- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11645 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. NAVEEN KUMAR S/O SRI. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, NO.300, H.M. NAYAK ROAD, 1ST MAIN ROAD, JAI MARUTHI NAGARA, NANDHINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 096. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR U., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 010. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR. AMBEDKAR BEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SANDEEP KRISHNAN S/O M. KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RETAIL MANAGER BATA INDIA PVT LTD., 27TH MAIN ROAD, P.W. QUARTERS, 1ST SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 MOB: 8589999699. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE ACJM, BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.21920/2021 AND THEREBY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 408 AND 420 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.21920/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Shivakumar U., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Sowmya R., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The petitioner is the sole accused in the said episode of crime. A complaint comes to be registered on 15.09.2020 alleging misappropriation of 3,963 pairs of Hush Puppies shoes in a Bata shoe company. The amount is said to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 be Rs.12,06,576/-. Pursuant to the registration of the crime in Crime No.112/2020, the police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet leads the petitioner to file an application seeking his discharge from the array of accused. The application comes to be rejected. The rejection of which has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that from 18.02.2020 to 25.02.2020, he was suffering from chest pain and therefore, he was granted leave. The misappropriation must have happened during that period by other staff and not by the petitioner. He would submit that on this score alone, the proceedings must be obliterated or interdicted, as the case would be. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP would submit that the case of serious misappropriation of close to 4,000 pairs of shoes in a shoe company amounting to Rs.12,00,000/-. Therefore, the police have filed a charge sheet and the matter - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 is set for trial. Therefore, this Court must not interfere at this stage. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The entire issue triggers from the registration of a complaint. The complaint reads as follows: "«µÀAiÀÄ: NgÁAiÀÄ£ï ªÀiÁ¯ï£À°ègÀĪÀ ºÀµï ¥À¦à µÀÆ ¸ÉÆÖÃgï£À°è ºÀtzÀ zÀÄgï ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ, ªÉÆøÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ §UÉÎ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆgÀÄ. ****** £Á£ÀÄ PÉÃgÀ¼À gÁdåzÀ JqÀ¥À°èAiÀÄ ªÉÄ£À£ï¥ÀgÀA©¯ï ªÀÄ£É, ¥ÉƤßagÁ gÀ¸ÉÛ, £ÀA.27/J £Éà ¤ªÁ¹¬ÄzÀÄÝ, ºÁ° ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À eÉÆãÁµÁ J°UÉAmïì, ¢uÉÚ DAd£ÉÃAiÀÄ zÉêÀ¸ÁÜ£ÀzÀ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ºÀgÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, £ÀA.f.32 £À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À«zÉÝãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÁmÁ EArAiÀiÁ PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ºÀµï ¥À¦à ¨ÁæAqï£À°è jÃmÉÃ¯ï ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï (ªÉÄð£À «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è