Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mohammed Azeed Ali Baig vs State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8896
CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4623 OF 2020
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5271 OF 2020
IN CRL.P NO. 4623/2020
BETWEEN:
MR. MOHAMMED AZEED ALI BAIG
SON OF DR. NAYEEMULLA BAIG,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.148,
4TH CROSS, JHBCS LAYOUT,
BSK 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 078
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED B., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed
by PRASHANTH REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR
NV OF POLICE, S.P.P. HCK,
Location: High
Court of BANGALORE, CUBBON PARK
Karnataka POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560001
2. MR PRASHANT DHINGRA
SON OF RAJESH VIJAY DHINGRA,
AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT
M BLOCK, GURU HARKRISHNA
NAGAR, PASHIM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI - 110 063
3. MR ACHAL M S
SON OF M L SUKESH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.26,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8896
CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020
HC-KAR
40 FEET ROAD, 2ND PHASE,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010
4. MR SAAHIL MORE
SON OF SUNIL MORE,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.401,
FLAT NO.19A/401,
GRACE STELLA CO-OPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY, GOREGAON
EAST, MUMBAI - 400 001.
5. MR. CHETAN CHINMAY JOSHI
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO.6-243, MATHURA VIHAR
NAWABI ROAD, UTTARKHAND-248008
6. MR AABHAS DAVE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING
AT 213/A SAI VIHAR, COLONY AJMER,
RAJASTHAN - 305 001
7. MR. GURUCHARAN PRABHAKAR
SON OF PRABHAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.544, 1ST MAIN,
3RD CROSS, N.G.E.F. LAYOUT,
NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR,
NAGARBHAVI 1ST BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
8. MR. ANSHUM ADITYA GHAI
SON OF R.N. GHAI, AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO.401, BLOCK,
H.B-92, H.I.G. APARTMENTS,
SURYA NAGAR, K.H.B. PHASE I,
ANEKAL ROAD, BENGALURU-560099.
9. MR. AKSHAY GUPTA
SON OF GAGAN GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:8896
CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT NO.A15,
1ST FLOOR, SECTOR 30,
NOIDA, UTTARPRADESH-251001
10. MR NARENDRA KAUSHIK
SON OF S MURALIDHARAN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.C-18, ROYAL VILLA,
PARSON, NANJUNDAPURA ROAD,
COIMBATORE - 641 036
11. MR VINAY SOMSHEKAR
SON OF SOMASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.G1,
NAVENEETMAIDOOR,
2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
SARVABHAUMA NAGAR,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
12. MR. MOHAMMED ABRAR HUSSAIN
SON OF NOHAMMED ABID HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.16-11-213,
MALAKPET, T.V. TOWER,
HYDERABAD - 500 001
13. MR. OMAR KHADIR
SON OF KHADEER ABIB,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.23-1-1025,
FIRST FLOOR, ACKON ROAD,
NOOR KHAN, BAZAAR,
HYDERABAD - 500 004.
14. MR. SAHIBJIT BHULLAR
SON OF SHANJIT SINGH BHULLAR,
AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT 1569,
SECTOR 34-D, CHANDIGARH-160022,
PUNJAB
15. MR. SANAULLA ZULFIQAR AHMED KHAN
SON OF LATE SANAULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 248D JM ROAD,
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:8896
CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020
HC-KAR
ILLYASNAGAR, J.P. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 078
16. RAJESH EBRAHIM KUTTI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SON OF EBRAHIM KUTTI ALIHASSAN,
RESIDING AT VILLA NO.76 B,
SOBHA MALACHITE, JAKKUR PLANTATION
ROAD, JAKKUR YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-64
17. MR. SUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
SON OF K.M. SUBRAMANIAN,
RESIDING AT A-10/603, ELITA
PROMENADE, RBI LAYOUT,
J P NAGAR 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE - 560 078
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR
R1, R2, R4, R7, R9, R11, R13 & R14 ARE SD
SRI. MAHESH Y.L., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R8 & R12
V/O DT. 25/11/21 NOTICE TO R15 TO R17 D/W
V/O DT. 17/2/22 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5 IS H/S
V/O DT. 24/11/23 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R10 IS H/S
V/O DT. 22/7/24 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R6 IS H/S.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.11313/2019 FROM THE FILE OF IV
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
IN CRL.P NO. 5271/2020
BETWEEN:
MR. SUNDARAM SUBRAMANIAN
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
SON OF K.M. SUBRAMANIAN,
RESIDING AT A-10/603, ELITA PROMENADE,
RBI LAYOUT, J P NAGAR,
7TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560078
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIKHAR AHMED B., ADVOCATE)
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:8896
CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR
OF POLICE, CUBBON PARK POLICE
STATION, BANGALORE - 560 001
2. MR PRASHANT DHINGRA
SON OF RAJESH VIJAY DHINGRA,
AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT
M BLOCK, GURU HARKRISHNA
NAGAR, PASHIM VIHAR,
NEW DELHI - 110 063
3. MR ACHAL M S
SON OF M L SUKESH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.26,
40 FEET ROAD, 2ND PHASE,
RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010
4. MR SAAHIL MORE
SON OF SUNIL MORE,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.401,
FLAT NO.19A/401,
GRACE STELLA CO-OPERATIVE
HOUSING SOCIETY, GOREGAON
EAST, MUMBAI - 400 001.
