IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3083/2019

BETWEEN:

SUSHMA EARAIAH

AGED 40 YEARS

RESIDING AT 30, BTM RESIDENCY

PHASE-2, YELENHALLI,

BEGUR HOBLI,

BENGALURU-560 068. &PETITIONER

(BY SRI N S SRIRAJ GOWDA FOR SMT. SANJANTHI SAJAN

POOVAYYA, ADVOCATES)

AND:

M/S. DREAM MERCHANTS

A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM

HAVING ITS REGISTERED

OFFICE AT NO.1/1, BORE BANK ROAD,

BENSON TOWN,

BENGALURU-560 046.

REPRESENTED BY ITS

MANAGING PARTNER

MR. FEROZ KHAN.

...RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ANEES ALI KHAN, ADVOCATE )

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF

CR.P.C.

PRAYING

TO

QUASH

THE

COMPLAINT

IN

PCR

NO.6832/2016 RENUMBERED AS C.C.NO.7726/2017 ON THE FILE

OF THE COURT OF THE VIII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-C)

-:2:-

AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM AS AGAINST

THE PETITIONER.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200

of Cr.PC alleging that the complainant and the petitioner-accused

entered into a sponsorship contract/agreement and the petitioner 3

accused had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- for sponsoring

minimum of six editions of Bangalore Fashion Events starting from

July, 2015 to January 2018. The complainant conducted one

edition of Bangalore Fashion Event from July 23 to July 26, 2015

and the second edition Bangalore Fashion Event from 4^th to 7^th

February, 2016 for which the complainant was entitled to receive a

sum of Rs.23,10,000/- from the petitioner 3 accused. However,

the petitioner 3 accused has refused to pay the said amount as

promised to the complainant and thereby has committed the

offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 420 read with

Section 149 of IPC.

-:3:-

2.

The learned Magistrate after recording the sworn

statement of the complainant took cognizance for the aforesaid

offences and issued summons to the petitioner 3 accused. Taking

exception to the same, this petition is filed.

3.

Sri N S Sriraj Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners would make the following submissions:

a)

The offences alleged against the petitioner 3accused

are cognizable and the complainant having not filed an

affidavit along with the complaint for having complied with

the requirement of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.PC, the

private complaint filed by the respondent is not maintainable

in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of

PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF

UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in 2015(6) SCC

287.

b)

The petitioner 3 accused is residing outside the

territorial jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate and as such

taking of the cognizance and the issuance of summons to the

petitioner 3 accused without holding preliminary enquiry as

specified under Section 202(1) of Cr.PC is vitiated. In

support, he relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the

case of BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED V. ADVENTZ

-:4:-

INVESTMENTS AND HOLDINGS LIMITED AND OTHERS

WITH

BIRLA

BUILDINGS

LIMITED

V.

BIRLA

CORPORATION LIMITED, WITH GOVIND PROMOTERS

PVT. LTD. V. BIRLA CORPORATION LIMITED reported in

2019 CRL.L.J. 3196.

c)

The allegations made in the complaint do not disclose

the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners 3

accused and even if the said allegations are accepted on the

face of it, utmost, tantamount to breach of terms and

conditions of the contract. In support, he relies on the

decision of the Apex Court in the case of S W PALANITKAR

AND OTHERS 3VS- STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

reported in (2002) 1 SCC 241.

4.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent submits that the allegations made in the complaint

clearly disclose the commission of the off