1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT

DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.101203 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI GOVINDARAJA

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA ACHAR

RESIDING AT NO.A-503

“JHAROKA APARTMENT”

BEHIND HAL AIRPORT

YEMALUR

BENGALURU – 560 037.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR.COUNSEL FOR

SRI MRUTHYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

MARIAMMANA POLICE STATION,

BELLARI DISTRICT

BELLARI – 583 101.

2.

SRI MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS

ADDL. DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER

M/S BMM ISPAT LTD.,

R

2

NO.144, DANAPUR VILLAGE,

HOSPET – 583 222.

3.

M/S BMM ISPAT LTD.,

NO.114, DANAPUR VILLAGE

HOSPET – 583 222

REPRESENTED BY

AUTHORISED SIGNATORY.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.COUNSEL FOR

SRI R.M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ISSUE AN

APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE FIR

IN CRIME NO.1/2021 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT –

POLICE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY ARRANGING HIM AS

ACCUSED NO.1 FOR OFFENCES WHICH ARE MADE PENAL UNDER

SECTIONS 420, 467, 468, 472 AND 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE

PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE –A.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS ON 27.01.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

proceedings in Crime No.1 of 2021 registered against the

petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468,

464, 472 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3

2. Adumbrated in brief, the factual background as

projected by the petitioner is as follows:

There are three protagonists in the alleged episode of crime

– the 2^nd respondent/complainant-representative of the 3^rd

respondent; accused No.2 Nikat Capital, and the petitioner.

According to the 2^nd respondent who is the Additional Deputy

General Manager of the 3^rd respondent, the story twined unfolds

this way. One Nikat Capital, a company based in the United

Kingdom having its office in London was introduced by the

petitioner to the complainant through his Director Saimak

Vatanabadi. It appears that certain transactions took place

between the complainant and Nikat Capital. An international

sales contract was executed between Nikat Capital and the 3^rd

respondent for shipping of 6000 metric tons of Heavy Melting

Scrap (HMS) and an amount of 7,35,000 US dollars was

transferred from the account of 3^rd respondent to Nikat Capital

despite the fact there was short supply and was not supplied to

the place where it ought to have been supplied.

4

3. The International Sales Contract provided for arbitration

as a dispute resolution mechanism between Nikat Capital and

the 3^rd respondent. Accordingly, arbitration proceedings were

invoked in terms of the arbitration clause. Due to impending

transfer of funds, a petition was filed before this Court invoking

Section

9

of

the

Arbitration

and

Conciliation

Act

in

AP(IM)100001 of 2020 alleging that the company/Nikat Capital

had played fraud with the 3^rd respondent and sought a restraint

order at the hands of this Court directing the State Bank of

India not to transfer the sum of 7,70,770 US dollars which was

the consideration in the transaction. This Court by order dated

27-11-2020 accepted the case in the petition and passed an

interim order of restraint restraining State Bank of India from

transferring the amount. It appears, by the time the interim

order was passed, the amount had already been transferred to

Nikat Capital by the State Bank of India.

4. After the aforesaid proceedings a complaint is registered

before the j