- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6303 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. BETAFLUX CONSULTING PVT. LTD., NO 667,1 DOOR, SUITE NO 204, 27 MAIN, 13TH C HSR LAYOUT, SECTOR-1, BANGALORE - 560 102. REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR ANIMESH KUMAR 2. ANIMESH KUMAR DIRECTOR OF BETAFLUX CONSULTING PVT. LTD., S/O PRAMOD KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT VILLA 17, PRESTIGE LAKE SIDE HABITAT, VARTHUR, BANGALORE - 87. 3. UTKARSH SINHA DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF BETAFLUX CONSULTING PVT. LTD., S/O RAVINDRANATH SINHA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT B-401, GLEN GATE HOUSE OF HIRANANDANI, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, HEBBAL, BANGALORE - 560 092. 4. PAVAN KUMAR DAGA CHARTED ACCOUNTANT Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 S/O MEGHARAJ DAGA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO 988, 1ST FLOOR, 13TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 70. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAY NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIKYATH B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY CCB P.S. BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY.SPP HIGHCOURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 01. 2. A SARAVANAN @ ASWATH (AS REFLECTED IN OFFICIAL CORRESPONDENCE) S/O ARUMUGAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO 1/22, VADIVEL NAGAR, 2ND STREET, PADIYANALLUR, THIRUVALLUR, TAMILNADU - 60052 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. ASHWINI O, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 09.04.2025 IN CR.NO.24/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE I ACMM COURT FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 406, 468, 471, 420, 477-A, 506, 120- B R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners herein - the Company /accused No.1, two Directors / accused Nos.2 and 3 and one Chartered Accountant / accused No.4 are before the Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.24/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 477A, 506, 120B r/w Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of 1st Addl. CMM Court, Bengaluru. 2. Heard Sri. Ajay Nandalike, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners along with Sri. Vikyath. B; Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 – State and Smt. Ashwini. O., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 3. Facts adumbrated are as follows: 3.1. The Company enters into a key employment agreement with respondent No.2 - complainant on 18.02.2023. In the month of April 2023, the complainant joins the service of the Company as Director of Cloud and Development Operations. Owing to the financial crunch, it transpires that the Company reduced the salary of all the key persons. The complainant is said to have resigned from the service of the company on 09.05.2024. In the interregnum, on an allegation that the salary that was paid by the petitioners was far less than what had to be paid or there was some discrepancy in the salary, the complainant registers claim for an amount of Rs.39,00,000/- to be paid by these petitioners to the complainant. 3.2. On non-payment of the said amount, the complainant institutes suit in O.S.No.8868/2025 seeking recovery of an amount of about Rs.57,00,000/- that is allegedly due to the complainant from the hands of the petitioner No.1- Company. Before the institution of the civil suit, a crime is sought to be registered before the jurisdictional Police. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 Police station is said to have rendered a non-cognizable report, after which the complainant approaches the Commissioner of Police and on the direction, the subject crime comes to be registered against these petitioners for the afore-quoted offences. The registration of the crime has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Sri.Ajay Nandalike, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the criminal law is set into motion for the purpose of recovery of the amount that is allegedly due to the complainant from these petitioners without there being any rhyme or reason for the ingredients of the offences that are alleged against them. The learned counsel takes this Court through the documents appended to the memo filed on 09.06.2026 with regard to the prayer in the civil suit. The learned counsel submits that this would be permitting the criminal law to progress for the purpose of recovery of money. 5.1. Per contra, Smt. Ashwini O., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - complainant would submit that it is not just a case, which projects a civil liability but also the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 criminal acts on the part of the petitioners. The two can go hand in hand, is the submission of the learned counsel. 