SRI S VELMURUGAN vs STATE BY CID, EOD
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11152 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SRI S.VELMURUGAN
S/O LATE SIVASANKARAN
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RESIDING AT A-304,
GARDEN MANSION APARTMENT,
H A L II STAGE, BENGALURU,
KARNATAKA - 560 008.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRAVEEN S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY CID, EOD
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI SURESH ABBOJU
S/O RAJAMOULI,
MAJOR BY AGE
ADDITIONAL GENERAL MANAGER(CIVIL)-FMD
HAL, VIMANAPURA POST,
Digitally
signed by
CHAYA S A
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
POST BAG NO.1703,
BENGALURU - 560 017.
3. SRI SURESH JAIN
S/O CHHAGANLAL JAIN,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
NO-102, VAISHNAVI PRIME,
NO-19, ANDREE ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR,
BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA - 560 027.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I FOR R-1;
SRI S.R.KAMALACHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.48/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
420, 468, 470, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC CLUBBED WITH
CR.NO.505/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120B, 417, 418, 419,
420, 465, 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 474, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC
BEING INVESTIGATED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 CID, EOD ON THE
ST
FILE OF 1 A.C.J.M, BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
- 3 -
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before the Court calling in question
registration of a crime in Crime No.48 of 2023 registered for
offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 469, 470, 471 and 34
of the IPC now clubbed with Crime No.505 of 2023 registered for
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 170, 417, 418, 419, 420,
427,465, 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 474, 506 and 34 of the
IPC, being investigated into by the CID Economic Offences Division.
2. Heard Sri Praveen S, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor-1
appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S.R. Kamalacharan, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows: -
The petitioner is accused No.11 and accused No.15 in Crime
Nos. 48 of 2023 and 505 of 2023 both registered at HAL Police
Station. Respondents 2 and 3 are the complainants. It is the case
- 4 -
of the complainant in Crime No.48 of 2023 that certain persons are
involved in demanding or collecting money by using the name of
Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (‘HAL’) in the guise of leasing land
belonging to HAL at different locations on the strength of forged
and fabricated letter heads of HAL and signatures of HAL Officers
for fraudulent activities. This forms the fulcrum of crime in Crime
rd
No. 48 of 2023. The 3 respondent is the complainant in Crime
No.505 of 2023. It is the case of the said complainant that he is in
the business of real estate for about 30 years and is the Managing
Director of Dominion Media Private Limited. It is the allegation that
rd
the 3 respondent was induced by accused No.1, the Chairperson
of Karnataka Minority Commission and was connected with
Government organizations. The complainant is said to be looking to
start a school and accordingly he was directed by accused No.2 to
approach accused No.1. The land identified for the purpose of
establishment of the said school was the land belonging to HAL. The
petitioner who is arrayed as accused No.15 in the crime is said to
have facilitated lease of land belonging to HAL. In collusion all the
accused including the petitioner are said to have received ` 19/-
crores through online, cheque and cash to various accounts and
- 5 -
have distributed allotment letter on HAL letterhead indicating that
various lands belonging to HAL have now been allotted to the
complainants. The registration of crime results in commencement of
investigation by the CID in the Economic Offences Division. The CID
Economic Offences Division begins investigation. The petitioner is
before the Court calling in question the investigation in both the
crimes in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel Sri Praveen S, appearing for the
petitioner would take this Court through the documents appended
to the subject petition to contend that there is no allegation against
the present petitioner in particular and no specific role for the
offence of cheating and forgery is attributable to the petitioner.
Every act is performed by accused No.1 and similar allegations are
made against the present petitioner of a fraudulent lease of land
from one Evehans Academy. He would submit that the CBI had also
intervened and investigated into the matter and the petitioner has
been acquitted from the hands of the concerned Court in the case
instituted by the CBI in Special C.C.No.69 of 2021. It is his
submission that after acquittal, the present proceedings are
- 6 -
continued which would amount to violation of law. He would seek
quashment of proceedings.
5. Per contra, the learned State Public Prosecutor Sri B.N.
Jagadeesha appearing for the State and the learned counsel
representing the complainants would vehemently refute the
submissions in contending that two other accused had preferred
Criminal Petition No.450 of 2024. This Court refused to interfere
and, therefore, the petitioners therein had withdrawn the petition to
avail such remedy as is available in law. It cannot be said that
several other petitioners did not have case in their favour and the
petitioner has a case. All of them are on the same footing. All of
them have indulged in serious fraud of bartering away the land of
HAL by entering into leases. They would contend that the earlier
proceedings of the CBI have nothing to do with the present
investigation. That pertained to some other land and the petitioner
and others have not changed their habit. They would seek dismissal
of the petition on the score that the mater is still pending
investigation with the Economic Offences Division.
- 7 -
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would join
issue in contending that what is projected is purely a civil matter.
There cannot be a crime in the case hand. None of the ingredients
of crime are met even to its semblance and seeks to place reliance
upon judgments of the Apex Court on the issue.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record. In the
year 2017 allegations of similar nature had sprung against the
petitioner and several others. This has resulted in the CBI stepping
in for investigation and the Court found no blameworthy against the
petitioner. This is a matter of record. The present crime has sprung
on the communication to the jurisdictional Police by the HAL. The
complaint reads as follows:
“HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED
Vimanapura Post, Post Bag No.1703,
Bangalore -560 17, India.
st
FM/L&E/Police/2023/14 1 February, 2023
The SHO,
- 8 -
HAL Police Station,
Bengaluru-560 037
Sir,
Sub: Fraud, Cheating and Forgery by using
the name of Hindustan Aeronautics
Limited.
It has come to knowledge that some persons in
connivance with some others have involved in demanding/
collecting money by involving the name of Hindustan
Aeronautics Limited (HAL) in the guise of leasing land belonging
to HAL at different locations. It is also learnt that these persons
used forged/fabricated Letterheads of HAL and signature of HAL
Officers for their fraudulent activities.
2. HAL is a Navaratna Defence PSU under the
administrative control of the Ministry of Defence, Department of
Defence Production. The alleged incident is done with fraudulent
motives to tarnish the image of HAL and cheat HAL and the
Government.
3. In the recent past also a similar incident came to notice
and a complaint in that regard was lodged in HAL Police Station
vide letter dated 14-01-2022 (copy enclosed).
4. It is, therefore, requested that the matter may be
investigated thoroughly to unearth the fraud, cheating and
forgery committed by the culprits and bring them into book.
Yours faithfully,
For Hindustan Aeronautics Limited,
Sd/- (Suresh Abboju)
Addl.GeneralManaer (Civil-FMI)
Encl: As Above
Copy to:
Assistant Commissioner of Police,
HAL Police Station, Bangalore.”
- 9 -
This becomes a crime in Crime No.48 of 2023. Another private
complaint comes to be registered not by HAL, but by respondent
No.3 invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Here the petitioner is
drawn as accused No.15. The fulcrum of the allegation against the
petitioner can be gathered from certain paragraphs in the private
complaint. They read as follows:
“…. …. …..
04. The complainant has been cheated by the accused persons
to the extent of several crores which details is given below
paras in the guise of procuring the lands as per the
government of India news which he believed as true and
made him as scape goat and that he has been duped by
the above said accused persons in all possible ways to
cheat him. The accused No.1 who is mastermind behind
the entire fraud committed by the all the accused by
conspiring with each other and the modus operated by the
accused NO.1 along with accused NO.2 to 18 is heinous in
nature and all the accused made the complainant to
believe that the accused NO.3, 4,5,6,7,10,11,12,13,14 &
15 were all officials of Hindustan Aeronautics Limited which
is administered by the Indian company and the
headquarters of HAL is based in Bangalore, India, and is
responsible for all its operations and the accused NO.1 who
is introduced by accused NO.2 have introduced accused
No.3 to 18 on different intervals making the complainant
to believe that they were the real employees of the HAL
and were in position of taking any decision on behalf of the
HAL and that the each of the accused have played different
role in committing an offence of forgery, cheating,
impersonation, criminal breach of trust, forgery for the
purpose of cheating and using the forged document as
genuine to deceive the complainant huge money and that
all the accused persons have committed an offences jointly
and severally.
- 10 -
…. …. ….
07. The complainant further submits that subsequently
Mr.Binish Thomas(Accused NO.1) showed 2-3 lands out of
which first he showed 6.1 acres of vacant land in Survey
No. 39 and 40 situated at Marathahalli, Bangalore and then
he showed 42 acres in Doddanekkundi Main Road,
Bangalore and then he showed 4-5 acres of land situated
adjacent to Ambedkar Colony of Doddanekkundi,
Bangalore. Mr.Binish Thomas (Accused NO. 1) told the
complainant that he would get the land on lease for 25
thousand per acre per month and also told the) went to
the office of Mr.Binish Thomas (Accused NO.1) which is
situated in 6th Cross, Victoria layout, Bangalore at that
point of time he represented to the complainant that he
was the Chairman of Karnataka Minority Commission and
that he is having huge contact with the government
organization and after learning the status of the accused
NO.1 the complainant expressed his desire to own a land
for his school purpose for which Mr.Binish Thomas
(Accused NO.1) informed the complainant that he has got
vacant land belonging to HAL and requested the
complainant to visit the location and further told the
complainant that the land is belonging to HAL (central
Government) and also told the complainant that HAL have
got provision to give the land on lease basis so that the
unused land of the HAL would fetch income which is
nothing but a revenue for the central government. He also
further represented to the complainant that HAL have
already given lease to one school behind HAL market. Also
shown the copy of the lease deed and introduced the
complainant to Mr.Velumurugan (Accused NO.15) in his
office who was the signatory to the lease deed on behalf of
HAL. By showing the lease deed and by introducing Mr.