5. MR. CHETAN CHINMAY JOSHI
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO.6-243, MATHURA VIHAR
NAWABI ROAD, UTTARKHAND-248008
6. MR AABHAS DAVE
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
PETITIONER, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING
AT 213/A SAI VIHAR, COLONY AJMER,
RAJASTHAN - 305 001
7. MR. GURUCHARAN PRABHAKAR
SON OF PRABHAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.544, 1ST MAIN,
3RD CROSS, N.G.E.F. LAYOUT,
NRUPATHUNGA NAGAR,
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:8896
CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020
HC-KAR
NAGARBHAVI 1ST BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
8. MR. ANSHUM ADITYA GHAI
SON OF R.N. GHAI, AGED MAJOR,
RESIDING AT NO.401, BLOCK,
H.B-92, H.I.G. APARTMENTS,
SURYA NAGAR, K.H.B. PHASE I,
ANEKAL ROAD, BENGALURU.
9. MR. AKSHAY GUPTA
SON OF GAGAN GUPTA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.A15,
1ST FLOOR, SECTOR 30,
NOIDA, UTTAR PRADESH.
10. MR NARENDRA KAUSHIK
SON OF S MURALIDHARAN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.C-18,
ROYAL VILLA, PARSON,
NANJUNDAPURA ROAD,
COIMBATORE
11. MR VINAY SOMSHEKAR
SON OF SOMASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.G1,
NAVENEETMAIDOOR,
2ND MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
SARVABHAUMA NAGAR,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 078.
12. MR. MOHAMMED ABRAR HUSSAIN
SON OF MOHAMMED ABID HUSSAIN,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.16-11-213,
MALAKPET, T.V. TOWER, HYDERABAD.
13. MR. OMAR KHADIR
SON OF KHADEER ABIB,
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.23-1-1025,
FIRST FLOOR, ACKON ROAD,
NOOR KHAN, BAZAAR, HYDERABAD.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:8896
CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020
HC-KAR
14. MR. SAHIBJIT BHULLAR
SON OF SHANJIT SINGH BHULLAR,
AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT 1569,
SECTOR 34-D, CHANDIGARH-160022,
PUNJAB
15. MR. SANAULLA ZULFIQAR AHMED KHAN
SON OF LATE SANAULLA KHAN,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 248D JM ROAD,
ILLYASNAGAR, J.P. NAGAR POST,
BENGALURU - 560 078
16. RAJESH EBRAHIM KUTTI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
SON OF EBRAHIM KUTTI ALIHASSAN,
RESIDING AT VILLA NO.76 B,
SOBHA MALACHITE, JAKKUR PLANTATION
ROAD, JAKKUR YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-64
17. MR MOHAMMED AZEEM
NABEEL ALI BAIG
SON OF DR NAYEEMULLA BAIG,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.148, 4TH CROSS,
JHBCS LAYOUT, BSK 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 078
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. T.V. VIJAY RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R3 (ABSENT)
SMT. SUKANYA H.D., ADVOCATE FOR R11 (ABSENT)
R6, R7, R12, ARE SD.