5.2. The learned counsel submits that the salary that is paid to the respondent No.2 – complainant through a salary slip indicates that it is about Rs.39,000/- and salary that is declared to the income tax department runs to about Rs.2,00,000/- per month. Therefore, this discrepancy has resulted in huge loss to respondent No.2 - complainant. The learned counsel submits that the loss is now projected before the Civil Court and recovery proceedings are pending. Nonetheless, it would amount to a crime of hoodwinking the Income Tax Department. Therefore, the investigation must be permitted to be continued. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of the counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 and would submit that the petition must be dismissed and the investigation must be permitted to be continued. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material available on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The respondent No.2 - complainant joining the Company in the position that is narrated hereinabove is also a matter of record. The salary dropping from what was promised and what was delivered is also a matter of record. Reasons may be manifold. The complainant seeks to set the criminal law into motion initially by registering a complaint before the jurisdictional Police. The complaint reads as follows: "From A Saravanan, aged 35 yrs, S/o Arumugam, No. 1/22, Vadivel Nagar, 2nd Street, Padiyanallur, Tiruvallur Tamil Nadu-600 052. Mobile Number-63823 67007, 90430998013 To, The Inspector of Police, 27th Main Road, 1st Sector, HSR Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560 102. Phone: 080-22943467 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 Sub: Criminal action upon the offences of forgery, fabrication of false evidence and cheating committed by the perpetrators-reg I am the permanent resident of the above said address and having lengthy experience as an Engineer in Pharmaceuticals/Banking/Petrochemicals with 15 plus years in DevOps and Cloud field. The Bangalore based company namely BETAFLUX CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED is carrying its commercial activities at No.677, 1st floor, Suit no.204, 27th Main 13th Cross, HSR Layout, Sector 1, Bangalore-560 102. Offered me for the full-time position of Director of Cloud & DevOps at their company vide offer letter dated 16.02.2023. It is contented that the annual Cost to Company (CTC) for the Directorship is INR 90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs only) on a monthly basis after deducting TDS. In addition to that the company offered Rs. 45,00,000/- as performance incentives. The said offer letter was issued by Mr. Animesh Kumar, Director and CEO of the above company. He enticed me with honey coated words in participating with the company and getting attractive remuneration and incentives which would be hiked in future. Moreover, he projected the company is highly lucrative and profitable and futuristic establishment. Upon his words on 18.02.2023, I entered into an agreement of Key Employee as shown by him Indifferently. He termed me as Key employee instead of Director. From day one I was extracted my hard labor for a minimum of 12-16 hours a day without any leave and adequate intervals. From the month of February, 2023, it was agreed between us that BETAFLUX CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED will be paying me Rs. 700 per hour as joining bonus totalling to INR 8,400/ (Rupees Eight Thousand Four Hundred Only). But the said Animesh Kumar - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 compelled me to sign in a Key Employee Agreement as I was joined in the company only in the month of April 23. Moreover, that agreement contained CTC shown 2 components Le., GTC as INR 80,00,000/- (Rupees Eighty Lakhs Only) and Bonus INR 10,00,000 (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) yearly, as against the promise. The CEO Animesh Kumar & the CTO Utkarsh Sinha were in habit of delaying in disbursement of CTC amount and reduced that amount every month and they had also with held my salary for the months of January 24, February 24, March 24 & May 24 which was questioned by me through e- mail, but they lethargically replied without any consideration. The also threatened me to sign certain documents to get my reliving order&Form- 16 which I denied. Both the above directors had not paid the statutory deduction to the Income Tax authorities which they had deducted from my CTC. They also manipulated the CTC amount in the pay slip in different figures for their wrongful gain and they disbursed decreased amount tome other than they mentioned. The above persons were in habit of starting fictitious commercial establishments and cheating the public and the customers. After unlawful enrichment, they wind up as the establishments were at loss and divert the ill-gotten, money to their subsidiaries. This is their modus operandi. Thus, they caused wrongful loss to me for an amount of INR 46,96,554/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs Ninety Sixt Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Four Only) and they unlawfully enriched from the above illegalities. I request your good self to set the law in motion and take action upon the above perpetrator's culpability in accordance with the criminal law." (Emphasis added) - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 A non-cognizable report is rendered by the police at the HSR layout police station, which reads as follows: "ನ. ಸಂ. 