Velumurugan(Accused NO.15) Mr.Salim (Accused NO.2)
and Mr.Binish Thomas(Accused NO.1) made the
complainant to believe their representation as true.
Mr.Binish Thomas (Accused NO. 1) took the complainant to
show the land in SY NO.67 and SY NO.68 all about 4 acre
23 guntas situated at Byrasandra, new Thippasandra Main
Road, Bangalore and told the complainant that the said
land is belonging to HAL Company and if the complainant
is ok with the location he would get the said land on lease.
- 11 -
After seeing the location which was suitable for School as it
was on the main road, the complainant had agreed
to complainant that money has to be paid as rental deposit
for 3-5 years period in advance. Further told the
complainant that he has to pay commission and there will
be some expenses inside the company which the
complainant needs to incur on the complainant's own and
if the complainant is okay to pay commission and
incidental charges, he had assured the complainant that he
would get the land on lease.
…. …. ….
24. The complainant submits that Mr.Munawar accused No.8
and his wife was the key person of Binish Thomas and his
partner accused NO.16 who was always accompanied with
the accused NO.1 in committing the offence. Binish
Thomas and accused NO.16 used to say the names stating
that they are some director representatives and asking the
complainant to transfer the amount. Mr. Binish Thomas
fixed the total brokerage/ compensation to get the deal Rs.
150.00 Crore to get the land on lease to the complainant's
companies. In turn the complainant ended up paying huge
advance trusting the documents given to the complainant
as genuine. On arrest of Munawar which the complainant
came to understand and his enquiry by HAL police and was
shocked that all the accounts are impersonated, operated
by Munawar and his team having control of bank account
connected with registered mobiles numbers with bank. He
was the key operator for all 16, 17, and 18 made the
complainant to believe that the accused No.3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are all HAL officers who have
met the complainant in the official dress of the HAL in
order to induce and after enquiring the accused NO.8, in
crime NO.48/2023 it has come to the knowledge of the
complainant they were all impersonated and duped the
complainant to believe them as true officer of the HAL and
that all the accused persons have conspired with each
other to cheat by impersonating, committed an offence of
forgery, fabrication of documents, using the forged
documents as genuine etc.”
- 12 -
Though these are certain paragraphs of the complaint which touch
upon the allegations, the complaint itself runs into 50 pages. The
matter is referred to the Station House Officer of HAL Police Station
for investigation on the said complaint. This becomes a crime in
Crime No.505 of 2023. The contention that there are two crimes
registered on similar offences is noted only to be rejected.
Complaint in Crime No.48 of 2023, as observed hereinabove,
relates to fabrication of records of lands belonging to HAL. Against
the petitioner in particular what is found during investigation is as
follows:
-
“ ೇದೆ
: -
ಷಯ ಆ ೋತಾದ ೇಲುಮುರುಗ ಎ ರವರನು ಾಂಕ
13.07.2023 24.07.2023 12
ಂದ ರವ ೆ ೆ ನಗಳ "ಾಲ
.
ಪ$ಕರಣದ ತ &ೆ ಾ' ()ೕ ಅ+ರ,ೆ ೆ ೕಡಲು "ೋ .ೆ
:- . . . - 48/2022 420, 468,
ಉ0ೆ1ೕಖ 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ()ೕ 6ಾ7ೆ 8 ಸಂ ಕಲಂ
469, 470, 471 34
ೆ/ ಐ <
<><><>
,
ಈ AೕಲBಂಡ ಷಯ 3ಾಗೂ ಉ0ೆ1ೕಖನ"ೆB ಸಂಬಂD<ದಂEೆ FಾನG ಾGHಾಲಯದ)1
01-02-2023
ೇ <"ೊಳIJವK.ೇೆಂದ ೆ ಾಂಕ ರಂದು L$ೕ ಸು ೇM ಅNೋO 3ೆಚುQವ ಮ3ಾ
, ( ) . . , . .
ವGವRಾSಪಕರು < 5 ಎT ಎU V V ಜ 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 XೆಂಗಳYರು ನಗರ ರವರು 6ಾ7ೆ ೆ
. .
3ಾಜ ಾ' ೕVದ ದೂರು ಏ ೆಂದ ೆ 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಕಂಪ ಯು "ೇಂದ$ ಸ"ಾ[ರದ ರ\7ಾ ಸ] ಾಲಯದ
. .
ಅDನದ)1 ಇರುವ ರ\7ಾ Rಾಮ'$ಗಳನು ಉEಾ_ದ ೆ Fಾಡು`aರುವ ನವರತ Vbೆ c ಎ ಯು
- . . .
ಅVಯ)1 ದdೆ 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಕಂಪ ಯು ಜeೕನನು 3ೊಂ ರುತa.ೆ "ೆಲವK ವGfaಗಳI
. .
3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ೆ Rೇ ದ ಜeೕನನು ಗು`a ೆ ೕಡುವ ೆಪದ)1 ಹಣದ XೇV"ೆ ಮತುa ವಸೂ) ೆ
, . .
Eೊಡ'ರುವKದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ ದುh ಅಲ1.ೇ 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5ನ 3ೆಸರನು ಬಳ<"ೊಂಡು ನಕಲು
- 13 -
. . , . .
.ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು ಮತುa 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 0ೆಟj 3ೆkಗಳನು 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಅD"ಾ ಗಳ ಸlಯನು
. .
(ೕಜ[ FಾV 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಕಂಪ ೆ ಕಳಂಕ ತರುವ ಮತುa ಸ"ಾ[ರ"ೆB 8ೕಸ Fಾಡುವ
. .
ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಂದ 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಕಂಪ ೆ Rೇ ದ ಸn`a ೆ ಸಂಬಂD<ದ ನಕಲು .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು
ಸೃpqFಾVರುವ ಆ ೋಗಳನು ಪEೆaFಾV "ಾನೂನು ೕ` ಕ$ಮ ಜರು'ಸXೇ"ೆಂದು ೕVದ ದೂ ನ
. . 48/2023 420, 468, 469, 470, 471
ಅನnಯ 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ()ೕ 6ಾ7ಾ 8 ಸಂ&ೆG ಕಲಂ
34 .
ೆ/ ಐ < ೕEಾG ಪ$ಕರಣ .ಾಖಲುFಾV"ೊಂಡು ತ &ೆ"ೈ ೊಂVರುತa.ೆ
ಪ$ಕರಣದ ತ &ಾ"ಾಲದ)1 ಾಂಕ 01-02-2023 ರಂದು ದಸa' ಕ$ಮ ಅನುಸ < ದಸa'
FಾV, 3ೆ]Qನ yಾರ7ೆ ಾ' ()ೕ ಅ+ರ,ೆ ೆ ಪdೆದು"ೊಂಡು yಾರ7ೆ FಾVರುತa.ೆ. yಾರ7ಾ
ಸಮಯದ)1 ಪ$ಕರಣದ ಆ ೋಗ{ಾದ ಸು ೇM |ೈ, L$ೕಾ ಮೂ`[, ಾಜಕುFಾj ಮತುa
ಸಂಜಯ @ ೈಜಾ~ ಎಂಬುವರು ತಮ• 3ೇ€"ೆಯ)1 ಇತ ೇ ಆ ೋಗ{ಾದ •ೕ‚ ƒಾಮ,
yೆಲುವ ಾಜು, ಾಜ„ೇಖj @ ಾಜು ಏಸು…ಾತU, ಮುಾವj, Rೈಯ† ಅ($ೕ‡, ಪ$Eಾˆ,
ಸು‰ಾ• ಾ ಾಯಣ ೌಡ, OಕುB |ೋRೆT ಮತುa ೇಲು ಮುರುಗ ರವರುಗಳI 3ೆ4.ಎ.ಎ5
ಕಂಪ ಯ 0ಾGಂk ಅನು "ೊVಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು ಸೃpqFಾಡುವ)1
Nಾ'Hಾ'ರುವK.ಾ' `€<ರುEಾa ೆ. ಮತುa ಎ-1 ಆ ೋಯ ಕŒೇರಯನು ಸ4[ ಾ ೆಂ•
ಪdೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಸ4[ Fಾಡ0ಾ' ಪ$ರಕಣದ"ೆB ಸಂಬಂD<ದ "ೆಲವK 3ೆ4.ಎ.ಎ5 ಕಂಪ ಯ 0ೆಟj
3ೆk ಗಳI ಇರುವ .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಳI .ೊ ೆ`aದುh ಸದ .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು ಪಂಚರ ಸಮ\ಮದ)1 ಅFಾನತುa
ಪV<"ೊಂVರುತa.ೆ.
ನಂತರ ಇತ ೇ ಆ ೋತ ಾದ Rೈಯ† ಮುಾವj ಸ•$, Rೈಯ† ಅ($ೕ4 ಮತುa
ಪ$Eಾˆ ಎಂಬುವರನು ಸಹ ದಸa' FಾV, yಾರ7ೆ FಾV.ಾಗ •ೕ‚ ƒಾಮ, yೆಲುವ ಾಜು,
ಾಜ„ೇಖj @ ಾಜು ಏಸು…ಾತU, ಸು‰ಾ• ಾ ಾಯಣ ೌಡ, OಕುB |ೋRೆT ಮತುa ೇಲು
ಮುರುಗ ರವರುಗಳI 3ೆ4.ಎ.ಎ5 ಕಂಪಯ 0ಾGಂk ಅನು "ೊVಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು
ಸೃpqFಾಡುವ)1 Nಾ'Hಾ'ರುವK.ಾ' ಮತುa ಹಣ ವ ಾ[ವ7ೆ ಆ'ರುವ ಬ ೆŽ ತಮ• 3ೇ€"ೆಯ)1
`€<ರುEಾa ೆ.
ಾಂಕ 21.04.2023 ರಂದು ಪ$ಕರಣದ ಪ$ಮುಖ ಆ ೋHಾದ •‚ ƒಾಮ @ •.
ƒಾಮ • 0ೇ• <.ಎಂ. ƒಾಮ., 46 ವಷ[, ಾಸ: 0ಾ1 ನಂ: 161, <’ 0ೆ1, Eೇಜ<n ನಗರ,
ಬ ೆರಘಟq, XೆಂಗಳYರು ನಗರ ಎಂಬುವರು FಾನG ಉಚQ ಾGHಾಲಯ ಂದ |ಾeೕನು
ಪdೆದು"ೊಂಡು yಾರ7ೆ ಾ' 6ಾ7ೆ ೆ 3ಾಜ ಾ'ದುh, ಆ ೋತನನು yಾರ7ೆ Fಾಡ0ಾ' ತಮ•
3ೇ€"ೆಯ)1 3ೆ4.ಎ.ಎ5, 3ೆ4.ಎ.ಎ5 ಕಂಪ ಯ 0ೆಟj 3ೆk ಗಳನು ೇಲು ಮುರುಗ ರವ ಂದ
ಪdೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಸು‰ಾ• ಾ ಾಯಣ ೌಡ, OಕುB |ೋRೆT, ಾಜ„ೇಖj @ ಾ|ಾ ಏಸು…ಾದU,
- 14 -
yೆಲುವ ಾಜು, Rೈಯ† ಮುಾವj ಸ•$, Rೈಯ† ಅ($ೕ‡, ಪ$Eಾˆ, ಸು ೇM |ೈ ಮತುa
ಇತರರು Rೇ "ೊಂಡು 3ೆ4.ಎ.ಎ5 ಕಂಪಯ 0ಾGಂk ಅನು "ೊVಸುವ ಸಂಬಂಧ .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು
ಸೃpqFಾಡುವ)1 Nಾ'Hಾ'ರುವK.ಾ' ಮತುa ಹಣ ವ ಾ[ವ7ೆ ಆ'ರುವ ಬ ೆŽ ತಮ• 3ೇ€"ೆಯ)1
`€<ರುEಾa ೆ. •ೕ‚ ƒಾಮ ರವರು 3ೆ4.ಎ.ಎ5 ಕಂಪಯ)1 "ೆಲಸ Fಾಡು`aದh ೇಲು
ಮುರುಗ ಎಂಬುವರು ಹಣ ಪdೆದು"ೊಂಡು 3ೆ4.ಎ.ಎ5 0ಾGಂk ಅನು )ೕ ೆ "ೊVಸುವK.ಾ'
`€< ಹಣ ಪdೆದು"ೊಂVರುEಾa ೆಂದು ತಮ• 3ೇ€"ೆಯ)1 `€<ರುEಾa ೆ.
ಆದುದh ಂದ ಈ ಾಗ0ೇ ಘನ ಾGHಾಲಯ"ೆB ೇಲು ಮುರುಗ ಎಂಬುವರನು
ಆ ೋಯಾ' ಪ ಗ”< ತ&ೆ ಮುಂದುವ ಸಲು ಅನುಮ` ೕಡXೇ"ೆಂದು ಘನ ಾGHಾಲಯದ)1
ೇ <"ೊಂVರುತa.ೆ.
ನಂತರ ಆ ೋತನ ಪEೆa ಾ' XೆಂಗಳYರು ನಗರ 3ೆ4.ಎ.ಎ5 ಕಂಪಯ ೆ Xೇ’ ೕV
ಆ ೋತಾದ ೇಲುಮುರುಗ ರವರ ಬ ೆŽ yಾರ7ೆ Fಾಡ0ಾ' ಅವರು ಸದG ಉತaರಪ.ೇಶ
ಾಜGದ "ಾನು_ರದ)1 3ೆ4.ಎ.ಎ5 ಕಂಪಯ)1 FಾGೇಜj ಆ' ಕತ[ವG ವ[lಸು`a.ಾh ೆಂದು
.
Fಾl` ೕVರುEಾa ೆ ಅದರಂEೆ ಆ ೋತಾದ ೇಲುಮುರುಗ ರವ ೆ yಾರ7ೆ ಾ' 6ಾ7ೆ ೆ
. . 41( )
3ಾಜ ಾಗುವಂEೆ "ಾನುcj 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಕಂಪ ೆ ಕಲಂ ಎ ಅVಯ)1 ()ೕ ೋ’ ಅನು
. .
(ೕ q FಾVರುತa.ೆ ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ಆ ೋತರು yಾರ7ೆ ಾ' 6ಾ7ೆ ೆ 3ಾಜ ಾ'ವK ಲ1 ನಂತರ
2 - .
ಮEೆa ೇ ()ೕ ೋ’ ಅನು ಆ ೋತನ ಇ Aೕ5 {ಾಸ"ೆB ಕಳIl<ರುತa.ೆ ಆದh ಂದ
12.07.2023 ,
ಆ ೋತನು ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಖು.ಾh' yಾರ7ೆ ಾ' 6ಾ7ೆ ೆ 3ಾಜ ಾ'ದುh ನಂತರ
ಆ ೋತನನು ಕೃತGದ ಬ ೆŽ ಕುಲಂಕೂಷ ಾ'ಾ' yಾರ7ೆ Fಾಡ0ಾ' ಆ ೋತನು ಪ$ಕರಣ"ೆB
,
ಸಂಬಂD<ದ HಾವK.ೇ Fಾl`ಯನು ೕಡಲು ಾಕ <ದುh ಮತುa ಪ$ಕರದ ತ &ೆಗೂ ಸಹ
, . .
ಸಹಕ ಸ.ೇ ಆ ೋತನು ಒಬ– ಜ ಾXಾh ಹು.ೆhಯ)1 ಇದುh 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಕಂಪ ೆ 8ೕಸ FಾV
ಅಕ$ಮ ಾ' 0ಾಭ Fಾಡುವ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಂದ .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ ಭದ$Eೆ ೆ ಭದ$Eೆ ೆ ಭದ$Eೆ ೆ ಭದ$Eೆ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ <ದಂEೆ ಸಂಬಂ <ದಂEೆ ಸಂಬಂ ಸಂಬಂ <ದಂEೆ <ದಂEೆ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ
. .
Xೇ"ಾಗುವ Xೇ"ಾಗುವ Xೇ"ಾಗುವ Xೇ"ಾಗುವ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ಪ ಕರಣಗಳನು ಪ ಕರಣಗಳನು ಪ ಪ ಕರಣಗಳನು ಕರಣಗಳನು ಉEಾ_ದೆ ಉEಾ_ದೆ ಉEಾ_ದ ಉEಾ_ದೆ ೆ Fಾಡುವ Fಾಡುವ Fಾಡುವ Fಾಡುವ 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಕಂಪ ೆ ಕಂಪ ೆ ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪ ೆ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ <ದ ಸಂಬಂ <ದ ಸಂಬಂ ಸಂಬಂ <ದ <ದ
. .
ಜeೕನನು ಜeೕನನು ಜeೕನನು ಜeೕನನು ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಅಕ$ಮ ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಾ' ಕಬ€ಸುವ ಕಬ€ಸುವ ಕಬ€ಸುವ ಕಬ€ಸುವ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಂದ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಂದ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಂದ ಂದ 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಕಂಪ ಯ 0ೆಟj 3ೆk ಗಳನು
.
ಅಕ$ಮ ಾ' ಇತ ೇ ಆ ೋಗ€ ೆ ೕVರುವK.ಾ' Aೕ0ೊ ೕಟ"ೆB `€ದು ಬಂ ರುತa.ೆ ಆದh ಂದ
ಆ ೋಯನು ()ೕ ಅ+ರ,ೆಯ)1˜ೕ ಇಟುq"ೊಂಡು yಾರ7ೆ FಾಡುವKದು ಅಗತGEೆ
ಇರುವKದh ಂದ ಆ ೋತನನು ಸ™ೕ[ಚQ ಾGHಾಲಯದ ಯಮದ ಅನnಯ ದಸa' ಕ$ಮ
ಅನುಸ < ದಸa' FಾV ()ೕ ಬಂಧನದ)1 ಇಟುq ಎ5 O ೇಮಕ FಾVರುತa.ೆ.
- 15 -
13-07-2023
ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ತ &ೆಮುಂದುವ <ದುh ಸದ ಆ ೋಯನು ಆಸ_Eೆ$ಯ)1
-19 , -19
RಾFಾನG ಮತುa "ೋ k ೈದGfೕಯ ತ…ಾಸ7ೆ FಾV<ದುh ಆ ೋಯ "ೋ k ವರ
.
