SRI.SANAULLA ZULFIKHAR AHMED KHAN vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58906
CRL.P No. 3391 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010198772020





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

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

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3391 OF 2020


BETWEEN:

1. SRI. SANAULLA ZULFIKHAR AHMED KHAN
S/O LATE SRI. SANAULLA KHAN
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.248/D, 4TH ‘C’ ROSS
JAMIA MASJID ROAD ILYAZ NAGAR
J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.
…PETITIONER





(BY SRI. CHAND PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CUBBONPARK POLICE STATOIN
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001.

2. SRI. MANISH MOHAN
C/O RAKESH KUMAR
AGE: MAJOR
RESIDING AT T-22, ‘B’ BLOCK,
PSR ASTER, CHEMBANAHALLI
BENGALURU-562 125.
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. P. VARALAKSHMI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)





Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58906
CRL.P No. 3391 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010198772020


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN
C.C.NO.8985/2019 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 AT ANNEXURE-C AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.8985/2019 OF CUBBON PARK POLICE, PENDING ON
THE FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 120(B) AND
406 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.


THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1
and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed by accused No.1 praying this
Court to quash the proceedings since the police have initiated
the prosecution against him by registering the case and after
investigation filed the charge sheet in C.C.No.8985/2019 for
the offence under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 read with
Section 34 of IPC. At the first instance, based on the complaint,
Annexure-B, FIR was registered only for the offence punishable
under 420 of IPC in Crime No.39/2017. The Investigating

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58906
CRL.P No. 3391 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010198772020


Officer has conducted the investigation and filed the charge
sheet and in the charge sheet, specific allegations are made
that payment of Rs.37,00,000/- was made on 03.02.2015 and
04.02.2015 by way of RTGS in favour of Shikha Developers
Company and they agreed to give pilot training and these two
accused persons obtained the money with the common
intention to cheat the complainant and to make wrongful gain
and though, promised him to give pilot training to C.W.1 and
against the said promise, the complainant parted with the
money of Rs.37,00,000/-, but they did not give any training
and on demand, repaid the amount by way of cheque and only
the cheque was honoured for part of the amount of
Rs.15,00,000 and in respect of remaining amount of
Rs.22,00,000/-, cheques were dishonoured. Hence, committed
the offence of cheating and both of them conspired with each
other in parting with money from the complainant. Being
aggrieved by the said charge sheet, the present petition is filed.
3. The main contention of learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner is that company is not made as accused and
this petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1. The counsel would

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58906
CRL.P No. 3391 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010198772020


vehemently contend that when the cheques are dishonoured,
already initiated the proceedings under Section 138 of N.I. Act.
But, initiation of this complaint for cheating is nothing but an
abuse of process and hence, this Court has to exercise the
power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The counsel would
vehemently contend that, in order to invoke Section 420 of IPC,
there must be an intention to cheat at the inception and no
such material is found.
4. The counsel in support of his argument, relied upon
judgment of the Apex Court in G. SAKAR SURI AND
ANOTHER vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in
(2000) 2 SCC 636 and brought to notice of this Court
discussion made in paragraph No.14, wherein an observation is
made that, in the instant criminal case without regard to their
role or participation in the alleged offences with the sole
purpose of getting the loan due to the Finance Company by
browbeating and tyrannising the appellants with criminal
prosecution, a complaint is filed. A criminal complaint under
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is already
pending against the appellants and the other accused. They

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58906
CRL.P No. 3391 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010198772020


would suffer the consequences if offence under Section 138 is
proved against them. In any other case there is no occasion for
the complainant to prosecute the appellants under Sections
406/420 IPC and in his doing so it is clearly an abuse of
process of law and prosecution against the petitioners for those
offences is liable to be quashed.
5. The counsel also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in DELHI RACE CLUB (1940) LIMITED AND OTHERS
vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in
(2024) 10 SCC 690 and brought to notice of this Court
paragraph No.36, wherein the Apex Court discussed with
regard to scope of Section 406 of IPC and ingredients of the
offence is considered, so also in respect of Section 420 of IPC
and brought to notice of this Court that an observation is made
in paragraph No.37 that intention to defraud or the dishonest
intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must
be there from the very beginning or inception.
6. The counsel also relied upon order passed by this
Court in CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5076/2022 dated
26.07.2023 , wherein this Court considered the judgment of

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58906
CRL.P No. 3391 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010198772020


Aneeta Hada ’s case in not making the company as party to
the proceedings and there cannot be any criminal prosecution
without arraigning the company as an accused and prays for
quashing of criminal proceedings.
7. Per contra, Learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.1 submits that on receiving the complaint as
per Annexure-B and issuance of FIR, the Investigating Officer
investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant
would vehemently contend that accusation made in the charge
sheet is very clear that accused having obtained an amount of
.
Rs 37,00,000/-, they were not having any intention to provide
training, but made the complainant to part with the money with
an intention to cheat and when the amount was refunded, only
part payment was made by honouring the cheque, but in
respect of remaining cheques are concerned, they were not
honoured. Hence, the Court has to consider the same during
the course of trial whether there was an intention to cheat or
not.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58906
CRL.P No. 3391 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010198772020


9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 and learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2-complainant and also the principles laid down in the
’s
judgment in the case of G.Sagar Suri case, the Court has to
take note of specific observation made in paragraph No.14
which was relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner that in the said case, without regard to their role or
participation in the alleged offences with the sole purpose of
getting the loan due to the Finance Company by browbeating
probating and tyrannising the appellants with criminal
prosecution, a proceedings was initiated and Court has to take
note whether such principle applies to this case.
10. In the said case there was no specific averment
with regard to role or participation in the alleged offence, but in
the case on hand, specific averment is made that payment was
made in favour of the company and this petitioner is the
Chairman and another is the Managing Director and specific
averments are made that both of them are in the affairs of the
company and so also, when the amount was received with an

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58906
CRL.P No. 3391 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010198772020


assurance that they are going to give pilot training and
collected huge amount of Rs.37,00,000/- but not given any
training. Hence, when the demand was made, with an intention
to cheat only, cheques were given without sufficient fund and
the same was dishonoured and the Court has to take note that
when the amount was received with a promise to give training
and when such training was not given and this is a matter of
issue before the Trial Court whether they were having any
intention to cheat as held in the judgment of the Apex Court
relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in
Delhi Race Club’s case .
11. So also, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner relies upon order passed by this Court in WRIT
PETITION NO.5076/2022, with regard to not arraigning the
company as party relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court
’s
in Aneeta Hada case and in keeping in view the same, the
Court has to take note that law was set in motion in the
present case making an allegation against the company itself in
terms of Annexure-B and specific accusation is made in the
complaint that amount was paid to the company and specific

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58906
CRL.P No. 3391 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010198772020


averment is also made that this petitioner is a Chairman and
another is a Managing Director of the said company and
knowing fully and willfully cheated the complainant. When such
allegation is made against the company as well as the persons,
who are in affairs of the company being the Chairman as well
as the Managing Director, it is a mistake on the part of the
Investigating Officer in not arraigning the company as an
accused. When the law was set in motion against the company,
in the complaint at Annexure-B, due to the lapses on the part
of the Investigating Officer, these two petitioners cannot be
exonerated from criminal proceedings, who are in helm of
affairs on the ground that company was not made as accused.
The provision of Section 319 of Cr.P.C, is very clear, even if the
person who is responsible as a legal entity was not made as a
party, even at the stage of trial also, if the witnesses, in the
case hand i.e., C.W.1 speak about the same, it can be
arraigned as party and the issue was considered by this Court
on an earlier occasion also.
12. When such being the case, due to lapses on the
part of the Investigating Officer, when specific accusation is

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58906
CRL.P No. 3391 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010198772020


made in the complaint i.e., in FIR and the company being left
out by the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet
cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. Hence, I do not
find any grounds to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and it is a
matter of trial, the same has to be considered during the
course of the trial only. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to
quash the proceedings against the petitioner.
13. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE


ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23