SRI ABHISHEK SINGH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61104
CRL.P No. 1393 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010074372024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1393 OF 2024


BETWEEN:

SRI ABHISHEK SINGH
S/O SUNIL KUMAR SINGH,
AGE 38 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
HEAD OF ARTHH CELEB BAZAAR LLP COMPANY
ST RD
NO. 09, 21 B CROSS, 3 FLOOR,
EJIPURA, VIVEK NAGAR
BANGALORE CITY KARNATAKA-560 047

ALSO AT
Q NO-K2/13, ROAD NO.1, TELCO COLONY
NEAR TELCO CLUB, PO-TELCO,
JAMESHEDPUR, PURBI SIGHBHUM
JARKHAND-831 004
…PETITIONER










Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. VENKATESH P DALWAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY VIVEK NAGAR,
POLICE STATION,
REPRESETNED BY
OFFICE OF STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU 01.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61104
CRL.P No. 1393 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010074372024



2. SRI PRASHANT KUMAR GUPTA
S/O PREM PRAKSH GUPTA
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: NOT KNOWN,
#U708, AMRAPALI SILICON CITY,
SECTOR 76, NOIDA-
UTURAPRADESH 201301.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. H.K SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIVEK NAGAR POLICE
STATION HEREIN IN CR.NO.211/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF III ADDL.C.M.M., NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 406 AND 420 OF IPC PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash
the FIR against the petitioner/accused in Crime No.211/2023,
registered by Viveknagar Police, for the offences punishable
under Sections 504, 406 and 420 of IPC, pending on the file of
III Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

2. The brief facts of the case are, respondent
No.2/complainant lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-
Poice on 21.12.2023 alleging that he is the authorized

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61104
CRL.P No. 1393 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010074372024



representative of Arthh Celeb Bazaar LLP, registered at USA.
The authorized signatories of respondent No.2's-Company was
Harpreet Singh and Narendra Patel. It is alleged that the
petitioner came into contact with respondent No.2 in the month
of November, 2021 that he is working in the same Company
and he is able to bring Artist Armaan Malik for four shows of
stage perform to be conducted at USA and Canada during May,
2022 to December, 2022. The petitioner further represented
that he is having contact with Armaan Malik, Daboo Malik,
Nikitha Gandhi and other celebrities of music industry, through
whom a musical function will be conducted at USA. Hence,
respondent No.2 entered into an agreement with the
complainant's Company on 17.11.2021 with the petitioner
herein and Bolly Land USA INC and Always Music Global Private
Limited represented by Armaan Malik and Creative Director
represented by Daboo Malik. Thereafter, respondent No.2 has
booked the music director, artist, photographers, videographer,
by paying huge advance amount directly to their respective
accounts to the tune of 62,000 USD. All of a sudden, the
petitioner disassociated himself with the event and thereby,

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61104
CRL.P No. 1393 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010074372024



failed to honour the assurance and conditions executed in the
agreement and thereby, respondent No.2 sustained huge loss.
As such, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the
petitioner. On the strength of the said complaint, FIR came to
be registered against the petitioner for the aforementioned
offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred this
petition.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties. There is no representation for respondent No.2.

4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that, admittedly,
the entire advance amount of the artists, director, videographer
and photographers has been paid by respondent No.2 to their
respective bank accounts. As per the agreement, the role
assigned to the petitioner is to arrange the flight tickets and
hotels. Since non availability of the artists on the particular
month, the petitioner was unable to book the hotels and other
requirements, as alleged in the complaint. However, due to the
act of the petitioner, respondent No.2 no way sustained any
loss. In such circumstance, the offences under Sections 406,

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61104
CRL.P No. 1393 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010074372024



420 and 506 of IPC do not attract against the petitioner.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

5. The prayer is opposed by learned HCGP on the
ground that the investigation is at nascent stage and there is
serious allegation in the complaint that due to the act and
assurance of the petitioner, respondent No.2 sustained huge
loss of 62,000 USD. Further, only as per the assurance of the
petitioner, respondent No.2 entered into an agreement and
managed the entire event. In such circumstance, the element
of the offences alleged in the FIR primarily attract against the
petitioner. Hence, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot
be quashed. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.

6. I have given my anxious consideration on the
submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and
perused the FIR, complaint and other materials placed before
this Court.

7. As could be gathered from records, admittedly, the
petitioner, respondent No.2 and other two artists i.e., Arthh
Celeb Bazaar LLP and Creative Director represented by their

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61104
CRL.P No. 1393 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010074372024



authorized persons, entered into an International Tour
Agreement dated 17.11.2021. The clause of the agreement
clearly reveals that in the event of cancellation of the tour
and/or shows forming part thereof by the artist due to any
reason, not attributable to the promoter, the parties hereto
agree, acknowledge and confirm that any and all consideration
paid to the artist till the date of such cancellation shall be
refunded by the artist to the promoter within a period of 90
days thereof, and neither the artist nor his manager shall be
held responsible or liable to the promoter for any direct,
indirect, incidental, subsequent and/or consequential losses or
damages or any claims arising there from, including any loss of
goodwill, opportunity and/or reputation.

