Ex-Employee Accused Of Receiving Employer’s Generator-Service Payments In Her Personal Account: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Probe

Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint alleging, among other things, that payments for generator-related services provided by his employer, M/s Sineware Generators Ltd., were credited to petitioner No. 1’s personal account, and that the company’s employees performed service work for petitioner No. 2’s business during petitioner No. 1’s employment.

Crime No. 60/2025 was registered under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(3), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioners sought quashing of the FIR, contending that the complaint was retaliatory and that a separate civil injunction application concerning post-employment conduct had been refused.

The second respondent maintained that the complaint concerned specific transactions during petitioner No. 1’s employment and required investigation.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as referenced in the petition, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be interdicted where allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, disclose no offence; however, where a complaint contains specific allegations requiring investigation, the Court should not stifle that investigation at its threshold.

The alleged offences were under Sections 61(2), 316(2), 318(3), 318(4) and 3(5) of the BNS.

The order cites no judicial precedents and does not determine the ingredients of those offences on the merits.

The Court considered the alleged personal-account payments, supporting material said to relate to those transactions, and the alleged use of the employer’s staff for work connected with petitioner No. 2’s business to be specific matters requiring investigation.

It held that the circumstances and bona fides of the transactions, as well as each petitioner’s role and whether the alleged conduct attracted the invoked offences, could not be determined in a quashing petition.

The refusal of an injunction in the civil suit did not establish that the criminal allegations were false, particularly because the suit concerned alleged post-employment conduct while the complaint concerned conduct during employment.

It dismissed the petition, directed the Investigating Officer to investigate all relevant aspects fairly and properly and submit the final report at the earliest, and dismissed any pending application.

The Court clarified that its observations were not findings on guilt or the merits and should not influence the investigation.