- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14470 CRL.P No. 2216 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2216 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI. S.M. LOKESH S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.850, 6TH CROSS MEI LAYOUT, BAGALAGUNTE NAGASNADRA POST BENGALURU-560073 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAIK N.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION BAGALAGUNTE BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. SMT. SUNANDA W/O YELLAPPA JADI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.284, 6TH CROSS, NAGASANDRA POST BAGALAGUNTE BENGALURU-560073 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14470 CRL.P No. 2216 of 2019 SRI. MALLESH L., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.52/2019 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION, BAGALAGUNTE, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 4 AND 76 OF CHIT FUNDS ACT, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 31st ADDITIONAL C.M.M., COURT AT BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an F.I.R drawn against him by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.52/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 4 and 76 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'). 2. The respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1 in writing on 06.02.2019 that she knew the petitioner for over 15 years. She claimed that during 2011, the petitioner was running a chit fund and that he had claimed that he had a licence to do so. She claimed that from the year 2011, she - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14470 CRL.P No. 2216 of 2019 used to subscribe for chits with the petitioner. She claimed that she had subscribed to 4 chits of Rs.1,00,000/- each, 4 chits of Rs.1,50,000/-, 3 chits for Rs.2,00,000/- each. The tenure of Rs.1,00,000/- chit was 20 months while the tenure of Rs.1,50,000/- chit was 30 months and the tenure of Rs.2,00,000/- chit was 40 months. She claimed that she used to pay a sum of Rs.55,000/- every month. She claimed that during 2016, all the chits had matured and that the petitioner without paying the chit amount, was avoiding her. She, therefore, requested the respondent No.1 to initiate action against the petitioner. Following this, a case in Crime No.52/2019 was registered by the respondent No.1 for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the FIR drawn against him, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not know the respondent No.2. He contends that he has not undertaken a chit fund as alleged by the respondent No.2. He contends that the petitioner had filed PCR No.2872/2019 against the respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506, 441 read with Section 34 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14470 CRL.P No. 2216 of 2019 of IPC on the premise that after his arrest by the respondent No.1, he came to know that the respondent No.2 had lodged a false complaint. He alleged that his wife had financial transactions with the respondent No.2 and others. He, therefore, alleged that the respondent No.2 and others had conspired to lodge a false case against him. He contends that the Trial Court after recording the sworn statement of the petitioner, has taken cognizance of the said offences and charges are framed against the respondent No.2 in C.C No.12255/2020. He further submits that the petitioner has nothing to do with the transactions brought about by his wife and that he has already filed a petition for divorce in M.C No.6455/2018 which was decreed ex parte by the Family Court in terms of an order dated 12.08.2021. He, therefore, submits that the impugned F.I.R drawn against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law and therefore, prays that the same be set at nought. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the respondent No.2 had subscribed to chits organized by the petitioner and his wife and that they had - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14470 CRL.P No. 2216 of 2019 failed to pay the final chit amount even after the chits had matured. He, therefore, contends that an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC was made out and the petitioner had engaged in chit fund business without being registered under the provisions of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 and therefore, an offence under Sections 4 and 76 of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 was also made out against the petitioner. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader reiterated the above submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and submitted that the case is still at the initial stage and hence, prays that the petition be dismissed so as to enable the respondent No.1 to investigate the offence. 6. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 7. A perusal of the information furnished by respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 indicates that the petitioner and his wife were involved in the business of chit - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14470 CRL.P No. 2216 of 2019 funds. It is not known whether the petitioner was registered under the provisions of the Chit Funds Act, 1982 to undertake business in chit funds. This is yet to be investigated by the respondent No.1. As regards the claim of the respondent No.2 that the petitioner has failed to pay a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- towards the final chit amount, she has made several allegations against the petitioner and his wife which all require an investigation. If the petitioner had a deliberate intent to cheat the respondent No.2, the respondent No.1 is bound to investigate the case from that perspective. In that view of the matter, it is not safe for this Court to entertain this petition and set at nought the investigation by the respondent No.1. In that view of the matter, this Petition is dismissed. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2022 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE sma List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47