LATHA IYER vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57181
CRL.P No. 714 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010032352020




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 714 OF 2020 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:


SMT. LATHA IYER
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.362,
SOBHAMORZARIA GRANDEUR,
BANNERGHATTA MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 029.
…PETITIONER







(BY SRI. M. R. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MADIWALA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY,
KARNATAKA STATE.

2.
SRI. MADHURANATH KONETY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O DR. R. SKONETY,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
M/S NUARTIN LABS PVT. LTD.,
NO.7, SOBHA IVORY, ST. JOHNS ROAD,



Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57181
CRL.P No. 714 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010032352020


SIVANCHETTI GARDEN,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDITIONAL SPP FOR R1;
SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR
INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CR.NO.380/2019
PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDL.C.M.M., NRUPATHUNGA
ROAD, BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 427,448,506 R/W 34 OF IPC AT ANNEXURE-A,
BY CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND GROUNDS URGED IN THE
PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

The criminal petition is filed by the petitioner under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to quash the FIR initiated
by the respondent No.2/company registered in
Crime No.380/2019 by Madiwala Police Station, Bengaluru
for the offence punishable under sections 427, 448, 506

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57181
CRL.P No. 714 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010032352020


and 34 of IPC, pending on the file of III Addl. C.M.M.,
Nrupathunga road, Bengaluru, as per Annexure-A and
pass such other order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
also the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent/State.
3. The allegation laid in the complaint and Annexure
‘B’ is that the ex-employee, this petitioner and other 3
unknown persons, broke opened the office lock with an
intention to trespass and commit the robbery and specific
allegation is made that though the petitioner has resigned
the job on 24.09.2019, came and committed the trespass
on 24.12.2019 and entered the office premises and stolen
company data and put new lock to the office premises.
She has confessed putting a new lock to the office door in
the evening dated 25th December, 2019, as per Annexure
‘J’ and the same is an illegal act and the next day of this
incident, mail was sent. Hence, requested the police to

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57181
CRL.P No. 714 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010032352020


take action. In pursuance of the Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’, FIR
is issued.
4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that the very initiation of the criminal
complaint, is with an intention to abuse the process and
contend that the written complaint clearly shows that the
intention of the complainant was that to harass the
petitioner by suppressing the facts that at the time of
acceptance of her resignation dated 24.09.2019, clearly
mentioned that ‘will discuss next steps’ itself goes to show
that there is legal dues from him to the petitioner, when
he has not complied the same. The petitioner got issued
the legal notice dated 12.12.2019. Even after receipt of
the legal notice, respondent No.2 has not complied with
demand. That after email from the respondent no.2 to
remove the assets belonging to the petitioner in the said
premises, the petitioner has entered into the premises in
daylight on 24.12.2019 and opened the door from the key

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57181
CRL.P No. 714 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010032352020


where the key bunch was kept on the head of the main
door, from the last 14 years and entered into company
and took her assets and other belongings. Further,
counsel also brought to notice of this court, the said email
was sent and in terms of the said email only she had taken
belongings and hence no such criminal act was committed
and brought to notice of this court that in terms of the
intimation given to the company regarding removal of her
belongings from the office premises, accordingly she went
and recovered the same and no such criminal act is done.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent complainant would submit that the petitioner
has resigned in the month of September 2019 and no
doubt letter was sent to remove the belongings, but that
doesn't mean that they were asking to come along with
the other unknown persons and break open and lock and
steal the data of the company and so also put the new
lock and even the intimation was sent as per Annexure J

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57181
CRL.P No. 714 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010032352020


for having committed the offence and it is a matter of
investigation.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the
argument relies upon paragraph No.20 of judgment
wherein the Court held that under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the
Court cannot require to conduct a mini trial and the
jurisdiction of under section 482 of Cr.P.C., is very limited
and the Court has to only consider whether any sufficient
material is available to proceed against the accused or not.
When specific allegations are made regarding trespass and
also committing the causing of loss to the company and
charge sheet is also made, in terms of the letter, it is a
case of investigation.
7. The counsel appearing for the State, Addl. SPP also
brought to the notice of this court the contents of the
complaint. Having heard the respective counsel and also
perusal of the material, the relief is sought for quashing of
the FIR.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57181
CRL.P No. 714 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010032352020


8. The court has to examine whether the allegations
made in the complaint does disclose the ingredients of the
offence invoked. The specific allegation is made that the
petitioner trespassed the company and committed the
offence and the specific allegation is also made that the
petitioner stolen the company data and also caused the
loss, when such allegation is made, though there is a delay
of 4 days in lodging the complaint, but complainant
counsel submits that he came to know about the same,
only on the next day when the email was sent and he was
not in station and came down and lodged the complaint.
9. With regard to the delay, as well as committing an
offence, the I.O., has to conduct the investigation. The
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dinesh
Bai Chandu Bai Patel Vs the State of Gujarath
reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104 case is also very clear that
the court has to look into the contents of the complaint
and allow the investigating officer to investigate the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57181
CRL.P No. 714 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010032352020


matter and file the report either ‘A’ report or ‘B’ report and
the High Court should not venture to quash the FIR and
hence I do not find any grounds to quash the same. In
view of the discussions made above, I proceed to pass the
following order.
Petition is dismissed .

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
AKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25