- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2335 CRL.P No. 103590 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103590 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. SANJAY KILLEDAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: SENIOR ADMINISTRATOR (RENUKA SUGARS, MUNVALLI), R/O: MUNVALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI AND DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-591 126. 2. SHRI. BHASKAR NAYADU, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: VICE PRESIDENT (RENUKA SUGARS, MUNVALLI), R/O: MUNVALLI, TQ: SAUNDATTI AND DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-591 126. 3. SMT. VIDYA MARAKUMBI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: CHAIRMAN (RENUKA SUGARS, MUNVALLI), B.C. NO.105, HAWLOCK ROAD, CAMP, BELAGAVI, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI, PIN-590 001. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH PSI SAUNDATTI POLICE STATION, REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, S.P.P. OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580 011. 2. SRI. V. VENKATRAYAN, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB, B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.11 15:51:52 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2335 CRL.P No. 103590 of 2022 R/O: UTTUKOTTAI, DIST: THIRUVALLUR, STATE: TAMILA NADU, PIN-602 026. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.31/2011 NOW NUMBERED AS CC NO.396/2022, REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 403, 406 AND 420 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C. COURT, SAUNDATTI, IN SO FAR AS PRESENT PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 ARE CONCERNED, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, who have been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 406, and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), have approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.396/2022, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti. 2. The second respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), alleging that a criminal case of theft was filed by the Administrator of the Renuka Sugar Factory. During the investigation of the said crime, the police conducted a search of the complainant’s house, during which certain articles were seized. The complainant further alleges that some articles belonging to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2335 CRL.P No. 103590 of 2022 him, which were not part of the crime, were also left in the house. He contends that the petitioners, who are the Administrator, President, and Vice-President of Renuka Sugar Factory, have not permitted him to retrieve his belongings. 3. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Upon investigation, the police submitted a ‘B’ Report. However, respondent No.2-complainant filed a protest petition. After hearing the matter, the learned Magistrate rejected the ‘B’ Report and, upon recording the sworn statement of the complainant, issued summons to the petitioners. 4. The petitioners challenged the order rejecting the ‘B’ Report before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. Upon remand, the learned Magistrate once again rejected the ‘B’ Report and took cognizance of the offences alleged. 5. Despite being served with notice, respondent No.2- complainant has neither appeared in person nor through counsel and is, therefore, placed ex parte. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State. 7. During the course of the investigation, the police recorded the statements of local residents and security personnel, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2335 CRL.P No. 103590 of 2022 who categorically stated that respondent No.2 had already retrieved all his belongings. The protest petition filed by the complainant is not in the form of a complaint but merely alleges lapses in the investigation. On this ground alone, the learned Magistrate ought to have rejected the protest petition and accepted the ‘B’ Report. 8. The complainant has not produced any substantive evidence to establish that the petitioners, in their capacity as office- bearers of the Sugar Factory, wrongfully withheld his belongings. Even assuming the allegations to be true, they do not constitute the offences of criminal breach of trust or cheating, as there was no entrustment of property to the petitioners, nor did they induce the complainant to part with his belongings with an intent to deceive. 9. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 10. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.396/2022, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti, insofar as they pertain to the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, are hereby quashed. 11. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2335 CRL.P No. 103590 of 2022 ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.396/2022 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Saundatti, insofar as it relates to petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49