PÀbÉÃj¬ÄzÀÄÝ) PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ¸ÀÄ¥À¢ðAiÀÄ°è 31 ºÀµï¥À¦à ¸ÉÆÖÃgïUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 37 µÁ¥ï E£ï µÁ¥ïUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. CzÀgÀ°è NgÁAiÀÄ£ï ªÀiÁ¯ï£À°è ªÉÆzÀ°£À ªÀĺÀrAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ºÀµï¥À¦à µÀƸÉÆÖÃgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ µÁ¥Àgïì ¸ÁÖ¥ï £À°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÉÆÖÃgï EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F CAUÀrUÀ¼À ªÉÄîĸÀÄÛªÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, AiÀiÁªÀÅzÁzÀgÀÆ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ dgÀÄVzÀ°è £ÁªÉà §AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¸À°è¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ. F CAUÀrUÉ ²æÃ.£À«Ã£ïPÀĪÀÄgï (ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.9741225050) JA§ÄªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÆÖÃgï ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï JAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:01.08.2016 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CªÀjUÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀµÀð mÉæöʤAUï EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F CAUÀrAiÀÄ G¸ÀÄÛªÁjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:15.06.2018 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀ»¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ªÀiÁgÀÄw£ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¤ªÁ¹AiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CªÀgÀÄ ¤vÀå CAUÀrAiÀÄ°èzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀ £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀÄ, ¸ÁÖPï, ¸Éïï, ¹§âA¢ £ÉÆÃrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀgÀ eÉÆvÉUÉ ¤vÀåzÀ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß C¯Éèà ¨ÁåAQUÉ PÀlÄÖªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àæw 15 ¢£ÀUÀ¼ÉƪÉÄä ¥ÁQëPÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÁR¯Áw ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á¥sïÖ PÁ¦AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¸À¨ÉÃPÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¤AiÀĪÀÄzÀAvÉ F J¯Áè CAUÀrUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæªÁVgÀĪÀ DrlgïUÀ½AzÀ ¥Àæw DgÀÄ wAUÀ½UÉƪÉÄä DrmïUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀÄvÀÛªÉ. F Drmï£ÀÄß ªÉÄ||gÁPÉñï & Q±ÉÆÃgï gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ Drmï ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F CAUÀrAiÀÄÄ ¢:18.03.2020 jAzÀ ¢:18.06.2020 gÀªÀgÉUÉ PÉÆëqï - 19 gÀ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ ªÀÄÄZÀѯÁVvÀÄÛ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2019£Éà ¸Á°£À CPÉÆÖçgï£À°è F CAUÀrAiÀÄ Drmï DVzÀÄÝ, Drmï ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ DVgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¢£ÁAPÀ:10.08.2020 gÀAzÀÄ £À¨ÉAzÀÄ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¹zÁÝxÀð ¨Áå£Àfð PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ ¥ÀgÀªÁV Drmï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ ²æÃ.£À«Ã£ï, ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï gÀªÀgÀÄ CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è E¢Ý®è. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀvÀÄÛ ¢£ÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ §AzÀÄ Drmï ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¥sÉÆÃ£ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ «£ÀAw¹zÀgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.08.2020 gÀAzÀÄ ²æÃ.Q±ÉÆÃgï (ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.9148884062) gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÉÄ||gÁPÉñï & Q±ÉÆÃgï gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV Drmï ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹zÀgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ:20.08.2020 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® EzÀÝQÌzÀÝAvÉ £À«Ã£ï ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï gÀªÀgÀÄ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁzÀgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄ DrmïUÉ §gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:26.08.2020 gÀªÀgÉUÉ PÁAiÀÄÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀÄ §gÀ¢zÀÝjAzÀ Drmï ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹ, ¢£ÁAPÀ:27.08.2020 gÀAzÀÄ Drmï ªÀgÀ¢ ¸À°è¹zÀgÀÄ. CzÀgÀ°è ¥Á¬ÄAmï D¥sï ¸Éïï(¦.N¹¸ÀÖªÀiï PÀA¥ÀÆålgï) £À°è MlÄÖ 3963 ºÁµï¥À¦à DnðPÀ¯ïUÀ½zÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.1,31,31,786/- EzÀÄÝ, RÄzÁÝV ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ MlÄÖ 3609 ºÁµï¥À¦à DnðPÀ¯ïUÀ½zÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.1,19,25,210/- ªÀiÁvÀæ EgÀÄvÀÛªÉ. G½zÀ 354 ºÁµï¥À¦à DnðPÀ¯ïUÀ½zÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ.12,06,576/- ºÀtzÀ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CzÉà jÃw PÁåµï ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ C°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ gÀÆ 70,031/- ªÀåvÁå¸À«gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀÆ 1,56,305/- £ÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¯ÉPÀÌ vÉÆÃj¹ PÀA¥À¤¬ÄAzÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. »ÃUÉ MlÄÖ gÀÆ 14,70,383/- UÀ¼À ºÀtzÀ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÀiÁr PÀA¥À¤UÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀ¸ÁÛªÉÃdÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀȶֹgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C£ÉÃPÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä ²æÃ.£À«Ã£ïPÀĪÀiÁgï, ªÀiÁå£ÉÃdgï gÀªÀjUÉ «£ÀAw¹PÉÆAqÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ UÉÊgÀÄ ºÁdgÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EªÀgÀÄ ¨ÁmÁ PÀA¥À¤UÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî ¯ÉPÀÌ vÉÆÃj¹, ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr ºÀtzÀ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀ £À«Ã£ï PÀĪÀÄgï gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ." The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.112/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 408 and 420 of the IPC. The police after conducting investigation file a chargesheet. The summary of the chargesheet as obtaining in column No.7 reads as follows: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 “ಈ ೋಾ ೋಪಣ ಪ ಯ ಾಲಂ ನಂ.01 ರ ನಮೂದು ಾರುವ ಾ-1 ರವರು ಾಾ ಇಂ!ಾ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಹ% ಪ&' ಾ(ಂ)ನ *ೕೇ+ ಾ,-ೇಜ/ ಆ1 ೆಲಸ ಾಡು45ರು6ಾ5 ೆ. ಾ-1 ರವರ 7ಾ,&5ಯ ಾಲಂ ನಂ.4 ರ ಆ ೋ&ಯು ಾ8ಾ9ನಗರ ಓ ಾಯ< ಾ+ನ =ದನ ಮಹಯರುವ ಹ% ಪ&' µÀÆೊ ೕ/ ಮತು5 ಾಪgïì ಾ ?ನ ಾ,-ೇಜ/ ಆ1ದು@. ಈ ಾ?ನ ಾ-5 ಮತು5 ಾ-6 ರವರು ೇ+A ಾ,< ಆ1 ೆಲಸ ಾಡು45ರು6ಾ5 ೆ. B-ಾಂಕ: 15.06.2018 ರಂದು ಈ ಅಂಗDೆ ಎ-1 ಆ ೋ&ಯು ಾ,-ೇಜ/ ಆ1 -ೇಮಕDೊಂಡು ಾಯF #ವFGಸು45ರು6ಾ5 ೆ. ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾ-4 ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾಾ ಾ ಾ ಾ ಇಂ!ಾ ಇಂ!ಾ ಇಂ!ಾ ಇಂ!ಾ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಪರ7ಾ1 ಪರ7ಾ1 ಪರ7ಾ1 ಪರ7ಾ1 B-ಾ B-ಾ B-ಾ B-ಾAPÀ 27.08.2020 ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ರಂದು ಆH ಆH ಆH ಆH ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾ. ಆH ಆH ಆH ಆH ವರBಯನುI ವರBಯನುI ವರBಯನುI ವರBಯನುI ಾಾ ಾಾ ಾಾ ಾಾ ಇಂ!