SMT. MANGALA S KOTIAN vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55810
CRL.P No. 9213 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010429712025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9213 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. MANGALA S KOTIAN,
W/O SRIKANTH T KOTIAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
NO.202, SLV SOWMYASHREE RESIDENCY,
SHARDAMBHA NAGAR, JALAHALLI
BENGALURU CITY, BENGALURE-560013.
MOB. 8660604904,
AADHAR NO.7190 6725 9371,
MANGALA KOTIAN@ YAHOO.CO.IN

2. SRI RAGHAVENDRA M.R,
S/O MOHAN RAJ S,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PROPRIETOR,
LUB-N-GEN SYSTEMS,
NO.19, 5TH A CROSS, SHARDAMBA NAGAR,
JALAHALLI, BENGALORE 560013.
MOB: 9482524153,
AADHAR NO.9447 4801 2575,
[email protected]
…PETITIONERS












(BY SMT. SHOBHA.A, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI EDMOND DANDY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY REP. BY SPP,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55810
CRL.P No. 9213 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010429712025


SUBRAMANYANAGARA PS,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
AT BENGALURU - 560001.

2. AMIT KUMAR,
S/O ANNI PUJARI,
ADMIN MANAGER,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
M/S SINEWAVE GENERATORS LIMITED,
NO.38, 4TH FLOOR, SINEWAVE COMPLEX,
20TH MAIN ROAD, 1ST BLOCK,
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALORE CITY,
BENGALURE-560010, KARNATAKA,
MOB:9480366456,
EMAIL: [email protected]
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RANJITH KUMAR N, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI K.G KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR NO.60/2025 DATED
25.04.2024 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 61(2),
316(2), 318(3), 318(4) R/W SEC.3(5) OF BNS 2023 BY
RESPONDENT SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE WHICH IS ON THE
FILE OF HON'BLE III ADDL. CJM COURT AT BENGALURU VIDE
DOCUMENT-4.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55810
CRL.P No. 9213 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010429712025



ORAL ORDER


1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
"1. To Quash the FIR No. 60/2025 dated 25th April
2024, registered for the offences punishable u/s 61(2)
316(2) 318(3) 318(4) r/w 3(5) of BNS 2023, by
respondent Subramanyanagar Police which is on the
file of Hon'ble III Addl. C.J.M Court at Bangalore, vide
DOCUMENT-4;

2. And to pass such other relief, as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit to grant considering the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand."



2. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint on 25.04.2025,
pursuant to which Crime No. 60/2025 came to be
registered by Subramanyanagar Police Station for
offences punishable under Sections 61(2), 316(2),
318(3), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner has approached this
Court challenging the registration of the said crime.


3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner
is that the complaint is motivated and has been
lodged to wreak personal vengeance against the
petitioner. Petitioner No. 1 was employed with M/s.
Sineware Generators Ltd., of which respondent No. 2
is the Administrative Manager. She had worked with
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55810
CRL.P No. 9213 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010429712025


the company from 2006 until 2024, completing 18
years of service. It is contended that, upon her
leaving the employment, the employer sought to
target her by making false allegations. According to
learned counsel, none of the allegations in the
complaint is true, and the petitioner has committed
no act constituting an offence under the provisions
invoked.


4. Learned counsel further submits that respondent No.
2 had instituted O.S. No. 2200/2025, seeking an
injunction on the allegation that petitioner No. 1 was
using the contacts and confidential information
acquired during her employment with M/s. Sineware
Generators Ltd. The application for injunction was
refused. According to learned counsel, the refusal
lends credence to the petitioner’s contention that she
has committed no wrongdoing. On these grounds, it
is submitted that continuation of the investigation
would cause serious harm to the petitioner’s
reputation and that the proceedings are liable to be
quashed.


5. Per contra, Sri K. G. Kamath, learned counsel for
respondent No. 2, submits that the complaint
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55810
CRL.P No. 9213 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010429712025


discloses specific instances warranting investigation.
It is contended that, on one occasion, Mr. Krishan
Das of Metropolis India approached M/s. Sineware
Generators Ltd. for the hiring of a 125 KVA mobile
DG set, described in the complaint as a 120-kilowatt
generator. Although the generator was supplied by
the company, a payment of Rs. 12,000/- was
credited to the personal account of petitioner No. 1.
A similar instance is alleged in relation to the hiring
of a 320 KVA soundproof mobile DG set by Mrs.
Chandana C. K., where the payment is also stated to
have been credited to petitioner No. 1’s personal
account. Learned counsel submits that these are only
illustrative instances and that further instances may
emerge upon investigation.


