RAJ KUMAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58472
CRL.P No. 13262 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010614362025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13262 OF 2025

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

RAJ KUMAR
S/O RAM JI LAL
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
KAUSHAL INTERIORS,
ND ND
#22, 2 FLOOR, 2 CROSS,
SHAKTI NAGAR, OUTER RING ROAD,
KALYAN NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560043

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH V., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. UDAYA PRAKASH M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HENNUR POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560001.

2. JINESH V SHAH
S/O VIJAY N SHAH,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OFFICE AT J AND J CORPORATION,
JAYARANGA RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD,
NEHRU NAGAR, KUMARA PARK,
BANGALORE - 560020.

…RESPONDENTS











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:05, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58472
CRL.P No. 13262 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010614362025


(BY SRI. RANJITH KUMAR N., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. T. PRAKASH., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.342/2025
REGISTER BY THE HENNUR POLICE STATION BANASWADI SUB-
DIVISION PENDING ON THE FILE OF XI ADDL. CJM COURT,
BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 318(4) OF THE BNS,
2023, (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a) Quash the FIR in Cr.No.342/2025 register by the
Hennur Police Station Banaswadi Sub-Division
pending on the file of XI Addl. CJM Court,
Bengaluru City for the offences p/u/s. 318(4) of the
BNS, 2023, (Annexure-A) .

b) Pass such other order as deemed fit in view of the
facts and circumstances of the case in the interest
of justice and equity.


2. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint on 09.08.2025,
pursuant to which Hennur Police Station registered
FIR in Crime No. 342/2025 for the offence punishable
under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as “ the
BNS ”).
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:05, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58472
CRL.P No. 13262 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010614362025



3. In the complaint, it was alleged that respondent No.
2 is engaged in the business of sale and supply of
hardware materials. The petitioner had approached
respondent No. 2 for the purchase of HAFELE
architectural hardware, and respondent No. 2 agreed
to supply the same for a total consideration of
₹51,57,903/-. Towards discharge of the liability
arising out of the transaction, the petitioner issued
three post-dated cheques. It was alleged that the
first cheque presented for encashment was
dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. According to
respondent No. 2, the petitioner had thereby
dishonestly induced respondent No. 2 to effect the
supply, and an amount of ₹41,07,146/- remained
due and payable as on the date of the complaint. On
these allegations, respondent No. 2 asserted that the
petitioner had committed an offence punishable
under Section 318(4) of the BNS.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner had purchased hardware equipment from
respondent No. 2 for the transaction value stated in
the complaint and had paid a sum of ₹8,00,000/-.
Though an amount of ₹41,71,146.99 is stated to
remain outstanding, the petitioner had issued
cheques towards discharge of the liability. It is
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:05, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58472
CRL.P No. 13262 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010614362025


contended that the transaction between the
petitioner and respondent No. 2 is purely commercial
in nature, arising out of a contract for the purchase
and supply of goods. Consequently, respondent No. 2
ought to have instituted appropriate civil proceedings
for recovery of the outstanding amount. The mere
failure to discharge a contractual liability, according
to learned counsel, cannot be given a criminal colour,
nor can such a dispute, in the absence of the
requisite ingredients of cheating, attract Section
318(4) of the BNS.

5. Per contra, Sri Prakash T., learned counsel for
respondent No. 2, submits that the petitioner had
approached respondent No. 2 for the purchase of the
aforesaid hardware materials with the intention of
supplying them further to Aster Hospital. Having
received the materials from respondent No. 2, the
petitioner allegedly supplied them to Aster Hospital
and received payment therefor. It is further
submitted that the petitioner had issued three post-
dated cheques at the time of the transaction;
however, when the first cheque was presented, it
was dishonoured. Upon being informed of the
dishonour, the petitioner allegedly requested
respondent No. 2 not to present the remaining two
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:05, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58472
CRL.P No. 13262 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010614362025


cheques and thereafter paid only a sum of
₹8,00,000/-. Learned counsel contends that these
circumstances indicate that, from the inception of the
transaction, the petitioner had no intention of
honouring the payment obligation and had induced
respondent No. 2 to supply the goods by
representing that the cheques would be honoured on
presentation. It is, therefore, submitted that the
allegations disclose dishonest intention at the
inception of the transaction and warrant investigation
for the offence punishable under Section 318(4) of
the BNS.

6. Heard Sri Ramesh V., learned counsel appearing for
Sri Uday Prakash M., learned counsel for the
petitioner; Sri Ranjith Kumar N., learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No. 1; and Sri T.
Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No. 2.
Perused papers.

7. The transaction between the petitioner and
respondent No. 2 arises out of the purchase and
supply of hardware materials. Ordinarily, where the
allegations disclose no more than a contractual
dispute arising from the non-payment of the price of
goods supplied, this Court would consider whether
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:05, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58472
CRL.P No. 13262 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010614362025


continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to
an abuse of the process of law, leaving the
complainant at liberty to pursue appropriate civil
remedies for recovery of the outstanding amount.

8. The facts alleged in the present case, however,
require consideration in their entirety. The petitioner
is alleged to have procured the hardware materials
from respondent No. 2 for onward supply to Aster
Hospital. The materials were allegedly supplied to the
petitioner, who, in turn, supplied them to the end
recipient and received payment therefor. Towards
payment of the purchase price, the petitioner had
issued three post-dated cheques, of which the first
cheque itself was dishonoured for insufficiency of
funds. It is further alleged that, despite having
received the goods and having obtained payment
from the end recipient, the petitioner failed to
discharge the outstanding liability, save for a
payment of ₹8,00,000/-. The allegation, therefore, is
not merely that the petitioner subsequently failed to
perform a contractual obligation, but that the
petitioner induced respondent No. 2 to part with the
goods on the representation that the agreed
consideration would be paid.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:05, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58472
CRL.P No. 13262 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010614362025



9. The aforesaid allegations, if taken at face value,
prima facie warrant examination of whether the
petitioner had a dishonest intention at the time of
inducing respondent No. 2 to supply the goods. The
dishonour of a cheque, by itself, would not establish
the commission of the offence of cheating. However,
when considered alongside the allegations that the
petitioner obtained the goods, supplied them to Aster
Hospital, received payment from the end recipient,
and nevertheless failed to discharge the agreed
liability, the circumstances would be relevant in
determining whether the promise of payment was
dishonest from the inception of the transaction. At
this stage, the Court cannot conclusively determine
the petitioner’s intention merely from the subsequent
default; equally, the commercial character of the
transaction does not, by itself, exclude the possibility
of criminality.

10. The contention that respondent No. 2 ought to
pursue only a civil remedy for recovery of the
outstanding amount cannot, therefore, be accepted
as an independent ground for quashing the criminal
proceedings, since the allegations and material on
record prima facie disclose the ingredients of the
alleged offence. The availability of a civil remedy
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:05, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58472
CRL.P No. 13262 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010614362025


does not, by itself, bar criminal proceedings where
the same set of facts also discloses a criminal
offence. Respondent No. 2 would accordingly be at
liberty to pursue appropriate civil proceedings for
recovery of the outstanding amount, subject to law,
independently of the criminal proceedings.

11. As such this Court passes the following
ORDER

i. Criminal petition stands dismissed.

ii. Respondents are directed to carry out
investigation and file the investigation report at
the earliest.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:05, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE



LN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53