ೆ ೆ’š ಬಂ ರುತa.ೆ
ಈ AೕಲBಂಡ ಎ0ಾ1 "ಾರಣಗ€ಂದ ಆ ೋತನನು ()ೕ ಅ+ರ,ೆಯ)1 3ೆ]Qನ yಾರ7ೆ
13-07-2023
FಾಡುವKದು ಅಗತGEೆ ಇರುವKದh ಂದ ಆ ೋತನನು ಾಂಕ ಂದ ಾಂಕ
24-07-2023 12
ರವ ೆ ೆ ನಗಳ "ಾಲ ()ೕ ಅ+ರ,ೆ ೆ ೕಡXೇ"ೆಂದು ಘನ ಾGHಾಲಯದ)1
.
"ೋ .ೆ
. .
ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ಆ ೋತನು ೋತನು 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಕಂಪಯ ಕಂಪಯ ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪಯ ಯ <ಬ–ಂ Hಾ'ದುh <ಬ–ಂ Hಾ'ದುh <ಬ–ಂ <ಬ–ಂ Hಾ'ದುh Hಾ'ದುh ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಜಾXಾh ಯುತ ಜಾXಾh ಯುತ ಜ ಜಾXಾh ಯುತ ಾXಾh ಯುತ ಹು.ೆhಯ)1 ಹು.ೆhಯ)1 ಹು.ೆhಯ)1 ಹು.ೆhಯ)1
,
ಇದುh ಇದುh ಇದುh ಇದುh ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ಆ ೋತನು ೋತನು ಕಂಪ ೆ ಕಂಪ ೆ ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪ ೆ ೆ 8ೕಸ 8ೕಸ 8ೕಸ 8ೕಸ Fಾ FಾV Fಾ Fಾ ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಅಕ$ಮ ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಾ' 0ಾಭ 0ಾಭ 0ಾಭ 0ಾಭ Fಾಡುವ Fಾಡುವ Fಾಡುವ Fಾಡುವ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಂದ0ೇ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಂದ0ೇ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಂದ0ೇ ಂದ0ೇ
ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ಇತ ೇ ೇ ಆ ೋಗಳ ಆ ೋಗಳ ಆ ಆ ೋಗಳ ೋಗಳ |ೊEೆಯ)1 |ೊEೆಯ)1 |ೊEೆಯ)1 |ೊEೆಯ)1 Rೇ "ೊಂಡು Rೇ "ೊಂಡು Rೇ Rೇ "ೊಂಡು "ೊಂಡು ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಅಕ$ಮ ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಾ' ಕಂಪಯ ಕಂಪಯ ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪಯ ಯ 0ೆಟj ಅ 0ೆಟj ಅನು 0ೆಟj ಅ 0ೆಟj ಅ ನು ನು ನು
,
ದುರುಪ›ೕಗ ದುರುಪ›ೕಗ ದುರುಪ›ೕಗ ದುರುಪ›ೕಗ ಪV<"ೊಂVದುh ಪV<"ೊಂVದುh ಪV<"ೊಂVದುh ಪV<"ೊಂVದುh ಈ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಅ•ೕರ,ೆಯ)1 ಅ•ೕರ,ೆಯ)1 ಅ•ೕರ,ೆಯ)1 ಅ•ೕರ,ೆಯ)1 ಇಟುq ಇಟುq"ೊಂಡು ಇಟುq ಇಟುq "ೊಂಡು "ೊಂಡು "ೊಂಡು ಕುಲಂಕೂಷಾ' ಕುಲಂಕೂಷಾ' ಕುಲಂಕೂಷ ಕುಲಂಕೂಷಾ' ಾ'
.
yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
.
ಆ ೋತಂದ ಆ ೋತಂದ ಆ ಆ ೋತಂದ ೋತಂದ ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ಇತ ೇ ೇ ಆ ೋಗಳ ಆ ೋಗಳ ಆ ಆ ೋಗಳ ೋಗಳ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ Fಾl` Fಾl` Fಾl` Fಾl` ಕ0ೆ3ಾಕXೇ"ಾಗುತa.ೆ ಕ0ೆ3ಾಕXೇ"ಾಗುತa.ೆ ಕ0ೆ3ಾಕXೇ"ಾಗುತa.ೆ ಕ0ೆ3ಾಕXೇ"ಾಗುತa.ೆ
. .
ಆ ೋ ಆ ೋತನನು ಆ ಆ ೋ ೋ ತನನು ತನನು ತನನು 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಕಂಪ ೆ ಕಂಪ ೆ ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪ ೆ ೆ ಕ ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಕ ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಕ ಕ ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ೆದು"ೊಂಡು 3ೋ' 3ೋ' 3ೋ' 3ೋ' ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಪœಾ[ಪKರ ಪœಾ[ಪKರ ಪœ ಪœಾ[ಪKರ ಾ[ಪKರ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ
,
ಕುಲಂಕೂಷಾ' ಕುಲಂಕೂಷ ಾ' yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ FಾV FಾV 0ೇಟj 0ೇಟj 3ೆk 3ೆk ಗಳ ಗಳ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಕುಲಂಕೂಷಾ' ಕುಲಂಕೂಷ ಾ' yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ
ಕುಲಂಕೂಷಾ' ಕುಲಂಕೂಷಾ' yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ FಾV FಾV 0ೇಟj 0ೇಟj 3ೆk 3ೆk ಗಳ ಗಳ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಕುಲಂಕೂಷಾ' ಕುಲಂಕೂಷಾ' yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ
.
FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
.
ಆ ೋತನನು ಆ ೋತನನು ಆ ಆ ೋತನನು ೋತನನು ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಆತನ ಮೆ ೆ ಮೆ ೆ ಮ ಮೆ ೆ ೆ ೆ ಕ ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಕ ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಕ ಕ ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ೆದು"ೊಂಡು 3ೋ' 3ೋ' 3ೋ' 3ೋ' ಪ Lೕಲೆ ಪ Lೕಲೆ ಪ ಪ Lೕಲೆ Lೕಲೆ FಾV FಾV Xೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾV FಾV Xೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ Xೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ Xೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
. .
ಆ ೋತನ |ೊEೆಯ)1 ಆ ೋತನ |ೊEೆಯ)1 ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ೇ Xೇ ೆ Xೇ ೆ 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಎ5 <ಬ–ಂ ಗಳI <ಬ–ಂ ಗಳI Nಾ'Hಾ'.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ Nಾ'Hಾ'.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ
ಆ ೋತನ ಆ ೋತನ |ೊEೆಯ)1 |ೊEೆಯ)1 ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ೇ Xೇ ೆ Xೇ ೆ 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 ಎ5 ಎ5 <ಬ–ಂ ಗಳI <ಬ–ಂ ಗಳI Nಾ'Hಾ'.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ Nಾ'Hಾ'.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ
.
ಎಂಬುದನು ಎಂಬುದನು ಎಂಬುದನು ಎಂಬುದನು yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
. .
3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಕಂಪಯು ಕಂಪಯು ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪಯು ಯು "ೇಂದ$ "ೇಂದ$ "ೇಂದ$ "ೇಂದ$ ಸ"ಾ[ರದ ಸ"ಾ[ರದ ಸ"ಾ[ರದ ಸ"ಾ[ರದ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ಸ]ಾಲಯದ ಸ]ಾಲಯದ ಸ] ಸ]ಾಲಯದ ಾಲಯದ ಅVಯ)1 ಅVಯ)1 ಅVಯ)1 ಅVಯ)1 "ೆಲಸ "ೆಲಸ "ೆಲಸ "ೆಲಸ Fಾಡುವ Fಾಡುವ Fಾಡುವ Fಾಡುವ
,
ಅಂಗ ಅಂಗ ಅಂಗ ಅಂಗ ಸಂRೆSHಾ'ದುh ಸಂRೆSHಾ'ದುh ಸಂRೆSHಾ'ದುh ಸಂRೆSHಾ'ದುh .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ ಭದ$Eೆ ೆ ಭದ$Eೆ ೆ ಭದ$Eೆ ೆ ಭದ$Eೆ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ <ದಂEೆ ಸಂಬಂ <ದಂEೆ ಸಂಬಂ ಸಂಬಂ <ದಂEೆ <ದಂEೆ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ Xೇ"ಾಗುವ Xೇ"ಾಗುವ Xೇ"ಾಗುವ Xೇ"ಾಗುವ
,
ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ಪ ಕರಣಗಳನು ಪ ಕರಣಗಳನು ಉEಾ_ದೆ ಉEಾ_ದ ೆ Fಾಡುವ Fಾಡುವ ಕಂಪHಾ'ದುh ಕಂಪ Hಾ'ದುh ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ಸ]ವರು ಸ]ವರು ೇರ ೇರ
ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ಪ ಕರಣಗಳನು ಪ ಕರಣಗಳನು ಉEಾ_ದೆ ಉEಾ_ದೆ Fಾಡುವ Fಾಡುವ ಕಂಪHಾ'ದುh ಕಂಪHಾ'ದುh ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ಸ]ವರು ಸ]ವರು ೇರ ೇರ
.
ಉಸುaಾ ಯ)1 ಉಸುaಾ ಯ)1 ಉಸುa ಉಸುaಾ ಯ)1 ಾ ಯ)1 ಇರುತa.ೆ ಇರುತa.ೆ ಇರುತa.ೆ ಇರುತa.ೆ
ಈ ಕಂಪಯು ಕಂಪಯು ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪಯು ಯು Nಾರ`ೕಯ Nಾರ`ೕಯ Nಾರ`ೕಯ Nಾರ`ೕಯ ಅDಕೃತ ಅDಕೃತ ಅDಕೃತ ಅDಕೃತ ರಹಸG ರಹಸG ರಹಸG ರಹಸG "ಾ˜hಯ "ಾ˜hಯ "ಾ˜hಯ "ಾ˜hಯ ಅVಯ)1 ಅVಯ)1 ಅVಯ)1 ಅVಯ)1 ಬರುವ ಬರುವ ಬರುವ ಬರುವ
.
