the order placed by respondent No.2, petitioners have already supplied the coal. Therefore, there is no criminality in the matter per se attracting the offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC and thus, sought for quashing of the pending criminal proceedings. 15. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader supports the filing of the charge sheet by contending that necessary materials have been collected - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 by the investigation agency to attract the offence under Section 406, 420 and 120-B read with Section 34 of IPC and therefore, there is no merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 adopting the arguments put forth by learned High Court Government Pleader further contends that there is no bar for the proceedings against the petitioners both under the civil and criminal jurisdiction and for the act attributable to the petitioners herein is that they cheated respondent No.2. Further, they did not chose to contest the civil suit as they had no defence whatsoever to contest the suit. Therefore, contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner is that civil dispute is sought to be converted into criminal proceedings cannot be countenanced in law. 17. Insofar as the maintainability of the complaint is concerned, he would contend that even though legal principles of law enunciated in the Priyanka supra, is not complied in the case on hand by filing an affidavit, fact - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 remains that respondent No.2 is prepared to face the consequences of launching the criminal prosecution and respondent No.2 is prepared to accept the verdict of the learned Trial Magistrate, also prepared to face the malicious prosecution in the event, respondent No.2 suffers an adverse order. 18. Insofar as the company being not made as a party is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that such an embargo is not available for the offence under Section 406 and 420 of IPC unlike statutory provision prescribing company must be made as a party unlike under provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, contentions urged on behalf of the petitioners cannot be countenanced in law and sought for dismissal of the revision petition. 19. Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 20. On such perusal of the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there was no element of cheating in the case on hand inasmuch as order of placing the supply of coal has been fulfilled by the petitioners. Therefore, no criminality is involved. Such a defence cannot be considered by this Court, at this stage, especially, when the case is at the inception stage. It is always open for the petitioners herein to confront necessary documents when the prosecution examines its witnesses before the Trial Court. 21. Secondly, the embargo that was available in the Priyanka Srivastava referred to supra, as well as the company being not made as party to the proceedings are all to be adjudicated by the Trial Court at the time of disposal of the main petition. 22. Suffice to say that, at this stage, since the matter is investigated by the police and found that there is no material found during the investigation which would - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 absolve the liability of the petitioners prima facie. As such, charge sheet came to be filed. 23. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that charge sheet cannot be quashed unless there are compelling circumstances which would result in abuse of process of law by an unscrupulous complaint. 24. In the case on hand, it is the defence of the petitioners that they have supplied the coal for which the photocopies of certain documents were placed before this Court vide Annexure D series. 25. Prima facie they are all photocopies, veracity which needs to be tested by the learned Trial Magistrate by considering the probative value of such documents during the trial. 26. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that at the time of considering the prayer of quashing the charge sheet by exercising the inherent - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 power vested in this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court is precluded from holding a mini trial. 27. Thus, desisting from holding a mini trial, when the prima facie materials are collected by the investigation agency in the form of charge sheet is analyzed, this Court is satisfied that no case is made out which would be of compelling nature to quash the pending charge sheet. 28. The last point that is urged on behalf of the Court is that parallel proceedings of civil suit and criminal case insofar as one and the same transaction is concerned, it is well settled that civil liability though has some relevance in the pending criminal proceedings, would not ipso facto turn out a civil liability into a criminal liability. Nor any material is found on record that the transaction involved in the case is pure civil nature. 29. Moreover, if the petitioners were to succeed in establishing that prosecution of the petitioners by respondent No.2 is with ulterior motive, it is always open - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6980 CRL.P No. 101339 of 2025 for the petitioners to initiate proceedings for malicious prosecution if they get an order of acquittal in the present criminal case. 30. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court is of the considered opinion that none of the grounds urged in the petition are sufficient enough to allow the prayer. 31. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Petition is dismissed. ii. However, the observations made during the course of order shall not influence the rights of the parties in the pending trial one way or the other. SD/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41