V/O DT. 04/10/21 NOTICE TO R15 TO R17 D/W
V/O DT. 22/07/24 R2, R4, R5, R8, R9, R10, R13, R14 ARE H/S.)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.11313/2019 FROM THE FILE OF IV
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-D.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:8896
CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020
C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020
HC-KAR
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL
DISPOSAL, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
COMMON ORAL ORDER
The petitioner in Crl.P.No.4623 of 2020 being accused No.3 and the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5271 of 2020 being accused No.4 in CC.No.11313/2019, pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that, the informant Gurucharan Prabhakar i.e. respondent No.7 in the petition filed the first information with Cubbon Park Police against accused Nos.1 to 7 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The investigation was undertaken and the final report came to be filed. As per the case made out by the prosecution, accused No.1 being the Chairman; accused No.2 being the Managing Director; accused No.3 being the Manager; accused No.4 being the Accounting Consultant and accused No.5 being the Recruitment Officer along with others, induced -9- NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR the informant and other victims to deposit huge sum of Rs.37,00,000/- each for the purpose of imparting pilot training to them. It is stated that it is a self-sponsored program undertaken by the Company represented by the Chairman and the Managing Director who are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and
2. After receiving this huge sum of Rs.37,00,000/- from each of the victims, no formal training was imparted as undertaken nor they have refunded the amount in-spite of repeated requests. Thereby the accused with the common intention have committed cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, etc. Accordingly, the final report came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the above said offences. The petitioners being accused Nos.3 and 4 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
3. Heard Dr.Aditya Sondhi, learned senior advocate along with Sri Vikhar Ahmed B., learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.5271 of 2020, Sri Vikhar Ahmed B., learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.4623 of 2020, Sri.Mahesh Y.L. learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 8 and 12 and Sri Rangaswamy R. learned High Court Government
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR Pleader for respondent No.1 - State. Perused the materials on record.
4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow their respective petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point in respect of Crl.P.No.4623/2020 is 'partly in the Affirmative' and in respect of Crl.P.No.5271/2020 in the 'Affirmative' for the following:
REASONS
5. The informant filed the first information making allegations against the Managing Director and the Director for having committed cheating by accepting huge sums of money from each of the victims, promising to impart pilot training, and thereafter failing to comply with the same and in not refunding the amount. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 5.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR
6. It is stated that the victims have transferred the amount of Rs.37,00,000/- each either to the account of the Company i.e. M/s ABC Aviation and Training Services Private Limited and part of the amount to the account of accused No.2 who was the Managing Director of the Company. It is stated that accused No.3 who projected himself as Manager or General Manager of the Company, is the close relative of accused No.1. It is not in dispute that accused No.1 is the uncle of accused No.3.
7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 8 and 12 filed a memo producing the Bank Statement maintained with Axis Bank, Airport Branch, Bengaluru, to contend that even though it is stated that respondent No.3 had resigned from his job during March-2017, the Bank Statement discloses that various payments were made to accused No.3 on different dates, including on 08.05.2017 and 17.05.2017 i.e. much after the date of resignation. As per these entries, a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and 2,25,000/- were transferred to the account of accused No.3 by the Company. Basing on this document, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 8 and 12 would contend that accused No.3 being the close relative of accused No.1 is a
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR partner in Crime. He also refers to the copy of the e-mail dated 20.09.2017 sent by accused No.2 to accused No.1 with a copy to accused No.3 regarding the developments that have taken place in the matter of trainee pilots. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 8 and 12 that, if at all, accused No.3 had already resigned or if he was only a Manager, there was no reason as to why accused No.2 is required to mark a copy of the mail to him, what the same was addressed to accused No.1 being the Chairman of the Company to accused No.3.
8. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 8 and 12 also contended that the investigation was not properly held by the Investigating Officer and therefore, the informant and the victims filed an application, seeking further investigation under Section 173(8) of Cr.PC. The said application is still pending consideration by the Trial Court. Since there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence under Section 420 of IPC even by accused No.3, he is not entitled for any relief.
9. None of these documents referred to above as produced by learned counsel for respondents are disputed by
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR accused No.3. However, he contends that those amounts which were transferred may be towards settlement of official dues after accepting the resignation. If at all he had resigned and received his emoluments during March-2017, there is no reason as to why the e-mail dated 20.09.2017 was marked to him by accused No.2 while addressing it to accused No.1. Therefore, at the most this may be the defence that could be taken by respondent No.3 before the Trial Court, but the same cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. The allegations made against accused No.3 along with accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are serious in nature. The Trial Court is at liberty to take a decision on the application said to have been filed by the informant seeking further investigation. But in the meantime, accused No.3 is not entitled for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited and Others V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Another1, in support of his contention that Sections 406 1 (2024) 10 SCC 690
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR and 420 of IPC cannot co-exist simultaneously as the ingredients of both these penal provisions are entirely different. The Hon'ble Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in S.W. Palanikar V/s State of Bihar2 highlighted the difference between 'criminal breach of trust' and 'cheating' in para Nos.35 and 36 and categorically held in para No.38 as under:
"35-Difference between criminal breach of trust and cheating
35. This Court in its decision in S.W. Palanitkar v. State of Bihar expounded the difference in the ingredients required for constituting of an offence of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) vis-à-vis the offence of cheating (Section 420). The relevant observations read as under : (SCC p. 246, paras 9-10) "9. The ingredients in order to constitute a criminal breach of trust are :
(i) entrusting a person with property or with any dominion over property;
(ii) that person entrusted : (a) dishonestly misappropriating or converting that property to his own use; or (b) dishonestly using or disposing of that property or wilfully suffering any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, (ii) of any legal contract made, touching the discharge of such trust.
10. The ingredients of an offence of cheating are : (i) there should be fraudulent or 2 (2002) 1 SCC 241
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him, (ii)(a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) in cases covered by (ii)(b), the act of omission should be one which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property."
36. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients:
In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) (1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and (2) The person entrusted:
(a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, or
(b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the property or wilfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:
(i) Any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged;
or
(ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see : S.W. Palanitkar).
Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are:
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR (1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;
(2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or (3) The consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see : Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab)
38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 IPC, punishable under Section 420 IPC."
(emphasis supplied) Thus, the position of law is very well-settled. Even though the FIR came to be registered for the offence under Section 420 of IPC, the final report came to be filed for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC. Since Section 420 and 406 of IPC cannot be invoked simultaneously, I am of the opinion that, either of Section 406 or 420 of IPC could be invoked by the prosecution.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR
11. On facts, in the present case, the victims have transferred certain sum of amount to the Company and accused No.2 as they were promised of imparting pilot training. Subsequently, no such training was imparted nor the amounts were repaid to them, thereby the accused said to have committed the alleged offences. Facts of the case prima-facie disclose that, it is a case of cheating under Section 420 with forgery. But the case under Section 406 is not made out. Mere deposit of a sum of money by the victims with the accused and non-refunding the same may not amount to criminal breach of trust to invoke Section 406 of IPC under the facts of the case. Hence the criminal proceedings for the offence under Section 406 of IPC could be quashed against accused No.3. But he is required to face trial for the offences under Sections 420, 468, 471 of IPC.
12. Regarding Crl.P.No.5271/2020 filed by accused No.4, it is alleged that he was working as Accounting Consultant. My attention was drawn to the first information lodged by the informant. There is no reference to this accused No.4 in the entire complaint, which runs into several pages. Even while filing the final report, the Investigating Officer only named him
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR as accused No.4 being the Accounting Consultant, but no overt- act is alleged against him.
13. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the Appointment Order of accused No.4 as 'Accounting Consultant' on 27.01.2015 to contend that, the job description mentioned therein discloses that, accused No.4 was responsible for assisting route planning, direct and co-ordinate financial planning and budget management functions; recommend bench marks for measuring the financial and operating performance, monitor and analyzing monthly operating results against budget; preparation of financial outlooks and financial forecasts; and to work with Department Managers to develop five year business plans. Therefore, it is not the job of the petitioner / accused No.4 to handle the finance and it is not alleged that he ever dealt with the amount that has been transferred by the victims in favour of the Company and accused No.2.
14. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that accused No.4 had tendered his resignation to the post of
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR Accounting Consultant during February-2017 and in the same month the resignation was accepted.
15. Learned senior advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to the copy of the Letter dated 03.04.2017 addressed by accused No.4 to the Managing Director of the Company requesting to settle the outstanding dues after acceptance of his resignation. Therefore, it is his contention that accused No.4 was not part of the Company at the time of registration of the complaint and there are no materials against him to constitute any of the offence.
16. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 8 and 12 fairly concedes that there are no specific allegations made with any specific materials to constitute commission of the offence by accused No.4.
17. On going through the materials on record including the first information where there is no reference to accused No.4 being part of the crime committed and in the absence of any prima facie materials against him, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings against accused No.4 was in abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR
18. Accordingly, I answer the above point in respect of Crl.P.No.4623/2020 'partly in the affirmative' and in respect of Crl.P.No.5271/2020 in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following.
ORDER
(i) Crl.P.No.4623/2020 is allowed-in-part.
(ii) Crl.P.No.5271/2020 is allowed.
(iii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner / accused No.3 in Crl.P.No.4623/2020 in CC.No.11313/2019, pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 406 of IPC, is hereby quashed.
(iv) The criminal proceedings initiated against him for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, is rejected.
(v) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner / accused No.4 in
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:8896 CRL.P No. 4623 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 5271 of 2020 HC-KAR Crl.P.No.5271/2020 pending in the above proceedings, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC, is hereby quashed.
In view of disposal of main petitions, pending I.A.No.1 of 2020 also stands disposed off.
SD/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3