MR ANURAG BOTEK vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62400
CRL.P No. 1866 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010092282021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 11 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1866 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MR. ANURAG BOTEK
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O SHRIRAM GANPATRAO BOTKE
PLOT No.A-16/11
SRI. MANUS AROHA CHAMBER
RUKMINIPURI COLONY
SECUNDERABAD
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA-500062.
DIRECTOR OF
REALCOM INFOCOM PVT LTD
HYDERABAD CITY
ANDHRA PRADESH.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S.B. ADV.)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY VARTHUR POLICE STATION
BENGALURU.
2. MR. R. RANJITH
S/O SRI. RADHA KRISHNA
AGED 29 YEARS
R/AT NO.11, KRISHNA NILAYA
GOPAL REDDY LAYOUT
Digitally
signed by
DEVIKA M
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62400
CRL.P No. 1866 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010092282021
THUBARAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 066.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
QUASH THE PETITION IN CR.NO.168/2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE II ACJM BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE
ANNEXURE-A FILED BY THE RESPONDENT No.1 AGAINST THE
PETITIONER UNDER SECTION.420, 506, 34 OF IPC & 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
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State.
2. The prayer is sought for quashing the charge sheet
filed against the petitioner, who is working as Director of
Realcom Infocom Private Limited, Hyderabad City, Hyderabad,
Andhra Pradesh in C.C.No.5248/2020 which is arising out of
Crime No.168/2018. The accusation made in the charge sheet
against the petitioner is that C.Ws.1 and 2 are doing
th
partnership business in the 5 floor, No.72/1 in Sponge
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62400
CRL.P No. 1866 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010092282021
Entertainment Animation Office. Both C.Ws.1 and 2 came in
contact with the company of the accused in connection with
animation work and he had promised that he would get the
work done from Netherland Blunder Company and in the said
project work, they may get Rs.2 Crores and accordingly,
C.Ws.1 and 2 believed the version of accused and entered into
an agreement on 30.08.2017 and collected an amount of
Rs.7,20,000/- and even though the project work was done to
the extent of Rs.13,00,000/-, the petitioner cheated the
complainant to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-. Hence, complaint is
filed and crime is registered and police have investigated the
matter and filed the charge sheet. While filing the charge sheet,
cited C.Ws.1 to 10. C.Ws.2 to 5 reiterates the contents of
complaint as well as causing threat when the demand was
made. C.Ws.6 and 7 are the panch witnesses, C.W.8 received
the complaint and registered the case, C.W.9 conducted the
investigation and C.W.10 filed the charge sheet after
completion of investigation.
3. Now, learned appearing for the petitioner would
submit that it is purely a civil dispute between the parties and
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62400
CRL.P No. 1866 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010092282021
in the complaint itself, agreement dated 30.08.2017 is stated
and specific averment is also made for having made the
payment to get the project work done. The counsel also would
contend that registration of FIR is opposed to mandate under
Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the
alleged complaint by the respondent No.2 did not fall under the
jurisdiction of respondent No.1-police and the very registration
of complaint is void-ab-initio and it will not attract criminal
offence. The petitioner is a very respectable and reputed
businessman coming from a established business family, who
has been in business more than 5 years and there is no such
material to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence and
absolutely, there is no material to believe the case of the
complainant and there is no prima facie material. Hence, there
cannot be any criminal prosecution against the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP for
respondent No.1- State would submit that specific accusation is
made in the complaint for having received the money of
Rs.7,20,000/- and the same is not disputed by the petitioner
and also specific accusation is made that work was done
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62400
CRL.P No. 1866 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010092282021
through the project and it was also fully completed and in all,
the petitioner is liable to pay an amount of Rs.13,00,000/- and
contents of the complaint at Annexure-B is very specific
regarding the allegation that only with an intention to cheat the
complainant has made payment of amount of Rs.7,20,000/-
and 10% of the work was done and payment to the tune of
Rs.6,00,000/- is also not made and whether there is an
intention to cheat is a matter of investigation. Hence, it
requires investigation.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-
State, though respondent No.2-complainant is served through
notice by the Court, he did not choose to appear before the
Court. The main accusation is that the complainant came in
contact with this petitioner and no doubt, there is an
agreement dated 30.08.2017, the petitioner also deposited the
amount of Rs.7,20,000/- and the same is not disputed by
learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent No.1-State
that the complainant has received the said money. Apart from
payment of Rs.7,20,000/-, specific accusation is made that
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62400
CRL.P No. 1866 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010092282021
though the project work was done, the payment was not made
to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/- and during the course of
investigation, the police recorded the statement of witnesses.
C.Ws.2 to 5 reiterates the contents of complaint and specific
accusation is made that when the demand was made to pay the
amount, life threat was caused to C.W.1 and when such specific
accusation is made and ingredients of offence under Sections
506 and 420 of IPC are invoked, the same is a matter of trial
and this Court cannot consider the contention of the petitioner
that it is a civil dispute and having made the amount of
Rs.7,20,000/- is not disputed.
6. Apart from that there is a specific accusation
against the petitioner that if complainant demands the money,
he is going to take away his life and when the same is spoken
to by C.Ws.2 to 5, the other witnesses C.Ws.6 and 7 are only
mahazar witnesses and their statement is not relevant. But, the
statement of C.Ws.2 to 5 requires to be tested in trial. Hence, I
do not find any grounds to quash the proceedings invoking
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the statement of witnesses is also
recorded regarding causing threat as well as transaction is
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:62400
CRL.P No. 1866 of 2021
CNR: KAHC010092282021
concerned and whether it was at inception of transaction or not
is a matter of trial. Hence, no ground is made to quash the
proceedings.
7. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
dismissed.
The criminal petition is
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13