ಸಂRೆSHಾ'ರುವK.ಾ' ಸಂRೆSHಾ'ರುವK.ಾ' ಸಂRೆSHಾ'ರುವK.ಾ' ಸಂRೆSHಾ'ರುವK.ಾ' ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತa.ೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತa.ೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತa.ೆ ರುತa.ೆ .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ ಭದ$Eಾ ಭದ$Eಾ ಭದ$Eಾ ಭದ$Eಾ ದೃpqಯ)1 ದೃpqಯ)1 ದೃpqಯ)1 ದೃpqಯ)1 ಇದು ಇದು ಇದು ಇದು ಸೂ\• ಸೂ\• ಸೂ\• ಸೂ\•
, . .
ಷಯಾ'ದುh ಷಯಾ'ದುh ಷಯಾ'ದುh ಷಯಾ'ದುh 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 0ೆಟj 0ೆಟj 0ೆಟj 0ೆಟj 3ೆk 3ೆkಗಳ 3ೆk 3ೆk ಗಳ ಗಳ ಗಳ |ೊEೆ ೆ |ೊEೆ ೆ |ೊEೆ ೆ |ೊEೆ ೆ Xೇ ೆ Xೇ ೆ Xೇ ೆ Xೇ ೆ HಾವK.ಾದರು HಾವK.ಾದರು HಾವK.ಾದರು HಾವK.ಾದರು Fಾl`ಯನು Fಾl`ಯನು Fಾl`ಯನು Fಾl`ಯನು
- 16 -
ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ಎಂಬುದನು ಎಂ ಬುದನು ()ೕ ()ೕ ಅ+ರ,ೆಯ)1 ಅ+ರ,ೆಯ)1 ಇಟುq"ೊಂಡು ಇಟುq"ೊಂಡು yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ
ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಬುದನು ಬುದನು ()ೕ ()ೕ ಅ+ರ,ೆಯ)1 ಅ+ರ,ೆಯ)1 ಇಟುq"ೊಂಡು ಇಟುq"ೊಂಡು yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ
.
FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
. .
ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ಆ ೋತನು ೋತನು 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ೆ ೆ ೆ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ <ದ ಸಂಬಂ <ದ ಸಂಬಂ ಸಂಬಂ <ದ <ದ ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ಇತ ೇ ೇ dೈ ೆಕqj dೈ ೆಕqj dೈ dೈ ೆಕqj ೆಕqj ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಸlಗಳನು ಸlಗಳನು ಸlಗಳನು ಸlಗಳನು (ೕಜ[ (ೕಜ[ (ೕಜ[ (ೕಜ[
, .
FಾVದುh FಾVದುh FಾVದುh FಾVದುh ಈ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಕುಲಂಕು‰ಾ' ಕುಲಂಕು‰ಾ' ಕುಲಂಕು‰ಾ' ಕುಲಂಕು‰ಾ' yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ FಾಡXೆ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೆ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೆ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೆ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
,
ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ಆ ೋತನು ೋತನು ಒಬ– ಒಬ– ಒಬ– ಒಬ– ಜಾXಾh ಜಾXಾh ಜ ಜಾXಾh ಾXಾh <ಬ–ಂ Hಾ'ದುh <ಬ–ಂ Hಾ'ದುh <ಬ–ಂ <ಬ–ಂ Hಾ'ದುh Hಾ'ದುh ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ಇತ ೇ ೇ ಆ ೋಗಳ ಆ ೋಗಳ ಆ ಆ ೋಗಳ ೋಗಳ |ೊEೆಯ)1 |ೊEೆಯ)1 |ೊEೆಯ)1 |ೊEೆಯ)1
Rೇ "ೊಂಡು Rೇ "ೊಂಡು Rೇ Rೇ "ೊಂಡು "ೊಂಡು ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ಸ]ಾಲಯದ ಸ]ಾಲಯದ ಸ] ಸ]ಾಲಯದ ಾಲಯದ ಅVಯ)1 ಅVಯ)1 ಅVಯ)1 ಅVಯ)1 ಬರುವ ಬರುವ ಬರುವ ಬರುವ ಸnತaನು ಸnತaನು ಸnತaನು ಸnತaನು ಅಪ$Fಾ”ಕಾ' ಅಪ$Fಾ”ಕಾ' ಅಪ$Fಾ”ಕ ಅಪ$Fಾ”ಕಾ' ಾ'
.
.ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು ಸೃpq< ಸೃpq< ಸೃpq< ಸೃpq< HಾವK.ೋ HಾವK.ೋ HಾವK.ೋ HಾವK.ೋ 0ಾಭದ 0ಾಭದ 0ಾಭದ 0ಾಭದ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ"ಾB' ಉ.ೆhೕಶ"ಾB' ಉ.ೆhೕಶ"ಾB' ಉ.ೆhೕಶ"ಾB' ಗು`a ೆ ೆ ಗು`a ೆ ೆ ಗು`a ೆ ೆ ಗು`a ೆ ೆ ೕVರುEಾa ೆ ೕVರುEಾa ೆ ೕVರುEಾa ೆ ೕVರುEಾa ೆ
ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ಆ ೋತನು ೋತನು ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ವಲಯ"ೆB ವಲಯ"ೆB ವಲಯ"ೆB ವಲಯ"ೆB ಸಂಬಂ <ದ ಸಂಬಂ <ದ ಸಂಬಂ ಸಂಬಂ <ದ <ದ Fಾl`ಯನು Fಾl`ಯನು Fಾl`ಯನು Fಾl`ಯನು Hಾ ಾದರೂ Hಾ ಾದರೂ Hಾ Hಾ ಾದರೂ ಾದರೂ
? ? .
ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ರಾ<.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ರಾ<.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ರ ರಾ<.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ಾ<.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ಎಂಬುದರನು ಎಂಬುದರನು ಎಂಬುದರನು ಎಂಬುದರನು ತ&ೆžಂದ ತ&ೆžಂದ `€ಯ ತ ತ&ೆžಂದ &ೆžಂದ `€ಯ `€ಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ `€ಯ Xೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ Xೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ Xೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
. .
ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ಆ ೋತನು ೋತನು 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಕಂಪಯ ಕಂಪಯ ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪಯ ಯ <ಬ–ಂ Hಾ'ದh ಂದ <ಬ–ಂ Hಾ'ದh ಂದ <ಬ–ಂ <ಬ–ಂ Hಾ'ದh ಂದ Hಾ'ದh ಂದ .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ .ೇಶದ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ವGವRೆS ೆ ವGವRೆS ೆ ವGವRೆS ೆ ವGವRೆS ೆ
,
ಸಂಬಂ <ದಂEೆ ಸಂಬಂ <ದಂEೆ ಸಂಬಂ ಸಂಬಂ <ದಂEೆ <ದಂEೆ ಯುದŸ ಯುದŸ ಯುದŸ ಯುದŸ Fಾನ Fಾನ Fಾನ Fಾನ 3ೆ)"ಾGಪqj 3ೆ)"ಾGಪqjಗಳನು 3ೆ)"ಾGಪqj 3ೆ)"ಾGಪqj ಗಳನು ಗಳನು ಗಳನು ತHಾ ಸುವ ತHಾ ಸುವ ತHಾ ತHಾ ಸುವ ಸುವ ಘಟಕಗಳI ಘಟಕಗಳI ಘಟಕಗಳI ಘಟಕಗಳI ಇ.ೇ ಇ.ೇ ಇ.ೇ ಇ.ೇ
,
ಆವರಣದ)1 ಆವರಣದ)1 ಆವರಣದ)1 ಆವರಣದ)1 "ಾಯ[ "ಾಯ[ "ಾಯ[ "ಾಯ[ ವ[lಸು`aದುh ವ[lಸು`aದುh ವ[lಸು`aದುh ವ[lಸು`aದುh ಇದರ ಇದರ ಇದರ ಇದರ ತHಾ "ೆಯ ತHಾ "ೆಯ ತHಾ ತHಾ "ೆಯ "ೆಯ "ಾಯ[ "ಾಯ[ "ಾಯ[ "ಾಯ[ ವ[ಹ7ಾ ವ[ಹ7ಾ ವ[ಹ7ಾ ವ[ಹ7ಾ
?
ೕಲನ,ೆಯನು ೕಲನ,ೆಯನು ೕಲನ,ೆಯನು ೕಲನ,ೆಯನು Hಾ ಾದರೂ Hಾ ಾದರೂ Hಾ Hಾ ಾದರೂ ಾದರೂ ರಾ<.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ರಾ<.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ರ ರಾ<.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ಾ<.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ತ&ೆ ತ&ೆ ತ&ೆ ತ &ೆ
.
FಾಡXೆ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೆ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೆ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೆ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ಆ ೋತನು ೋತನು ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ಇತ ೇ ೇ ಆ ೋಗಳ ಆ ೋಗಳ ಆ ಆ ೋಗಳ ೋಗಳ |ೊEೆಯ)1 |ೊEೆಯ)1 |ೊEೆಯ)1 |ೊEೆಯ)1 Rೇ "ೊಂಡು Rೇ "ೊಂಡು Rೇ Rೇ "ೊಂಡು "ೊಂಡು ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ಸnತaನು ಸnತaನು ಸnತaನು ಸnತaನು ಗು`a ೆ ಗು`a ೆ ಗು`a ೆ ಗು`a ೆ
, , -
ೕV ೕV ೕV ೕV ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಪdೆದು"ೊಂVದುh ಪdೆದು"ೊಂVದುh ಪdೆದು"ೊಂVದುh ಪdೆದು"ೊಂVದುh ಈ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಹಣ ಚ0ಾವ7ೆHಾದ ಚ0ಾವ7ೆHಾದ ಚ0ಾವ7ೆHಾದ ಚ0ಾವ7ೆHಾದ ಾನ ಾನ ಾನ ಾನ ಸಂಬಂದಪಟq ಸಂಬಂದಪಟq ಸಂಬಂದಪಟq ಸಂಬಂದಪಟq
, , . . .
.ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗ{ಾದ .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗ{ಾದ .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗ{ಾದ .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗ{ಾದ XಾGಂ¡ XಾGಂ¡ XಾGಂ¡ XಾGಂ¡ VV VV VV VV XಾGಂ¡ XಾGಂ¡ XಾGಂ¡ XಾGಂ¡ yೆ¡ yೆ¡ yೆ¡ yೆ¡ ಆj ಆj ಆj ಆj ’ O ಎ ಎ ಎ ಎ ಮತುa ಮತುa ಇತ ಮತುa ಮತುa ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ೇ ಇತ ೇ ೇ …ಾವ` …ಾವ` …ಾವ` …ಾವ`
.
ಾನದ ಾನದ ಾನದ ಾನದ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ Fಾl` Fಾl` Fಾl` Fಾl` ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
.
ಆ ೋಯ ಆ ೋಯ ಆ ಆ ೋಯ ೋಯ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಉ.ೆhೕಶ ಏೆಂಬುದರ ಏೆಂಬುದರ ಏ ಏೆಂಬುದರ ೆಂಬುದರ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಖ]ತ ಖ]ತ ಖ]ತ ಖ]ತ Fಾl` Fಾl` Fಾl` Fಾl` ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
. .
3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 3ೆ4 ಎ ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಘಟಕದ ಘಟಕದ ಘಟಕದ ಘಟಕದ ಅD"ಾ ಗಳI ಅD"ಾ ಗಳI ಅD"ಾ ಅD"ಾ ಗಳI ಗಳI 3ಾಗೂ 3ಾಗೂ 3ಾಗೂ 3ಾಗೂ ತHಾ ಕ ತHಾ ಕ ತHಾ ತHಾ ಕ ಕ ಘಟಕದ ಘಟಕದ ಘಟಕದ ಘಟಕದ ೌಕರರು ೌಕರರು ೌಕರರು ೌಕರರು ಇದರ)1 ಇದರ)1 ಇದರ)1 ಇದರ)1
?
Nಾ'Hಾ'.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ Nಾ'Hಾ'.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ Nಾ'Hಾ'.ಾh Nಾ'Hಾ'.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ೆ˜ೕ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಆ ೋತನ ಆ ೋತನ ಆ ಆ ೋತನ ೋತನ yಾರ7ೆžಂದ yಾರ7ೆžಂದ yಾರ7ೆžಂದ yಾರ7ೆžಂದ ತ&ೆžಂದ ತ&ೆžಂದ ತ ತ&ೆžಂದ &ೆžಂದ
.
`€ಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ `€ಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
`€ಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ `€ಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
?
ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ರ\7ಾ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ ಇ0ಾ&ೆ ೆ ಸಂಬಂ < ಸಂಬಂ <ದ ಸಂಬಂ ಸಂಬಂ < < ರಹಸG ರಹಸG ರಹಸG ರಹಸG Fಾl` Fಾl` Fಾl` Fಾl` Rೋ "ೆ Rೋ "ೆ Rೋ Rೋ "ೆ "ೆ Hಾ' ˜ೕ Hಾ' ˜ೕ Hಾ' Hಾ' ˜ೕ ˜ೕ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಎಂಬುದರ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ
.
`€ಯ `€ಯ `€ಯ `€ಯ Xೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ Xೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ Xೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ Xೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
.
"ಾಣದ "ಾಣದ ವGfaಗಳ ವGfaಗಳ "ೈಾಡ "ೈ ಾಡ ಇರುವ ಇರುವ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ Fಾl` Fಾl` ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
"ಾಣದ "ಾಣದ ವGfaಗಳ ವGfaಗಳ "ೈಾಡ "ೈಾಡ ಇರುವ ಇರುವ ಬ ೆŽ ಬ ೆŽ Fಾl` Fಾl` ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ ಪdೆಯXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
- 17 -
ಆ ೋತನನು ಆ ೋತನನು ನಕಲು ನಕಲು .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು ಸೃpqFಾVರುವ ಸೃpqFಾVರುವ ಸSಳಗ€ ೆ ಸSಳಗ€ ೆ ಕ ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಕ ೆದು"ೊಂಡು 3ೋ' 3ೋ'
ಆ ೋತನನು ಆ ೋತನನು ನಕಲು ನಕಲು .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು .ಾಖ0ಾ`ಗಳನು ಸೃpqFಾVರುವ ಸೃpqFಾVರುವ ಸSಳಗ€ ೆ ಸSಳಗ€ ೆ ಕ ೆದು"ೊಂಡು ಕ ೆದು"ೊಂಡು 3ೋ' 3ೋ'
.
yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
. .
ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ೋತನು ಆ ಆ ೋತನು ೋತನು ಇ.ೇ ಇ.ೇ ಇ.ೇ ಇ.ೇ ೕ` ೕ` ೕ` ೕ` Xೇ ೆ Xೇ ೆ Xೇ ೆ Xೇ ೆ Hಾ ಾದ Hಾ ಾದರೂ Hಾ Hಾ ಾದ ಾದ ರೂ ರೂ ರೂ ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಅಕ$ಮ ಅಕ$ಮಾ' ಾ' 3ೆ|ೆ 3ೆ|ೆ 3ೆ|ೆ 3ೆ|ೆ ಎ ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಎ5 ಕಂಪಯ ಕಂಪಯ ಕಂಪ ಕಂಪಯ ಯ 0ೆಟj 0ೆಟj 0ೆಟj 0ೆಟj
.
3ೆk 3ೆkಗಳನು 3ೆk 3ೆk ಗಳನು ಗಳನು ಗಳನು ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ೕV.ಾh ೆ˜ೕ ಎಂಬುದನು ಎಂಬುದನು ಎಂಬುದನು ಎಂಬುದನು yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ yಾರ7ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ FಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
ಆ ೋ ಆ ೋ ಆ ಆ ೋ ೋ ೕVದ ೕVದ ೕVದ ೕVದ Fಾl` Fಾl` Fಾl` Fಾl` Aೕ ೆ ೆ Aೕ ೆ ೆ Aೕ Aೕ ೆ ೆ ೆ ೆ ಪ$ಕರಣದ)1 ಪ$ಕರಣದ)1 ಪ$ಕರಣದ)1 ಪ$ಕರಣದ)1 Nಾ'Hಾ'ರುವ Nಾ'Hಾ'ರುವ Nಾ'Hಾ'ರುವ Nಾ'Hಾ'ರುವ Xೇ ೆ Xೇ ೆ Xೇ ೆ Xೇ ೆ ಆ ೋಗಳನು ಆ ೋಗಳನು ಆ ಆ ೋಗಳನು ೋಗಳನು
.
ಪEೆaFಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ ಪEೆaFಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ ಪEೆaFಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ ಪEೆaFಾಡXೇ"ಾ'ರುತa.ೆ
13-07-2023 24-07-2023 12
ಆ ೋತರನು ಾಂಕ ಂದ ಾಂಕ ರವ ೆ ೆ ನಗಳ
.
"ಾಲ ()ೕ ಅ+ರ,ೆ ೆ ೕಡXೇ"ೆಂದು ಘನ ಾGHಾಲಯದ)1 "ೋ .ೆ ಆ ೋತರನು
' 20030 PC-19284
ಾGHಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ.ೆ 3ಾಜರು Fಾಡಲು 6ಾ7ೆಯ 3ೆ4 <- ಮತುa ರವರ
.”
Xೆಂ ಾವ )ನ)1 ಕಳIl<"ೊ’qರುEೆa
The allegation is that the petitioner when he was an office bearer of
HAL had forged letterheads of HAL, signatures of officers of HAL
and had entered into lease of lands belonging to HAL. If this cannot
become the fulcrum of the crime, this Court fails to understand as
to what it can become. Forgery and cheating are writ large in the
case at hand. It is not one crime but there are two crimes
registered against the petitioner – one by the person whom the
petitioner and others are said to have hoodwinked in receipt of
huge sum of money and the other in which HAL has registered
crime for forging documents and stealing letterheads. The
contention that there are no explicit allegations against the
- 18 -
petitioner cannot be accepted, as the matter is still at the stage of
investigation of a huge cartel operating to knock off the lands
belonging to HAL either by entering into lease or otherwise. Even if
the ingredients of the present crime have a flair of civil law, that
does not mean that the matter must not be permitted to be
investigated.
9. Jurisprudence is replete with the law laid down by the Apex
Court in several judgments that civil and criminal proceedings can
go hand in hand.
9.1. The Apex Court in the case of ROCKY v. STATE OF
1
TELANGANA has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
24. The appellant's core contention, that the
dispute is purely civil in nature, is untenable at this stage.
Although courts must guard against giving criminal
colour to civil disputes, it is equally well settled that the
existence of civil remedies does not preclude criminal
prosecution where the allegations disclose the essential
ingredients of an offence. Civil and criminal proceedings
may validly coexist if the factual matrix supports both.
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2713
- 19 -
25. In the present case, the material on record, including
the FIR and the charge sheet, contains specific allegations that
the appellant induced Respondent No. 2 to undertake
substantial construction work on the assurance of payment,
which was withheld as per the complaint. Four witnesses have
corroborated the complaint's version during the investigation.
These assertions cannot, at this stage, be regarded as
inherently improbable, absurd or incapable of attracting criminal
liability so as to warrant quashing.
26. The appellant's reliance on the disputed No-Dues
Certificate does not advance the case for quashing. Respondent
No. 2 alleges that the certificate is fabricated. Its authenticity,
evidentiary value and legal effect are matters that can only be
adjudicated at trial. Quashing cannot be premised on disputed
documents whose validity is itself a matter in issue.
27. In the case of Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani (supra), this Court outlined a structured four-
step test to assess claims for quashing under
Section 482 of the CrPC. The material relied on by the
accused must be (i) of sterling and impeccable quality,
(ii) sufficient to completely negate the allegations, (iii)
uncontested or incapable of legitimate contest by the
prosecution, and (iv) such that continuing the trial would
amount to abuse of process. Unless all four tests are
satisfied, quashing is unwarranted. The relevant paragraph
of the said decision reads as under:—
“20. The following steps should ordinarily
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised
by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High
Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.:—
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by
the accused is sound, reasonable, and
indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and
impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by
the accused, would rule out the assertions
contained in the charges levelled against the
accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject
and overrule the factual assertions contained in
- 20 -
the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would
persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and
condemn the factual basis of the accusations as
false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by
the accused, has not been refuted by the
prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is
such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial
would result in an abuse of process of the court,
and would not serve the ends of justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative,
judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it
to quash such criminal-proceedings, in exercise of power
vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Such
exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused,
would save precious court time, which would otherwise
be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as,
proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear
that the same would not conclude in the conviction of
the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal
Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]”
28. However in the present case, the material relied on
by the appellant fails to satisfy the above-mentioned
benchmarks.
29. Similarly, the categories enumerated in the case
of Bhajan Lal (supra) provide illustrative circumstances in which
quashing may be justified. The relevant paragraphs read as
under:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
- 21 -
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2)
of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
- 22 -
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.
103. We also give a note of caution to the effect
that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should
be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and
that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will
not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the
reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations
made in the FIR or the complaint and that the
extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an
arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its
whim or caprice.”
30. On perusal of the above-mentioned judgments, it is
clear that the present case does not fall within any of the
narrowly crafted circumstances in which quashing may be
justified, as held in Bhajan Lal (supra). The allegations are
neither absurd nor patently improbable, nor is there any express
legal bar to prosecution. At this stage, the Court cannot
embark upon an evaluation of the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations or the defence documents.
31. It is pertinent to note that the High Court, after
analysing the record, correctly concluded that the ingredients of
the offence under Section 406 of the IPC were not made out
and, therefore, quashed the cognizance under that provision.
However, the High Court also found that the allegations prima
facie disclose the elements of offences under
Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC, and thus, rightly
refrained from quashing proceedings relating to those offences.
32. It is trite that the power under Section 482 of
the CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection
and only in exceptional situations. Courts must avoid
delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage.
Interference is warranted only where the case clearly
falls within the recognised parameters for quashing.
- 23 -
33. In appellate jurisdiction, this Court does not ordinarily
reappreciate evidence or revisit factual findings of the High
Court unless the order suffers from manifest illegality,
perversity or arbitrariness. The appellant has failed to
demonstrate any such infirmity in the impugned decision.”
9.2. The Apex Court in the case of ANURAG BHATNAGAR v.
2
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
45. The allegations in the application moved under
Section 156(3) CrPC and the material in support thereof
reveals that SHL is contending breach of the conditions of
MoU dated 11.03.1995 and that it has been induced and
deceived by VLS for entering into the aforesaid MoU. VLS
has cheated SHL and its officers by making a false
promise which was legally impossible to be carried out.
The allegations of breach of conditions of the MoU or of
making a false promise by itself may not give rise to any
criminal action as no criminality is attached to it.
However, there are elements of inducement, criminal
conspiracy and cheating which are also borne out from
the allegations made in the application and the
complaint, which if proved, may amount to commission of
an offence. Therefore, once such allegations are made
out, it is difficult for the court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction to interfere with the FIR, only for the reason
that some of the disputes are of civil nature which may or
may not be having any criminality attached to it.
46. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this
Court, especially in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal Singh ,
that the discretion to quash an FIR at a nascent stage has to be
exercised with great caution and circumspection. In this
connection, it would be beneficial to refer to an old case of Privy
Council in King Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad Khwaja wherein the law
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514
- 24 -
was well settled that the courts would not thwart any
investigation or that the courts should be very slow in
interfering with the process of investigation. It is only in rare
cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR that
the court may stop the investigation so as to avoid the
harassment of the alleged accused. Even in such exercise of
power, the court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or
the complaint which have to be examined only after the
evidence is collected.
47. The breach of conditions of the MoU or
allegations of false promises in relation to the aforesaid
MoU are undisputedly subject matter of the different FIRs
lodged by VLS itself. Therefore, violation of those
conditions for some reasons have been considered by VLS
to be offensive. Therefore, the High Court rightly held
that if breach of those conditions of the MoU itself has
been considered to be of criminal nature by VLS, it cannot
be permitted to turn around and allege that such breach
of conditions would be of pure civil nature.
48. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances, we do
not consider to go into detail as to the exact nature of disputes
involved in the FIR and leave the same to be adjudicated upon
by the appropriate court where the chargesheets have been
submitted.”
9.3. The Apex Court in the case of KATHYAYINI v.
3
SIDHARTH P.S. REDDY has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
19. We now come to the issue of bar against
prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We
hereby hold that no such bar exists against prosecution if
the offences punishable under criminal law are made out
against the parties to the civil suit. Learned senior counsel
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428
- 25 -
Dr.MenakaGuruswamy has rightly placed the relevant judicial
precedents to support the above submission. In the case of K.
Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. 3, this Court has reviewed its
precedents which clarify the position. The relevant paragraph
from the above judgment is extracted below:
“8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the
very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as
well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is
availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in
motion the proceedings in criminal law.”
20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar 4, this Court summed
up the distinction between the two remedies as under:
“21. … There are a large number of cases
where criminal law and civil law can run side by side.
The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but
clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their
content and consequence. The object of the criminal
law is to punish an offender who commits an offence
against a person, property or the State for which the
accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his
liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not,
however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the
wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an
anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available,
a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types
of actions are quite different in content, scope and import.
It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the
husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property
of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar
prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients
of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that
because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the
custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken
as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real
intent of the law.”
21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi
Agarwal v. State of W.B. ,
“17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to
the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not
justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the
- 26 -
appellant against the respondents. We are also not
impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was
pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified
to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the
basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with
in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil
action in a different court even though higher in status and
authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the
proceedings.”
22. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this Court
in K. Jagadish (supra) set aside the holding of High Court to
quash the criminal proceedings and held that criminal
proceedings shall continue to its logical end.
23. The above precedents set by this Court make it
crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the
same subject matter, involving the same parties is no
justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima
facie case exists against the accused persons. In present
case certainly such prima facie case exists against the
respondents. Considering the long chain of events from
creation of family tree excluding the daughters of K.G.
Yellappa Reddy, partition deed among only the sons and
grandsons of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, distribution of
compensation award among the respondents is sufficient
to conclude that there was active effort by respondents to
reap off the benefits from the land in question. Further,
the alleged threat to appellant and her sisters on
revelation of the above chain of events further affirms
the motive of respondents. All the above factors suggest
that a criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the
appellant.”
- 27 -
9.4. The Apex Court in the case of PUNIT BERIWALA v.
4
STATE (NCT OF DELHI) has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
MERE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS CANNOT ACT AS A
BAR TO INVESTIGATION OF COGNIZABLE OFFENCES
28. It is trite law that mere institution of civil
proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold
that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This Court in
various judgments, has held that simply because there is a
remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by
itself clothe the Court to conclude that civil remedy is the
only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in
any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court.
This Court is of the view that because the offence was
committed during a commercial transaction , it would not be
sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further
investigation and if necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali
Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.) , (2009) 5 SCC
528, Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP , (2012) 3 SCC
132 and Trisuns Chemicals v. Rajesh Aggarwal , (1999) 8
SCC 686 ]”.
9.5. The Apex Court in the case of C.S. PRASAD v. C.
5
SATYAKUMAR has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
22. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised
with great caution. This Court in catena of judgments
has emphasised that the High Court must avoid usurping
the function of a trial court or conducting a mini-
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 983
5
2026 SCC OnLine SC 50
- 28 -
trial when disputed factual questions attend the
maintainability of a complaint. The only requirement is to
examine whether the uncontroverted allegations, as contained
in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of
any cognizable offence. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 5, a
Division Bench of this Court had discussed about the scope of
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. as follows:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
- 29 -
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
(emphasis supplied)
23. Furthermore, in Neeharika Infrastructure
Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra 6, a three-Judge
Bench of this Court had held that the power to quash
criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, and
only where the complaint, even if accepted in full,
discloses no offence or continuation would amount to
abuse of process. This Court had issued the following
directions to the High Courts to be kept in mind while
exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.:
“ Conclusions
33. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core
issue, whether the High Court would be justified in
passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or
“no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency
of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in
what circumstances and whether the High Court would
be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the
- 30 -
accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the
investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed
under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing
of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal
proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under
Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as
under:
33.1….