ಾ ಇಂ!ಾ ಇಂ!ಾ ಇಂ!ಾ ಕಂಪ#Dೆ ಕಂಪ#Dೆ ಕಂಪ#Dೆ ಕಂಪ#Dೆ ವರB ವರB ವರB ವರB ಸJದು@ ಸJದು@ ಸJದು@ ಸJದು@. ಸದ* ಸದ* ಸದ* ಸದ* ವರBಯ ವರBಯ ವರBಯ ವರBಯ KಾLಂH KಾLಂH KಾLಂH KಾLಂH ಆM ಆM ಆM ಆM ೇ+ ೇ+ ೇ+ ೇ+ (&&&&.ಓಓಓಓ.Jಸ N Jಸ N Jಸ N Jಸ N ಕಂಪO,ಟ/ ಕಂಪO,ಟ/ ಕಂಪO,ಟ/ ಕಂಪO,ಟ/) ನ ನ ನ ನ ಒಟು ಒಟು ಒಟು ಒಟು 3,963 Rಾ% Rಾ% Rಾ% Rಾ% ಪಪಪಪ¦à ಆFಕ+ ಆFಕ+ ಆFಕ+ ಆFಕ+ ಗSದು@ ಗSದು@ ಗSದು@ ಗSದು@, ಇದರ ಇದರ ಇದರ ಇದರ =ತ5 =ತ5 =ತ5 =ತ5 ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ.1,31,31,786/- ಇದು@ ಇದು@ ಇದು@ ಇದು@, ಒಟು ಒಟು ಒಟು ಒಟು 3609 Rಾ Rಾ Rಾ Rಾµï ಪಪಪಪ¦à, ಆFಕ+ ಆFಕ+ ಆFಕ+ ಆFಕ+ ಗSದು@ ಗSದು@ ಗSದು@ ಗSದು@, ಇದರ ಇದರ ಇದರ ಇದರ =ತ5 =ತ5 =ತ5 =ತ5 ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ.1,19,25,210/- ಾತ( ಾತ( ಾತ( ಾತ( ಇರುತ57ೆ ಇರುತ57ೆ ಇರುತ57ೆ ಇರುತ57ೆ. ಉSದ ಉSದ ಉSದ ಉSದ 354 Rಾ% Rಾ% Rಾ% Rಾ% ಪ&' ಪ&' ಪ&' ಪ&' ಆFಕ+ ಆFಕ+ ಆFಕ+ ಆFಕ+ಗಳV ಗಳV ಗಳV ಗಳV =ತ5 =ತ5 =ತ5 =ತ5 ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ 12,06,576/- ಹಣದ ಹಣದ ಹಣದ ಹಣದ ದುರುಪWೕಗ ದುರುಪWೕಗ ದುರುಪWೕಗ ದುರುಪWೕಗ ಆ1ರುತ5ೆ ಆ1ರುತ5ೆ ಆ1ರುತ5ೆ ಆ1ರುತ5ೆ. ಅಲೆ ಅಲೆ ಅಲೆ ಅಲೆ ಎಎಎಎ-1 ಆ ೋ&ಯು ಆ ೋ&ಯು ಆ ೋ&ಯು ಆ ೋ&ಯು ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ನಗದು ನಗದು ನಗದು ನಗದು ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ: ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ 70,031/- ಅನುI ಅನುI ಅನುI ಅನುI ತನI ತನI ತನI ತನI ಸXಂತೆY ಸXಂತೆY ಸXಂತೆY ಸXಂತೆY Rಾಗೂ Rಾಗೂ Rಾಗೂ Rಾಗೂ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ 1,56,305/- ನಷು ನಷು ನಷು ನಷು ಹಣವನುI ಹಣವನುI ಹಣವನುI ಹಣವನುI ಸುಳV[ ಸುಳV[ ಸುಳV[ ಸುಳV[ \ೆಕY \ೆಕY \ೆಕY \ೆಕY 6ೋ*J 6ೋ*J 6ೋ*J 6ೋ*J ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಕಂಪ#ಯ ಹಣವನುI ಹಣವನುI ಹಣವನುI ಹಣವನುI ದುರುಪWೕಗ ದುರುಪWೕಗ ದುರುಪWೕಗ ದುರುಪWೕಗ ಪJೊಂರು6ಾ5-ೆ ಪJೊಂರು6ಾ5-ೆ ಪJೊಂರು6ಾ5-ೆ ಪJೊಂರು6ಾ5-ೆ.” (Emphasis added at each instance) The petitioner being the Assistant Manager of the Bata shoe company in whose possession was the entire stock. The stock goes missing to the tune of almost 4,000 pairs of shoes. The petitioner seeks to project that he was on leave or granted leave for a period of one week through the WhatsApp communications. If the misappropriation had happened during the period of that week, it would have been an altogether different circumstance. It has happened during intermittent intervals even when the petitioner was serving there. In that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 light, all these matters would become a matter of evidence. Whether the petitioner was present, absent or misappropriation happened during his presence or his absence would require a full-blown trial. What is projected before this Court are disputed questions of fact. In this regard, it is apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1, wherein it is held as follows: "9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not 1 (2021) 9 SCC 35 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. 9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove. 9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. 10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation. 11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only. 12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial. 14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed." (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court, this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to obliterate the proceedings when disputed questions of fact arise. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18863 CRL.P No. 11645 of 2025 8. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands dismissed. I.A. No.1/2025 stands disposed of as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT:BHK