7.6ಎ ಮೂಲ ಪ / Reference No: PET 960/2024, (GSC No): PO1796240601179 Date: 31/07/2024 ಅ ನಮೂೆ Others 1. ಸಂದಶ ಕರ/ಾ ದುಾರರ/ಆಾಸಾದ ಸೂಚಕರ ೆಸರ -A Saravanan 2. Father/Husband Name - Arumugam 3. Address : No 1/22, Vadivel Nagara, 2nd Street, Padiyanallur, Tiruvallur, Thiruvallur Tamilnadu. 4. Mobile 5. - ಸಂದಶ ನದ ಉೆ ೕಶ ಾ ದುಾರ"ಾದ ಾ ದುಾರ"ಾದ ಾ ದುಾರ"ಾದ ಾ ದುಾರ"ಾದ ಎಎಎಎ.ಸರವಣ% ಸರವಣ% ಸರವಣ% ಸರವಣ% ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು &ಾ'ೆ(ೆ &ಾ'ೆ(ೆ &ಾ'ೆ(ೆ &ಾ'ೆ(ೆ ಾಜ"ಾ* ಾಜ"ಾ* ಾಜ"ಾ* ಾಜ"ಾ* ೕ+ದ ೕ+ದ ೕ+ದ ೕ+ದ ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ಎಂದ"ೇ ಎಂದ"ೇ ಎಂದ"ೇ ಎಂದ"ೇ, ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಮೂಲತಃ ಮೂಲತಃ ಮೂಲತಃ ಮೂಲತಃ ತ.ಳ0ಾಡು ತ.ಳ0ಾಡು ತ.ಳ0ಾಡು ತ.ಳ0ಾಡು "ಾಜ2 ದವಾ*ದು ದವಾ*ದು ದವಾ*ದು ದವಾ*ದು ಇಂಯ5 ಇಂಯ5 ಇಂಯ5 ಇಂಯ5 6ಾ2 6ಾ2 6ಾ2 6ಾ2 7ಾಸ 7ಾಸ 7ಾಸ 7ಾಸ 8ಾ+9ೊಂ+ರು:ೆ;ೕೆ 8ಾ+9ೊಂ+ರು:ೆ;ೕೆ 8ಾ+9ೊಂ+ರು:ೆ;ೕೆ 8ಾ+9ೊಂ+ರು:ೆ;ೕೆ, ೆ< ೆ< ೆ< ೆ<.ಎ= ಎ= ಎ= ಎ=.ಆ5 ಆ5 ಆ5 ಆ5 ೇಔ? ೇಔ? ೇಔ? ೇಔ?, @ೆಕA5 @ೆಕA5 @ೆಕA5 @ೆಕA5 01, 13ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ 9ಾ = 9ಾ = 9ಾ = 9ಾ =, 27ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ Bೖ%D Bೖ%D Bೖ%D Bೖ%D, @ೈ? @ೈ? @ೈ? @ೈ? ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ.204 1ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ ಮಹ+ ಮಹ+ ಮಹ+ ಮಹ+ 6FಾಸದGHರುವ 6FಾಸದGHರುವ 6FಾಸದGHರುವ 6FಾಸದGHರುವ BETAFLUX.CONSULTING PVT LTD ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ಅವರ ಅವರ ಅವರ ಅವರ ಕಂಪಯGH ಕಂಪಯGH ಕಂಪಯGH ಕಂಪಯGH 9ೆಲಸ 9ೆಲಸ 9ೆಲಸ 9ೆಲಸ 8ಾಡಲು 8ಾಡಲು 8ಾಡಲು 8ಾಡಲು ಅಫ ಅಫ ಅಫ ಅಫ5 5 5 5 8ಾ+ದು 8ಾ+ದು 8ಾ+ದು 8ಾ+ದು ಅದರಂ:ೆ ಅದರಂ:ೆ ಅದರಂ:ೆ ಅದರಂ:ೆ ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಏ K ಏ K ಏ K ಏ K 2023 ರGH ರGH ರGH ರGH, Director of Cloud & Dev Ops ಆ* ಆ* ಆ* ಆ* 9ೆಲಸ 9ೆಲಸ 9ೆಲಸ 9ೆಲಸ 8ಾ+9ೊಂ+ರು:ೆ;ೕ 8ಾ+9ೊಂ+ರು:ೆ;ೕ 8ಾ+9ೊಂ+ರು:ೆ;ೕ 8ಾ+9ೊಂ+ರು:ೆ;ೕೆೆೆೆ. ನನ(ೆ ನನ(ೆ ನನ(ೆ ನನ(ೆ ಪ ಪ ಪ ಪ ಂಗಳ0 ಂಗಳ0 ಂಗಳ0 ಂಗಳ0 ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ.7,00,000/- ಗಳ ಗಳ ಗಳ ಗಳ ಸಂಬಳವನುN ಸಂಬಳವನುN ಸಂಬಳವನುN ಸಂಬಳವನುN ೕಡು ;ರು:ಾ;"ೆ ೕಡು ;ರು:ಾ;"ೆ ೕಡು ;ರು:ಾ;"ೆ ೕಡು ;ರು:ಾ;"ೆ, ಆದ"ೇ ಆದ"ೇ ಆದ"ೇ ಆದ"ೇ ಕಂಪಯು ಕಂಪಯು ಕಂಪಯು ಕಂಪಯು ನOೆಂಬ5 ನOೆಂಬ5 ನOೆಂಬ5 ನOೆಂಬ5 2023 Pಂದ Pಂದ Pಂದ Pಂದ Bೕ Bೕ Bೕ Bೕ 2024 ರವ"ೆ(ೆ ರವ"ೆ(ೆ ರವ"ೆ(ೆ ರವ"ೆ(ೆ 9ೆಲಸ 9ೆಲಸ 9ೆಲಸ 9ೆಲಸ 8ಾ+ದು 8ಾ+ದು 8ಾ+ದು 8ಾ+ದು ಆದ"ೇ ಆದ"ೇ ಆದ"ೇ ಆದ"ೇ ಕಂಪರವರು ಕಂಪರವರು ಕಂಪರವರು ಕಂಪರವರು ೕಡQೇ9ಾದ ೕಡQೇ9ಾದ ೕಡQೇ9ಾದ ೕಡQೇ9ಾದ ಒಟುA ಒಟುA ಒಟುA ಒಟುA ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ 46, 96,554/- ಗಳ ಗಳ ಗಳ ಗಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಸಂಬಳ ಮತು; ಮತು; ಮತು; ಮತು; ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ. 55.41,993/- (18%) .ಹಣವನುN ಹಣವನುN ಹಣವನುN ಹಣವನುN ೕ+ರುವTUಲH ೕ+ರುವTUಲH ೕ+ರುವTUಲH ೕ+ರುವTUಲH. ಆದPಂದ ಆದPಂದ ಆದPಂದ ಆದPಂದ ಸದP ಸದP ಸದP ಸದP ಕಂಪಯ ಕಂಪಯ ಕಂಪಯ ಕಂಪಯ CEO ಅBೕV ಅBೕV ಅBೕV ಅBೕV ಕು8ಾ5 ಕು8ಾ5 ಕು8ಾ5 ಕು8ಾ5 ಮತು; ಮತು; ಮತು; ಮತು; CTO - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 ಉತWಷ ಉತWಷ ಉತWಷ ಉತWಷ ರವರನುN ರವರನುN ರವರನುN ರವರನುN &ಾ'ೆ(ೆ &ಾ'ೆ(ೆ &ಾ'ೆ(ೆ &ಾ'ೆ(ೆ ಕ"ೆYZ ಕ"ೆYZ ಕ"ೆYZ ಕ"ೆYZ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಈ ಬ(ೆ\ ಬ(ೆ\ ಬ(ೆ\ ಬ(ೆ\ 6]ಾರ'ೆ 6]ಾರ'ೆ 6]ಾರ'ೆ 6]ಾರ'ೆ 8ಾಡQೇ9ೆಂದು 8ಾಡQೇ9ೆಂದು 8ಾಡQೇ9ೆಂದು 8ಾಡQೇ9ೆಂದು 9ೊಟA 9ೊಟA 9ೊಟA 9ೊಟA ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ದೂರು ಇ:ಾ2U ಇ:ಾ2U ಇ:ಾ2U ಇ:ಾ2U. 6. Counter Party Details Name : Utkarsh Sinha, Slo Address: CTO OF BETAFLUX CONSULTING PVT LTD, #677, 1st Floo SiNo 204 m 27th Main, 13th Cross, HSR Layout, 1st Sector, Ben City: Name : Animesh Kumar, S/o Address : Director and CEO of BETAFLUX CONSULTING PVT Ltd, S.No.204, 27th Marn. 13th Cross: HSR Layout, Bengaluru City 7. Application/Doc : Yes" (Emphasis added) It is later a representation made to the Police Commissioner regarding the alleged offences of forgery, fabrication and false evidence, then the crime emerges against the petitioners in the subject crime. After the registration of the crime, the complainant knocks the doors of the Civil Court in O.S. No.8868/2025, in which, the prayers in the suit is as follows: "WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing, the Plaintiff most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass a Judgment and decree directing the Defendant to: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 a. Pay the outstanding sum of Rs 57,26,855/- (Rupees Fifty-Seven Lakhs Twenty-Six Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-Five only) payable towards arrears for the period from October 2023 to June 2024, with an interest calculated at 18% per annum due from 31.05.2024 till the day of realisation; and b.compensate towards mental agony caused to the Plaintiff owing to the delay caused by the Defendant Company; and c. provide the corrected pay slip reflecting corrected details on Loss of Pay for November 2023; and d. to issue the relieving letter and experience certificate that the Defendant ought to have provided to the Plaintiff; and e. to issue the Plaintiff's Form 16 for the financial year 2023-2024 and 2024-2025; and f. direct to bear all costs and expenses of this suit; and g. grant any such other and further reliefs as are just and necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case, in the interests of justice and equity." The payment of outstanding amount of Rs.57,26,855/- is projected therein. Prior to the registration of the crime, legal notice had been issued against these petitioners demanding the said amount. The issue now would be, whether the crime must be permitted to be investigated into the complaint made by the complainant? The complaint reads as follows: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 "From A Saravanan, aged 35 yrs, S/o Arumugam, No. 1/22, Vadivel Nagar, 2nd Street, Padiyanallur, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu 600 052. Mobile Number-63823 67007, 9043099801. To The Commissioner of Police Bengaluru City Police Commissionerate Infantry Road, Bengaluru 560001 Sub: Criminal complaint against Betaflux Consulting Private Limited and its Directors for Forgery, Criminal Breach of Trust, Cheating, and Criminal Conspiracy. Respected Sir, I am Saravanan, S/o. Arumugam aged about 35 years. I am a technology professional with over 15 years of experience in Cloud Computing, Artificial Intelligence, DevOps. and Information Security. I hold a Master's degree in Computer Science, and have worked with prestigious organizations including AstraZeneca, Oracle, and IBM. During my employment with Betaflux Consulting Private Limited, I relocated to Bangalore and resided at Platinum Picassa Apts, Vyalikaval HBCS Layout, Nagavara, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560045, solely to support the company's operations. In February, 2023 when I was employed at a company called. Foodhub, I was approached by Mr. Animesh Kumar and Mr. Utkarsh Sinha, the CEO and the CTO of Betaflux Consulting Private Limited respectively. Initially, they engaged me as a consultant and promised to compensate me at the rate of Rs. 700 per hour for my consulting work. They also promised that this consulting fee would - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 be paid after I joined their company. Further, they assured me that I would be appointed as one of the directors of Betaflux to manage the DevOps and Cloud vertical. With these promises and inducements, they convinced me to join their company. Moreover, I was promised an incentive and bonus for each of the clients I brought in. I joined Betaflux Consulting Private Ltd in the month of April, 2023 to start the entire vertical of DevOps and cloud computing and build and nurture a team and bring in the customers. After joining Betaflux I recruited a team of experts to build the DevOps under CHIEF JWleadership. In the month of May, 2023. I brought in the first client and signed a Contrast worth Rs. 60 Lakhs. In June, 2023 I brought in two clients and contracts worth SooRs. 60 Lakhs and Rs. 20 Lakhs were signed, Somewhere around October-November. 2023 I brough in two more clients, one signed a contract for the tune of Rs. 65 Lakhs and another signed a contract for Rs. 3 Crores over a period of 5 years. Totalling to the tune of 20 crores. Till October, 2023 they were paying me regularly. On 13.12.2023, I found out that without any notice my salary was reduced to Rs. 80 Lakhs per Annum as against the promised Rs. 90 Lakhs per Annum. When I took the issue to Mr. Animesh Kumar and Mr. Utkarsh Sinha, they assured me that they will pay Rs. 10 Lakhs as bonus. But on 26.12. 2023, I found out that they had falsely issued a payslip with loss of pay of 28 days though I had worked for all the 31 days without taking leave. When I enquired them regarding the same, Mr. Animesh Kumar Informed me, it is a mistake, we will rectify." Believing his words and assurances, I continued to do my job and brought in many business. By this time they have not paid my payment for 5 months till March, 2024 and the salaries of my subordinates for a couple of months. My request via voice call was - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 answered by Mr. Animesh Kumar and he promised that he will give me the payment he owes me, only if I continue to work more. Believing his words, I continue to work for 12- 14 hours a day in the hope of getting my payment dues from him. I along with my colleagues found that Mr. Animesh Kumar and Mr. Utkarsh Sinha along with their Chartered Accountant Mr. Pawan have devised an elaborate plan by siphoning off and misappropriating the hard earned money of their employees by fraudulently and dishonestly fabricating payslips, falsifying and fudging accounts. For example, these three people have fabricated the payslip for the month of December, 2023, as per the payslip generated on 30.12.2023, Rs. 6,00,000/- was shown as gross earning and Rs. 4,27,603/- was shown to have been credited to my bank account but only Rs. 2,57,206/- was being paid on 22rid January, 2024. And for the month of January, 2024 to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 2,58,397/- was shown to have been credited to my bank account after deducting the tax of Rs. 41,603/-but no money was credited to my bank account and no TDS was paid to the income tax authorities. The intention to cheat is evident as there is a dishonest intention in creating a payslip but not crediting the money mentioned in the payslip to my account. This is a dishonest concealment of facts so that my consent is fraudulently obtained so that they can retain the excess money to dishonestly enrich themselves. The TDS which actually belongs to the employees, was deducted from September 2023 to April 2024 for a higher amount than what is reflected in the payslip, and was kept in trust by - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 these three people and was not paid to the authorities, amounting to approximately Rs. 12,62,380/-. So that the employees cannot get TDS refunds which rightfully belonged to them. This is a criminal breach of trust through which these three people enrich themselves dishonestly. Moreover, I have discovered that this is not an isolated incident but rather a systematic pattern of exploitation by Betaflux Consulting Private Limited and its directors. Their modus operandi involves hiring skilled professionals with promises of high compensation and incentives, utilizing their expertise to secure high-value client contracts, and then initiating various unlawful practices to avoid payment of promised remuneration. Several other employees have faced similar exploitation. After discovering the TDS payment irregularities in my case, I reached out to my former colleagues and found that they too had experienced similar issues. Mr. Bharath Balaji, a Cloud Engineer from Chennai (Mobile No 8870958074), Mr. Mahesh, Marketing Director from Hyderabad (Mobile No. 9820126504), Mr. Kashif Ahmed, Sales Director from Delhi (Mobile No. 9538513786), and Mr. RamRekha Yadav, an international employee from Nepal (Mobile No. 9904926119) have all experienced comparable treatment from the company and are willing to testify about their experiences if called upon by the authorities. I have learned that more than 15 other employees have left the organization under similar circumstances, aggrieved by false promises of bonuses for bringing in customers. I was told these former employees have faced similar issues with delayed TDS payments and forged documentation. The company's directors have established a pattern of intimidation to prevent employees from- raising complaints. Many victims have remained silent due to threats regarding background verifications and future employment prospects. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 Only after I began voicing my concerns did other victims feel emboldened to share their experiences. The company has consistently failed to deliver on their promises to both employees and clients, yet continues to secure new business using the expertise of employees whom they exploit. This systematic exploitation extends beyond just payment issues. The company makes false promises of bonuses and incentives, creates fraudulent documentation, and uses intimidation tactics to silence any opposition. When employees raise concerns about unpaid dues or irregular practices, they are either threatened or coerced into continuing work with false assurances of payment. Further scrutiny of official records and business registrations reveals an alarming pattern of fraudulent business operations by the accused persons. According to their LinkedIn profiles, Mr. Animesh Kumar and Mr. Utkarsh Sinha have closed three different companies within just three years of operations. Most recently, they have established a new organization called "M/s Haven" while simultaneously laying off the majority of employees from Betaflux Consulting. This again a part of a calculated strategy to enrich themselves by cheating and siphoning off the money due to their employees and by systematically transferring assets and operations to new entities. Their response to employee complaints follows a predictable pattern - they intimidate employees filegal they ex take up new assignments in other companies and the threat of frivolous and vexatious filing of cases knowing that such proceedings can be prolonged affair. This gives them sufficient time to transfer funds and establish new business entities, effectively evading their financial responsibilities to ex-associates and employees. On the day of my Resignation, when I asked Mr. Animesh Kumar about these, fabrications, cheating, breach of trust and misappropriation, and - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 told him that I would complain to the police, he threatened me with dire consequences and said that I won't return home in one piece. So I humbly request you to register a case against Mr. Animesh Kumar (Mobile No (2594 47257), Mr. Utkarsh Sinha (Mobile No. 7619403720), Mr. Pawan [pavan@advithconsulting.in) (Mobile No. 9399148925) and recover my hard earned money of Rs. 1,04,61,042/- The following documents are enclosed as annexures to support my complaint: 1. Employment Offer Letter dated February 16, 2023 2. Key Employee Agreement dated February 18, 2023 3. Bank statements showing actual salary credits 4. Payslips showing discrepancies 5. Form 26AS showing TDS deposits only until August 2023 until May 2024 6. Email communications regarding salary issues and threats 7. Income Tax Portal screenshots showing TDS discrepancies" (Emphasis added) 9. The grievances projected in the complaint are manifold, all of which are projected by the complainant before the Civil Court in the aforesaid civil case so filed for the purpose of recovery of about Rs.57,00,000/-. On the same facts, the criminal law was already set into motion. The issue is, whether the allegations made would amount to the ingredients of the offences? - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 10. In the considered view of this Court, the complaint is undoubtedly registered for the purpose of recovery of the amounts apart from a periphery of the illegalities that is allegedly made by petitioner No.1 - company to the Income Tax Department or hoodwinking the Income Tax Department. The Apex Court in such circumstances has held that the Court while answering the petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must not be bogged down by the allegations made, but should delve deep into the complaint. The Apex Court in the case of MAHMOOD ALI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1, has held as follows: "9. We are of the view that even if the entire case of the prosecution is believed or accepted to be true, none of the ingredients to constitute the offence as alleged are disclosed. It is pertinent to note that the FIR in question came to be lodged after a period of 14 years from the alleged illegal acts of the appellants. It is also pertinent to note that in the FIR no specific date or time of the alleged offences has been disclosed. 10. The entire case put up by the first informant on the face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of an FIR in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604] . The parameters are : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 950 - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 “102. … (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” We are of the view that the case of the present appellants falls within Parameters 1, 5 and 7, respectively, of Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR 1992 SC 604] . 11. At this stage, we would like to observe something important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. 12. We say so because once the complainant decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal vengeance etc. then he would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. 13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation. Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time. It is in the background of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge as alleged. 14. State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held : (Golconda Linga Swamy case [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] , SCC p. 527, paras 5-7) “5. … Authority of the court exists for advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of the process of the court to allow any action which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of justice. In exercise of the powers court would be justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed by the complaint, the court may examine the question of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it is permissible to look into the materials to assess what the complainant has alleged and whether any offence is made out even if the allegations are accepted in toto. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 : AIR 1960 SC 866] , this Court summarised some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (SCC OnLine SC para 6) (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge. 7. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.” (Emphasis supplied) - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 The Apex Court holds that in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court should go into the complaint, the reason for registration of the complaint, whether it is for the purpose of recovery of money, or whether it is a counter blast or a wreak vengeance of any act committed. All those would clearly fit into the allegations made in the case at hand. If the complainant wanted to project it before the Income Tax Department, it was always open to the complainant to project it before the Income Tax Department, not to approach the jurisdictional police when statutory remedies were clearly available. 11. The Apex Court in the case of GAGAN BANGA v. SAMIT MANDAL AND ANOTHER2, has held as follows: "2. The petitioners' case is that there is trend of initiating mala fide criminal proceedings against financial institutions/lenders and their officers, representatives and managers, to somehow restrain them from pursuing recovery proceedings of their enforceable debts, and/or to compel them to make settlement of their dues. FIRs are registered to circumvent legally owed debts by scuttling the statutory regime of Sarfaesi, and also by projecting a purely civil financial dispute as a criminal matter with a view to intimidate and in abuse of the criminal process. 2 (2024) 5 SCC 432 - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 3. In Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. [Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 : (2015) 3 SCC (Civ) 294 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 153] , this Court had noticed that taking recourse to criminal law by bypassing statutory remedies to bring the financial institutions on their knees, has the inherent potentiality to affect the marrows of economic health of the nation. Further, in Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B. [Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B., (2022) 7 SCC 124 : (2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 787] , this Court quashed the criminal proceedings being abuse of law in a purely civil financial dispute and being a case of forum shopping. Despite these judgments, continuation of such trend appears extremely disturbing. 4. Vide order dated 28-4-2023 [Gagan Banga v. State of W.B., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1814] passed in WP (Crl.) No. 166 of 2023, criminal proceedings in three such FIRs instituted by borrowers in different States, namely, FIR No. 646/2022 dated 26-10-2022 registered at PS Titagarh, FIR No. 427/2023 dated 9-4- 2023 registered at PS Indirapuram and FIR No. 25/2021 dated 27-1-2021 registered at PS EOW, Delhi were stayed." (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court was following the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of LALIT CHATURVEDI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER3, wherein it was held that the purpose of criminal proceedings must not be permitted to be continued for the purpose of recovery of money, even if it is not directly sought for, but the end result would be recovery 3 (2024) 12 SCC 483 - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 of money. The Apex Court at paragraph Nos.6 to 12 has held as follows: “6. In Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar [Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929] , this Court had referred to Section 420IPC, to observe that in order to constitute an offence under the said section, the following ingredients are to be satisfied: (SCC pp. 757-58, paras 18-19) “18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 19. 19. To constitute an offence under Section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived: (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).” 7. Similar elucidation by this Court in V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat [V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 3 SCC 78 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 996] , explicitly states that a contractual dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of a criminal proceeding. The ingredient of “cheating”, as defined under Section 415IPC, is existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of making initial promise or representation thereof, from the very beginning of the formation of contract. Further, in the absence of the averments made in the complaint petition wherefrom the ingredients of the offence can be found out, the High Court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC. Section 482CrPC saves the inherent power of the High Court, as it serves a salutary purpose viz. a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years, when no criminal offence is made out. It is one thing to say that a case has been made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not be quashed, but another thing to say that a person must undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has been made out in the complaint. This Court in V.Y. Jose [V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 3 SCC 78 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 996] placed reliance on several earlier decisions in Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI [Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, (2003) 5 SCC 257 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1121 : (2003) 262 ITR 466] , Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal [Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal, (2007) 7 SCC 373 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 370] and All Cargo Movers (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain [All Cargo Movers (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain, (2007) 14 SCC 776 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 947] . 8. Having gone through the complaint, which was registered as an FIR and the assertions made therein, it is quite clear that Respondent 2 complainant Sanjay Garg's - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 grievance is regarding failure of the appellants to pay the outstanding amount, in spite of Respondent 2 complainant Sanjay Garg's repeated demands. Respondent 2 complainant Sanjay Garg states that the supplies were made between the period 1-12-2015 and 6- 8-2017. The appellants had made the payments from time to time of Rs 3,76,40,553 leaving a balance of Rs 1,92,91,358. 9. We will assume that the assertions made in the complaint are correct, but even then, a criminal offence under Section 420 read with Section 415IPC is not established in the absence of deception by making false and misleading representation, dishonest concealment or any other act or omission, or inducement of the complainant to deliver any property at the time of the contract(s) being entered. The ingredients to allege the offence are neither stated nor can be inferred from the averments. A prayer is made to the police for recovery of money from the appellants. The police is to investigate the allegations which discloses a criminal act. Police does not have the power and authority to recover money or act as a civil court for recovery of money. 10. The charge-sheet also refers to Section 406IPC, but without pointing out how the ingredients of the said section are satisfied. No details and particulars are mentioned. There are decisions which hold that the same act or transaction cannot result in an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust simultaneously. [Wolfgang Reim v. State, (2012) 173 Comp Cas 86 : 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3341; Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Delta Classic (P) Ltd., (2009) 151 Comp Cas 661 : 2009 SCC OnLine Gau 105 : (2011) 6 Gau LR 604; Mukesh Sharma v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 426] For the offence of cheating, dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction, whereas, in case of criminal breach of trust there must exist a relationship between the parties whereby one party - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 entrusts another with the property as per law, albeit dishonest intention comes later. 11. In this case entrustment is missing, in fact it is not even alleged. It is a case of sale of goods. The charge-sheet does refer to Section 506IPC relying upon the averments in the complaint. However, no details and particulars are given, when and on which date and place the threats were given. Without the said details and particulars, it is apparent to us, that these allegations of threats, etc. have been made only with an intent to activate police machinery for recovery of money. 12. It is for Respondent 2 complainant Sanjay Garg to file a civil suit. Initiation of the criminal process for oblique purposes, is bad in law and amounts to abuse of process of law." (Emphasis supplied) 12. In the light of the afore-quoted judgments rendered by the Apex Court, I deem it appropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and obliterate the crime so registered against them, as permitting it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL4, wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (Emphasis supplied) In that light, permitting further proceedings would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of the law and result in the miscarriage of justice. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Crime in Crime No.24/2025 pending before the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) Court, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:36034 CRL.P No. 6303 of 2025 Sections 406, 420, 468, 471, 477A, 506, 120B R/w Section 34 of the IPC, stands quashed qua the petitioners. (iii) The quashment of these proceedings will not come in the way of the proceedings before the Civil Court or any other proceeding pending between the parties initiated by respondent No.2 -complainant against these petitioners under any other law. Ordered accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed, as a consequence. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7