- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8395 CRL.P No. 5330 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2022 BETWEEN: LOB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, (PREVIOUSLY NITESH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED) REGD. OFFICE. PLOT NO.76-8, UNIT 3, COMMISSARIAT ROAD, ASHOKANAGAR, BENGALURU-560025 AND AT 7TH FLOOR, NITESH TIME SQUARE #8, M.G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001 A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 AND REPRESENTED BY HEREIN BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI K B. SWAMY …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER HALASUR POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 2. M/S. STEADFAST MANAGEMENT SERVICES REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR MR. MANJUNATH, OFFICE AT #436/A, 13TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 1ST BLOCK MANJUNATH NAGAR Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8395 CRL.P No. 5330 of 2022 RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. BABU D.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU IN PCR NO.51239/2020 (THAT IS ANNEXURE-A) REFERRING THE CASE TO HALASUR POLICE FOR INVESTIGATION U/S.156(3) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. AND ETC., THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being the accused in Crime No.100/2022 of Halasur Police Station (in PCR No.51239/2020), pending on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 415 and 425 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Heard Sri Siddharth Suman, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8395 CRL.P No. 5330 of 2022 Pleader, for respondent No.1 - State and Sri Babu D.R. learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent No.2-the Company into property management is said to have entered into an agreement with the petitioner / accused, which is also into property management business. The complainant was providing house keeping services. The petitioner took such services of the complainant / respondent no.2 for management of various properties. It is stated that there was an agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2 on 31.07.2015 and dated 01.04.2016. The agreements were valid for a period of 12 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8395 CRL.P No. 5330 of 2022 months. As per Clause 16.3, both the parties have agreed to refer the dispute if any, to Arbitration. 5. Respondent No.2 is said to had filed a complaint with the police alleging commission of the offences under Sections 415 and 425 of IPC. The police issued NCR and refused to register FIR. Therefore, the private complaint in PCR.No.51239/2020 came to be filed. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation, upon which, the FIR in Crime No.100/2022 came to be registered. As per the FIR, the date of offence is from 01.07.2015 till 24.05.2022. There is absolutely no reason as to how the offence could be committed upto 24.05.2022 i.e. till the date of registration of the FIR when the private complaint is dated 22.01.2020. 6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is non-compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava V/s State of U.P.1 as no complaint was made as required under Section 154(3) Cr.PC. He also contends that there was no affidavit in accordance with law which was filed accompanying the 1 (2015) 6 SCC 287 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8395 CRL.P No. 5330 of 2022 complaint, as initially it is only the verifying affidavit that was filed, which is subsequently replaced by another affidavit. 7. As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant is the proprietor of the Company providing services for property management and the petitioner has availed such services under two agreements dated 31.07.2015 and 01.04.2016. It is not in dispute that the said agreements were for a period of 12 months. It is also not in dispute that there was an Arbitration Clause as per 16.3 of both these agreements. 8. The allegations made in the complaint is that, even though the petitioner has made certain payments clearing some invoices, it has not cleared all the invoices. As per the complaint, there were 18 invoices totaling into Rs.14,00,000/-. Therefore, it is the only allegation that even though the petitioner has received the services from the complainant, as per agreement, he has not cleared the amount mentioned in the invoice. There is also reference to a legal notice dated 17.09.2019 issued by the complainant to the petitioner demanding settlement of the amount. It is alleged that in-spite - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8395 CRL.P No. 5330 of 2022 of receipt of notice, the petitioner had not replied to the same. Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has committed the offences punishable under Sections 415 and 425 of IPC. 9. When admittedly there is a written agreement between the parties and the complainant is claiming certain sum of money under the terms of the agreement, the dispute could be referred to the Arbitration as per Clause 16.3 of the agreement. Prima-facie, it is the civil dispute between the parties as the complainant claiming amount towards services that was rendered. By no stretch of imagination either the offence under Section 415 or under 425 of IPC could be made out against the petitioner. However, the Trial Court proceeded to refer the matter for investigation without application of mind and the FIR came to be registered and the investigation was undertaken. In the meantime, there is an interim order granted by this Court. 10. Even if the contention taken by the complainant in the private complaint is to be accepted, no offence either under Section 415 or 425 of IPC is made out when there are no prima - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8395 CRL.P No. 5330 of 2022 facie materials to constitute the offence, and prima facie the dispute between the parties is of civil nature. 11. In view of the above, I am of opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in Crime No.100/2022 of Halasur Police Station (in PCR No.51239/2020), pending on the file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 415 and 425 of IPC, is hereby quashed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11