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation
into the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
information report that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has
been observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not
to be confused with the formation in the context of
death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court cannot
embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made
in the FIR/complaint.
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8 to 33.11….
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the allegations in the
FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
- 31 -
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts
to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure.
33.13 and 33.14….
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR
is made by the alleged accused and the court when
it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC,
only has to consider whether the allegations in the
FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or
not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make
out a cognizable offence and the court has to
permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR.
…..”
(emphasis supplied)
24. On these lines, it is apt clear that even though
the powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. are very
wide, its conferment requires the High Courts to be more
cautious and diligent. While examining any FIR, the High
Court exercising its power under this provision cannot go
embarking upon the genuineness of the allegations
made. The High Court must only consider whether there
exists any sufficient material to proceed against the
accused or not and must not be concerned with the
reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of the evidence.
25. Testing on the aforesaid parameters, we find that
the complaint dated 08.01.2020 made by the appellant
contains categorical allegations that respondent Nos. 1 to 3, by
abusing the advanced age and medical vulnerability of the
executants, caused the execution and registration of the three
settlement deeds to their unlawful advantage, and thereafter
used such documents as genuine for the purpose of deriving
proprietary benefits. The allegations in the complaint also
disclose dishonest intention at the inception of the
transaction as well as fabrication and wrongful use of
- 32 -
documents. At this stage, we must note that the High
Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. is bound to take the allegations on its face value.
Whether these allegations can ultimately be proved is a
matter strictly within the province of the Trial Court.
26. In the impugned order, the High Court has
quashed the proceedings primarily on the ground that
the validity of the settlement deeds has been upheld in
the proceedings before the Civil Court. We are of the
view that this approach adopted by the High Court is not
correct. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence
that civil liability and criminal liability may arise from the
same set of facts and that the pendency or conclusion of
civil proceedings does not bar prosecution where the
ingredients of a criminal offence are disclosed.
In Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy 7, this Court had
made it crystal clear that “ pendency of civil proceedings
on the same subject matter, involving the same parties
is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a
prima facie case exists against the accused persons.”
27. Adjudication in civil matters and criminal
prosecution proceed on different principles. The decree
passed by the Civil Court neither records findings on
criminal intent nor on the existence of offences such as
forgery, cheating, or use of forged documents.
Therefore, civil adjudication cannot always be treated as
determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of
quashment. Moreover, in the case at hand, the civil
proceedings have not attained finality.
28. Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of
forged documents in relation to a settlement deed will
always carry a civil element. Therefore, there cannot be
any general proposition that whenever dispute involves
a civil element, a criminal proceeding cannot go on.
Criminal liability must be examined independently.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to acquittal only upon
failure of proof in the trial and not at the threshold jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. To permit quashing on the
sole ground of a civil suit would encourage unscrupulous
- 33 -
litigants to defeat criminal prosecution by instituting
civil proceedings.
29. A further perusal of the impugned order would show
that the High Court has also attached significance to the
conduct of the appellant and the delay of almost 6 years on his
part in initiation of criminal proceedings without any plausible
explanation. The High Court had noted that the appellant
remained ex parte instead of participating in the civil
proceedings in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 of which he was already
a party. Instead, the appellant had preferred a private
complaint suppressing the fact that the settlement deeds are
already a subject matter of the said suit. The High Court had
found this conduct of the appellant to be in favour of
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and had proceeded to quash the
proceedings against them. Before we express our opinion on
this, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant observations of the
High Court on this aspect:
“8. ……. In the said suit O.S. No. 2190 of 2014,
the defacto complainant C.S. Prasad was arrayed as
nd
2 defendant. He had entered appearance through a
counsel, but had not contested the suit neither he filed
statement or adduced evidence challenging the validity
of the registered documents. He remained exparte. If
really he had any material to establish that he was
cheated by his elder brother by making false documents
and forgery, he should have participated in the suit
proceedings or atleast filed complaint immediately. He
had filed a complaint to the Commissioner of Police only
on 08.01.2020 and the same after enquiry was closed
on 17.03.2020 as civil dispute. When his complaint was
closed as dispute is civil in nature, the suit O.S. No.
2190 of 2014 was pending. Hence, he had all
opportunities to file application to set aside the exparte
order passed against him on 08.06.2015 and participate
in the suit where the validity of the 3 settlements deeds
were one of the issues under consideration.
9. Instead of participating in the civil proceeding,
the private complaint filed on 12.10.2021 under
Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., suppressing the fact that
settlement deeds are subject matter in the pending suit.
In this regard it can be safely presumed that the
nd
2 respondent herein had knowledge about the
- 34 -
settlement deeds if not earlier at least on the date of
receipt of suit summons in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014.
Whereas no plausible explanation placed by him in his
complaint for delay of 6 years in filing the complaint.”
(emphasis supplied)
30. We are not impressed with the above findings
reached by the High Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure
Private Limited (supra), this Court had made it clear that
while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C., the High Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry
into the disputed questions of fact or record findings on
the merits of the allegations. On perusal of the above
observations of the High Court, we find that the High
Court has erred in law by embarking upon an inquiry
with regard to the conduct of the appellant and
credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the
complaint and the FIR. Delay in filing a complaint, by itself,
is never a ground for quashing criminal proceedings at the
threshold. Whether the delay stands satisfactorily explained or
whether it impacts the credibility of the prosecution, is a matter
of appreciation of evidence before the Trial Court and not for
summary determination by the High Court under Section 482 of
the Cr. P.C.
31. It is a settled proposition that when a factual
foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be
short-circuited by invoking inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Where allegations require
adjudication on evidence, the proper course is to permit
the trial to proceed in accordance with law. In the
present case, the issues relating to the state of mind of
the executants at the time of execution of the settlement
deeds, the role of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the
execution and the use of the settlement deeds, the
existence of fraudulent intent, and the manner in which
proprietary advantage was obtained by them, all require
a full-fledged trial on evidence .”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
- 35 -
10.1. The Apex Court in ROCKY 's case supra reaffirmed the
settled principle, that a mere availability of a civil remedy does not
by itself eclipse the jurisdiction of the criminal law, where the
allegations on their face disclose essential ingredients of a
recognizable offence. In the said matter, the allegations levelled
were invoking Sections 406, 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC. Upon a
careful and nuanced examination of the factual matrix, the
Apex Court deemed it appropriate to interdict the
prosecution, only insofar as the offence under Section 406 of
the IPC was concerned, while allowing the remaining
charges to stand and the criminal trial to proceed. This
course was adopted upon Court's satisfaction, that
notwithstanding the presence of civil elements, the
controversy could not be characterized as one of a purely
civil complexion.
10.2. In ANURAG BHATNAGAR 's case supra , the Apex Court
once again declined to exercise its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings, noting that the memorandum of understanding
between the parties was not a mere commercial arrangement
- 36 -
simpliciter, but one imbued with allegations of inducement and
criminal breach of trust, as borne out from the averments contained
in the complaint. The Court held that the allegations, if taken
to its face value, were sufficient to constitute the
commission of a criminal offence and therefore, warranted
adjudication through the rigours of a criminal trial.
10.3. In KATHYAYINI's case supra , where civil suits
involving identical parties arising out of the same
transaction were admittedly pending, the Apex Court held
that pendency of civil proceedings cannot be employed as a
shield to thwart criminal prosecution. The Court underscored
that where the allegations disclose a prima facie case against the
accused, the continuance of criminal proceedings is neither
impermissible nor an abuse of the process, notwithstanding the
existence of parallel civil litigation between the same parties.
10.4. Echoing this well entrenched jurisprudence, the
Apex Court in PUNIT BERIWALA supra categorically held that
mere institution of civil proceedings does not operate as a
legal embargo upon the investigation or prosecution of a
- 37 -
cognizable criminal offence. The Court, thus, reinforced the
salutary principle that civil and criminal remedies though
they may arise from the same set of facts, operate in distinct
spheres and pursue fundamentally different objectives , a
caveat , it would depend on facts obtaining in each of the cases.
10.5. In C.S. PRASAD supra , the Apex Court holds that
civil liability and criminal liability may arise from the same
set of facts and that the pendency or conclusion of civil
proceedings does not bar prosecution where the ingredients
of a criminal offence are disclosed. The Apex Court was
considering a case pertaining to a fraudulent settlement deed and
observed that adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged
documents in relation to a settlement deed will always carry a civil
element. Therefore, there cannot be any general proposition
that whenever a dispute involves a civil element, a criminal
proceeding cannot go on. Further, the Apex Court reiterates the
principle that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot
be exercised in cases where disputed questions of fact exist.
- 38 -
In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the
judgment of the Apex Court as afore-quoted, while in the case of
other accused investigation is permitted, it cannot be said that the
petitioner has got a better case for interference at the hands of this
Court.
11. Finding no merit in the petition, the petition stands
rejected.
I t is made clear that the observations made in the course of
the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of
petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the same shall not bind
or influence the proceedings pending against him.
Applications pending if any, also stand disposed as a
consequence.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp