IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6024 OF 2023 (482 (Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. RAHUL JASHNANI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE CHANDER JASNANI, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT:1203, GLEN CLASSIC, POWAI, MUMBAI MAHARASHTRA-400 076 AND ALSO AT NO.18, AIBARSHA SOUTH Digitally DUBAI, UAE.

signed by GEETHA P G …PETITIONER Location :

(BY SRI. P.N. LAKSHMI SAGAR, ADVOCATE)

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HALASURGATE POLICE STATION, SPP., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

2. ANIL KUMAR C. JAIN S/O CHAGAN LAL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.5/1, UMA KRISHNA, UPPER PIPE LANE, OPP DISHA PLAY HOME, KUMAR PARK WEST, BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA-560 020.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP., FOR R.1;

SRI V. LAKSHMINARAYANA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI CHAND PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1149/2022, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AT BANGALORE, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

1. Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No.2 had business transactions and respondent No.2 had supplied sarees to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 is said to be a wholesale dealer in sarees and the petitioner is said to be a retailer. It is further submitted that the same is in pursuance of an agreement entered into between the parties. However, the petitioner was unable to make the necessary payments to respondent No.2, which has resulted in respondent No.2 making a complaint to the jurisdictional police and the Police, after due investigation, have charged the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC in C.C.No.1149/2022 pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal petition is filed with a prayer to quash the said proceedings against the petitioner.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is purely civil in nature. That he suffered losses in business due to COVID and other reasons, because of which, he committed default in repayment of the amounts. The petitioner further disputes the amounts claimed by respondent No.2 in the complaint as well as what is alleged in the charge sheet. It is submitted that the transaction being purely civil in nature, the police could not have charged him with an offence under Section 420 of IPC. It is further submitted that pursuant to the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.2, the petitioner has paid certain amounts to respondent No.2 and the default happened subsequently. It is submitted that this fact itself goes to show that there was no dishonest intention on part of the petitioner and thereby he cannot be accused of cheating. It is submitted that respondent No.2 can always initiate appropriate civil proceedings in accordance with law and recover dues. For the said reasons, it is prayed that the petition be allowed as prayed for.

3. Per contra, the respondents submit that the petitioner had the dishonest intention at the initial stage itself. He dishonestly induced respondent No.2 to deliver sarees to him for business purposes on credit. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not paid any amounts whatsoever pursuant to the delivery of the sarees and his submission that part payment has been made is false. It is further submitted that initially police were not sure as to whether the petitioner had necessary dishonest intention at the initial stage itself or after receipt of the sarees has not paid the necessary amounts deliberately, the police had alleged that the petitioner has committ