8. Further, the clause also depicts that in the event
the promoter is desirous of fixing alternate dates for the tour
and/or shows to be held on date(s) in future beyond year 2022,
the artist reserves the right to renegotiate the terms and
conditions of his engagement, including the fees/consideration
payable in respect thereof. If the reschedule date is of the year
2022, then same terms and conditions including

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61104
CRL.P No. 1393 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010074372024



fees/consideration will be applicable. In the instant case,
admittedly, the amount alleged i.e., 62,000 USD was sent by
respondent No.2 directly to the artists and theatre booking in
America. Due to unavailability of the dates to the artists, the
programme was cancelled. In such circumstances, for the said
act, the petitioner cannot be held vicariously liable. There is no
such direct act of cheating and breach of trust attributable to
the petitioner in the instant case.

ARSHAD
9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
NEYAZ KHAN Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND AND ANOTHER
-
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058
in paragraph Nos.19 to 23 held as
under:

"19.
It is settled law that for establishing the offence
of cheating, the complainant/respondent No. 2 was
required to show that the appellant had a fraudulent
or dishonest intention at the time of making a
promise or representation of not fulfilling the
agreement for sale of the said property. Such a
culpable intention right at the beginning when the
promise was made cannot be presumed but has to
be made out with cogent facts. In the facts of the
present case, there is a clear absence of dishonest
and fraudulent intention on the part of the appellant
during the agreement for sale. We must hasten to
add that there is no allegation in the FIR or the
complaint indicating either expressly or impliedly any
intentional deception or fraudulent/dishonest

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61104
CRL.P No. 1393 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010074372024



intention on the part of the appellant right from the
time of making the promise or misrepresentation.
Nothing has been said on what the
misrepresentations were and how the appellant
intentionally deceived the complainant/respondent
No. 2. Mere allegations by the
complainant/respondent No. 2 that the appellant
failed to execute the agreement for sale and failed to
refund the money paid by the
complainant/respondent No. 2 does not satisfy the
test of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or
part with a valuable security as enshrined under
Section 420 IPC.

20.
On perusal of the allegations contained in
the complaint, in light of the ingredients of Section
406 IPC, read in the context of Section 405 IPC, do
not find that any offence of criminal breach of trust
has been made out. It is trite law that every act of
breach of trust may not result in a penal offence
unless there is evidence of a manipulating act of
fraudulent misappropriation of property entrusted to
him. In the case of criminal breach of trust, if a
person comes into possession of the property and
receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts
it to its own use against the terms of contract, then
the question whether such retention is with dishonest
intention or not and whether such retention involves
criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of the
case. In the present case, the
complainant/respondent No. 2 has failed to establish
the ingredients essential to constitute an offence
under Section 406 IPC. The complainant/respondent
No. 2 has failed to place any material on record to
show us as to how he had entrusted property to the
appellant. Furthermore, the complaint also omits to
aver as to how the property, so entrusted to the
appellant, was dishonestly misappropriated or

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61104
CRL.P No. 1393 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010074372024



converted for his own use, thereby committing a
breach of trust.

21.
Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that
if it is the case of the complainant/respondent No.2
that the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined
under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406
IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same
breath it cannot be said that the accused has also
committed the offence of cheating as defined in
Section 415, punishable under Section 420 IPC. This
Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690 observed that
there is a distinction between criminal breach of trust
and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is
necessary at the time of making false or misleading
representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach
of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient.
Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender
is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he
dishonestly misappropriates the same. Whereas, in
case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or
dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to
deliver a property. In such a situation, both offences
cannot co-exist simultaneously. Consequently, the
complaint cannot contain both the offences that are
independent and distinct. The said offences cannot
co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts as
they are antithetical to each other.

22.
At this point, we must hasten to add that
the complaint was filed after a delay of nearly eight
years. Learned counsel for the
complainant/respondent No. 2 has failed to impress
the Court about the reason for the delay and hence
this fact further raises a suspicion about the bona
fides of the complainant/respondent No. 2. The delay
in lodging of the complaint and FIR, coupled with the
vague allegations do not inspire any confidence in
the Court to allow the criminal proceedings to

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61104
CRL.P No. 1393 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010074372024



continue against the appellant. Further, the
complainant/respondent No. 2 had an alternative
remedy of filing a civil suit claiming damages for the
alleged violation of his contractual rights which has
not been availed but a route through criminal
proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made
out, cannot be permitted. Criminal law ought not to
become a platform for initiation of vindictive
proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas.
The appellant therefore, in our view, could not be
attributed any mens rea and therefore, the
allegations levelled by the prosecution against the
appellant are unsustainable.

23. Inder Mohan Goswami
Furthermore, in ,
it was held by this Court that the Court must ensure
that criminal prosecution is not used as an
instrument of harassment or for seeking private
vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the
accused. It was further held by this Court that it is
neither possible nor desirable to lay down any
inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of
inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the
reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion that
to continue the criminal proceedings against the
appellant herein would cause undue harassment to
him because as observed hereinabove, no prima
facie case for the offence under Sections 406 or 420
IPC is made out.

10. Collocating the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, as discussed
supra, since the petitioner being the Manager, there is no direct
involvement of the petitioner. As such, the criminal liability
cannot be attributed against him. In such circumstances, I am

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61104
CRL.P No. 1393 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010074372024



of the considered view that the continuation of proceedings
against the petitioner/accused is nothing but abuse of the
process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
allowed
i. The petition is .
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioner/accused in Crime No.211/2023,
registered by Viveknagar Police, for the
offences punishable under Sections 504, 406
and 420 of IPC, pending on the file of III
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at
Bangalore, are hereby quashed.


SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE


HKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25