6. It is further contended that petitioner No. 1 engaged
employees of M/s. Sineware Generators Ltd.,
namely, Venkatesh Gowda R., Jeevan K. and
Chandraiah, to undertake repairs and other service
work in respect of generators supplied, installed or
hired out by M/s. LUB-N-Gen Systems, a concern
established by petitioner No. 2, the brother of
petitioner No. 1. The allegation, therefore, is not
confined to the receipt of payments in the personal
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55810
CRL.P No. 9213 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010429712025


account of petitioner No. 1; it also concerns the
alleged use of the employer’s personnel to carry out
service work for the business of petitioner No. 2.
Learned counsel submits that these acts are alleged
to have occurred during the period of petitioner No.
1’s employment. The suit, according to him, concerns
a different set of allegations relating to conduct after
she left the employment, whereas the present
complaint concerns the alleged acts committed
during her tenure.


7. Heard Smt. Shobha A., learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Ranjith Kumar N., learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No. 1, and Sri K.
G. Kamath, learned counsel for respondent No. 2,
and perused the material on record.


8. The question that arises for consideration at this
stage is whether the allegations in the complaint,
taken at face value and read along with the material
placed on record, disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence warranting investigation. Where
the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do
not disclose any offence, this Court may interdict the
criminal proceedings. Conversely, where the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55810
CRL.P No. 9213 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010429712025


complaint discloses specific allegations which require
investigation, this Court ought not to stifle the
investigation at its threshold.


9. In the present case, the allegations are not general
or vague. Specific transactions have been referred
to, and documents have been placed on record
which, according to respondent No. 2, indicate that
payments for services rendered by M/s. Sineware
Generators Ltd. were credited to the personal
account of petitioner No. 1. The material also refers
to transactions allegedly routed through her account.
The circumstances in which these payments were
received, the nature of the transactions, and whether
they were genuine and bona fide are matters that
require examination in the course of investigation. At
this stage, the Court cannot record a finding that the
transactions were fraudulent; equally, it cannot
presume that they were bona fide and thereby
foreclose an investigation.


10. Prima facie, if services were rendered by the
employer company and the corresponding payments
were diverted to the personal account of an
employee, the circumstances would call for
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55810
CRL.P No. 9213 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010429712025


investigation. The complaint also contains allegations
that employees of M/s. Sineware Generators Ltd.
were engaged to carry out maintenance and other
work relating to generators supplied, hired out or
commissioned by M/s. LUB-N-Gen Systems, the
concern established by petitioner No. 2. The nature
and extent of the alleged transactions, the role of
each petitioner, and whether the acts complained of
attract the ingredients of the offences invoked are
matters to be investigated on the basis of the
available evidence.


11. The refusal of the application for injunction in O.S.
No. 2200/2025 does not, by itself, establish that the
allegations in the present complaint are false. As
submitted on behalf of respondent No. 2, the suit
concerns allegations relating to the use of contacts
and confidential information after petitioner No. 1 left
her employment, whereas the present complaint
relates to alleged transactions and conduct during
the period of her employment. The two proceedings,
therefore, cannot be treated as necessarily involving
identical issues merely because they arise from the
broader dispute between the parties.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55810
CRL.P No. 9213 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010429712025



12. In these circumstances, having regard to the specific
allegations and the material placed on record, it
cannot be held that the complaint, on its face, fails to
disclose any offence or that the investigation is liable
to be interdicted at its inception. The allegations
require investigation, and the truth or otherwise of
the same cannot be determined in proceedings
seeking quashing of the FIR. Nothing stated herein
shall be construed as a finding on the guilt of either
petitioner or on the ultimate merits of the
allegations. The investigation shall proceed in
accordance with law, uninfluenced by any
observations made in this order.


13. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the
following:

ORDER

i) No grounds being made out, petition stands
dismissed
.

ii) The Investigating Officer is directed to
investigate all the relevant aspects in a fair and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:55810
CRL.P No. 9213 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010429712025


proper manner and submit the final report at
the earliest.

iii) Pending application, if any, stands dismissed.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE











PRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46