- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.18 OF 2023 BETWEEN: MANOHARAN T AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O A DHARMALIGAM R/O NO.115, 1ST CROSS 1ST MAIN, N S PALYA BTM 2ND STAGE BANNERGHATTA ROAD BANGALORE - 560076 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NARAYANAN M R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE - 560011 2. M.S. SWIMMING CENTRE CORPORATION SWIMMING POOL 3RD BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560011 AND ALSO AT NO.129, 7TH MAIN 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU-560041 REP. BY MR. MAHESH …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI L M CHIDANANDAYYA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ON APPLICATION DATED 17.09.2022 PASSED BY THE IV ADDITIONAL CMM AT BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.18105/2018 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This revision petition is filed against the order dated 17.09.2022 on application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. in C.C.No.18105/2018. 2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 3. The case of the complainant while invoking the criminal provision before the Trial Court is that accused being an employee of the complainant earlier, he was given a Tata Indica Car bearing No.KA-05 MN 6535 to use the same for the company work. Accused had tendered his resignation on 08.10.2016 and immediately an intimation was given to re- deliver the said car. Instead of handing over the car, accused was using the same for his personal purpose. Based on the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 complaint, police have investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC. 4. The petitioner herein while seeking for discharge has contended that he has worked as an Administrator in P.M. Swimming Center and managed the entire firm. The accused is residing in a house which was provided by the company and he is using the company vehicle also. That on 25.01.2016, accused became partner in M/s. Upendra and company which is working in the field of mining operations and trading of minerals and accused invested his huge funds in the said firm. In the month of September 2016, accused came to know about the irregularities in the business of the said group of companies and firms. Accused decided to resign his job and asked first informant to settle his employment dues as per law. First informant agreed for settlement of his employment benefits and agreed to the proposal of severance package. On 08.10.2016, accused resigned the job. CW2 agreed to transfer the said house property and car in favour of the accused as his severance - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 package. But CW2 has not complied his promises. Hence, first informant called accused to the office on 31.03.2017 and assaulted and threatened the accused and took several signatures of accused on blank bond and white papers and directed to vacate the said premises and hand over the car. Accused filed PCR No.5543/2017 and O.S.No.2422/2017 against the first informant for said acts and sought for injunction. CW2 filed C.C. No.236/2017 against the accused before the Hon'ble Special Economic Judge and it was dismissed. Police officials have not produced any documents to show that accused cheated the first informant. The allegations made in the first information statement do not attract any of the ingredients of the said section. The contents of the charge sheet do not disclose prima facie case against the accused and he has been falsely implicated in the case. The police officials have not applied correct principles of law to the facts of the case. The police have erroneously appreciated the evidence and they have not applied their mind to file false charge sheet against the accused. The charge sheet is also cryptic in nature and there is no - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. The accused is not involved in any such offences alleged against him and only with an intention to harass the accused, the case is filed and charge sheeted. 5. The counsel appearing for the State filed the objections and reiterated that accused was working in the company of the complainant wherein he was provided with vehicle and also the house and after the resignation, accused has not returned the vehicle and reiterated the contents of the complaint. 6. The Trial Court having considered the averments made in the application as well as in the objection statement, paragraph 11 held that the contentions of the accused is his defence and the same is to be proved during the trial. Hence, the said car is handed over to him even after his resignation as a severance package or for ceasing to be partner of M/s. Upendra and company is to be proved at the time of the trial and it is not a ground to discharge the accused. The Trial Court also held that matter requires a trial and so also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 discussed with regard to the allegations of double jiopardy for having given two complaints and in the first complaint, not acted upon and in the second complaint, police have acted upon and the same is not adjudicated. Question of invoking Section 300 of Cr.P.C. does not arise. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that at this juncture, Court cannot express its opinion with regard to the ingredients of Section 406 of IPC and complainant has to be examined and also the Court has to consider the defence to comes to the conclusion that whether breach of trust has taken place or not and the same cannot be decided without conducting any trial and dismissed the discharge application. 7. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court is that the Trial Court fails to understand the issue involved between the parties. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court the Letter dated 08.10.2016 and also brought to notice of this Court with regard to the Car and house which was given by the company in view of the issues raised before the company with regard to the subsequent substantial severance - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 compensation, considering the service, letter was given and retained the same in view of the said letter. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court that though it is disputed that the document dated 08.10.2016 is created, but the opinion of the State Forensic Science Laboratory is very clear that signatures available on the document of writing marked as S1, R1-R7 on one hand and the questioned signatures as Q1 and Q2 on the other various similarities in individual writing habits observed between them in execution of the signatures such as manner of execution of initial part of the signature and comes to the conclusion that those signatures are genuine. Inspite of it, the proceedings continued against the petitioner that too for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC and the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. 8. The counsel for the petitioner in support of his case relies upon the judgment reported in AIR 2000 SC 2341 in the case of HRIDAYA RANJAN PD. VERMA AND OTHERS vs STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER and brought to notice of this court paragraph 13 wherein discussion is made with regard Section 415 of IPC with regard to cheating - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 and also brought to notice of this court paragraph 16 wherein discussion was made with regard to the mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. First of all, mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is, the time when the offence is said to have been committed. 9. The counsel also relies upon judgment reported in 2015 AIR SCW 2245 in the case of VESA HOLDING P. LTD. vs STATE OF KERALA. Referring this judgment, the counsel would contend that when the material discloses that a civil wrong done, there cannot be any criminal prosecution. Civil remedy is available to the complainant and that itself cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. However, real test has to be done whether complainant discloses the criminal offence of cheating or not and also - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 whether it involves the ingredients of Section 406 of IPC or not. 10. The counsel also relies upon the judgment reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780 in the case of M/S INDIAN OIL CORPORATION vs M/S NEPC INDIA LITD. AND OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court with regard to tendency to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. The counsel contend that the very case of the complainant is that vehicle provided to ad was not returned and the same is a civil dispute and not a criminal dispute. 11. The counsel also relies upon judgment reported in 1930 ILR Vol. 6 page 68 in the case of RANGI LALL vs KING-EMPEROR wherein also discussion was made with regard to the criminal breach of trust, essential elements of mere retention of money or failure to return it, it raises a presumption of dishonest misappropriation. 12. The counsel also brought to notice of this court the order passed by this court in Crl.P.No.3171/2018 dated 20.09.2021 and also the judgment reported in AIR - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 1992 SC 604 in the case of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VS CH. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS with regard to the second complaint is concerned. 13. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the very document referred by the petitioner dated 08.10.2016 is disputed. The counsel would submit that when accused was working as an Administrator in the company, he was given blank signed letters to appear before the authorities and to give letter in an exigencies and the same is misused and the same is also a matter of trial. Thus, at this juncture, the accused cannot be discharged. The very disputed document is also the part of the investigation. The counsel also would submit that one more case is registered against him for misusing of letterhead which were given when he was working and separate charge sheet is also filed and so also there are three cases against the petitioner. The counsel also would submit that the Trial Court while passing an order comes to the conclusion that the disputed issues cannot be decided in an application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. unless the trial is conducted. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 The genuineness of the document also to be considered before the Court that too after conducting of the trial. Hence, it does not require any interference. 14. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the counsel appearing for the respective respondents and also considered the material facts available before the Court for invoking Section 406 of IPC. On perusal of the records, it discloses that there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner was working with respondent No.2 and also there is no dispute that he has tendered his resignation and resignation is also accepted. It is the specific case of the complainant that immediately after tendering the resignation, a direction was given to accused to return the vehicle and also hand over the house in which he is residing. The other allegation made in the complaint that the very same vehicle is used for his personal purpose and also the contention that the son of the accused is using the said vehicle, hence, there is misuse and the same amounts to criminal breach of trust. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 15. Having taken note of the fact that there was no dispute with regard to that the car was given to accused by the complainant when he was discharging the duty in the company. Also no dispute that the same was not returned. But the petitioner claims that the same was given in lieu of his retirement benefit since company was facing financial crunch and he refers the document of dated 08.10.2016 and the same is disputed. Though counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court the Forensic Science Laboratory report wherein it is stated that the signatures found on the disputed document as well as other admitted documents are one and the same. Under such circumstances, the Court has to take note that whether at the time when he was working as an Administrator in the Company of the complainant have given a blank letter signing with the same to make use of the same for exigencies is an issue and the said question cannot be decided while considering the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. The recording of evidence is necessary and without conducting the trial, the Court cannot comes to a - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 conclusion with regard to the dispute involved between the parties particularly, with respect to the letter dated 08.10.2016 which was disputed and also when the accused claims that vehicle was given in lieu of his service benefit as compensation when he has tendered the same is also disputed. The same cannot be decided in an application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. With regard to the Criminal breach of trust is concerned, the matter requires trial and material has to be considered and it has to be substantiated during the trial to comes to the conclusion that whether it amounts to any ingredients of offence under Section 406 of IPC or not. No doubt, the principles laid down in the judgments referred by the petitioner's counsel, it is a trite law that civil dispute cannot be converted as Criminal proceedings. But in the case on hand, the vehicle was entrusted to the possession of the accused and the same was not returned and the same is used by the accused. When such being the case, unless the trial is conducted, the issue between the parties cannot be decided. Thus, the matter requires a trial. Hence, I do not find any error on the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29685 CRL.RP No. 18 of 2023 part of the Trial Court in dismissing the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C., when the issue involved between the parties with regard to the non-handing over of the vehicle and using of the same by the petitioner is also not disputed. Whether it is given in lieu of compensation for his service while accepting the resignation or not and misusing of the vehicle amounts breach of trust or not has to be decided after holding the trial. At this juncture, counsel for the petitioner submits that subsequently vehicle was taken back and now, he is not using the said vehicle. Hence, invoking of Section 406 of IPC is for the period when it was used. Thus, there is no grounds to admit the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN