ADVERTISEMENT
Karnataka High Court
Mr Yousuf S vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 July, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11335 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12267 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12268 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12269 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12581 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION No.712 OF 2024
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6418 OF 2025
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.11335 OF 2023
Digitally
signed by
PADMAVATHI
BK BETWEEN:
Location:
High Court of MR. YOUSUF S.,
Karnataka S/O ABDULLA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.02, DS MAX,
7TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI VINAYAK VAMANRAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION,
MYSURU,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . ASHWIN P.,
S/O JAGADISH P.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 10, SANKEY ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE FIR IN COMPLAINT DATED
19.07.2023 IN CR.NO.142/2023 REGISTERED WITH
MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
XXXII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 419,
420, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC (DOCUMENT NO.1) IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; b) QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
19.07.2023 IN CR.NO.142/2023 REGISTERED WITH
MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
XXXII ADDL.C.M.M., COURT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
419, 420, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC (DOCUMENT NO.2) IN SO FAR AS
THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
3
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12267 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR.YOUSUF S.,
S/O ABDULLA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.02, DS MAX,
7TH CROSS,
MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI VINAYAK VAMANRAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION,
MYSURU,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. VEENA NARAYAN
W/O T. NARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CEMEX MANAGEMENT,
NO.373, 2ND STAGE, 2ND PHASE,
WOC ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 086.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
4
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.222/2023
REGISTERED WITH MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CMM COURT,
BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 506, 34, 406, 420 OF
IPC, 1860 (DOCUMENT NO.1) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED; 2) QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN FIR IN
CR.NO.222/2023 REGISTERED WITH MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE
STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CMM COURT,
BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 506, 34, 406, 420 OF
IPC, 1860 (DOCUMENT NO.2) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED; 3) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN FIR IN
CR.NO.222/2023 REGISTERED WITH MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE
STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CMM COURT,
BENGALURU CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 506, 34, 406, 420 OF
IPC, 1860 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12268 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. YOUSUF S.,
S/O ABDULLA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 02,
DS MAX,
7TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI VINAYAK VAMANRAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM,
5
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU,
REPRESETNED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SHAJI KRISHNAN
S/O LATE KRISHNAN,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
NO.27, KRISHNA SHREE,
THUNGA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 091.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.234/2023
REGISTERED WITH MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE III ACMM COURT, BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S.506, 504, 406, 420 OF IPC 1860 (DOCUMENT
NO.1) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; B. QUASH
THE COMPLAINT IN FIR NO.234/2023 REGISTERED WITH
MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
III ACMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S.506, 504, 406, 420 OF IPC 1860 (DOCUMENT NO.2) IN SO
FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; C. QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN FIR IN CR.NO.234/2023 REGISTERED WITH
MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
III ACMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S.506, 504, 406, 420 OF IPC 1860 IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12269 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR.YOUSUF S.,
S/O ABDULLA
6
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.02
DS MAX, 7TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI VINAYAK VAMANRAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MAHALAKSHMPURAM
POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SHIVANANDA MURTHY
S/O K.R.SHIVANNA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
NO.49/11, 3RD CROSS
15TH MAIN, NANDINI LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 096.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.208/2023
REGISTERED WITH MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ACMM COURT, BENGALURU FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S.504, 506, 420 OF IPC 1860 (DOCUMENT
NO.1) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED;
B. QUASH THE COMPLIANT IN FIR NO.208/2023 REGISTERED WITH
7
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE III ACMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S.504, 506, 420 OF IPC 1860 (DOCUMENT NO.2) IN SO FAR AS
THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; C. QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN FIR IN CR.NO.208/2023 REGISTERED WITH
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
III ACMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S.504, 506, 420 OF IPC 1860 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER
IS CONCERNED.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.12581 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. AVINASH M.,
S/O LAKSHMINARAYANA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.210,
DAIVIK PRASAD APARTMENT,
MYLASANDRA, KENGERI,
BENGALURU - 560 068.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI VINAYAK VAMANRAO KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . ASHWIN P.,
S/O JAGADISH P.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
8
R/AT NO 10, SANKEY ROAD,
SADASHIVANAGARA,
BENGALURU - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE FIR IN COMPLAINT DATED
19.07.2023 IN CR.NO.142/2023 REGISTERED WITH
MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
XXXII ADDL.C.M.M., COURT, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 34, 120-B, 419 AND 420 OF IPC (DOCUMENT NO.1) IN SO
FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; b) QUASH THE
COMPLAINT DATED 19.07.2023 IN CR.NO.142/2023 REGISTERED
WITH MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF XXXII ADDL.C.M.M., COURT, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 34, 120-B, 419 AND 420 OF IPC (DOCUMENT
NO.2) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.712 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI PRASHANT MARUTI ZINE
S/O MARUTI ZINE,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PLOT NO.2,
ARCHANA SANDESH NAGAR,
SAVEDI, VASANT TEKADI,
AHMAD NAGAR,
MAHARASHTRA - 414 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI KEMPE GOWDA C.M., ADVOCATE)
9
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU,
INVESTIGATION BY CCB POLICE,
BENGALURU,
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SRI ASHWIN P.,
S/O JAGADEESH P.,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
PARTNER OF JAGADEESH,
ADVERTISING NO.10,
SANKEY ROAD, SADHASHIVA NAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 020.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI RAJATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CR.NO.142/2023 OF MALLESWARAM POLICE, BENGALURU /
INVESTIGATION BY CCB, POLICE NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE LEARNED I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
AT BENGALURU CITY, FOR AN ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 120-B,
419, 420 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONER.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.6418 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1 . MR.YOUSUF S
S/O ABDULLA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
10
RESIDING AT NO.02
DS MAX, 7TH CROSS
MALLESHWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
CCB POLICE
BENGALURU CITY
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . NEELAMMA M.BELAMAGI
AGED ABOUT55 YEARS
NO.5, KALE LAYOUT
BRAHAMPURA
SP TEMPLE ROAD
KALABURAGI
KARNATAKA - 585 101
MOBILE NO 9449077806.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN
CRIME NO.03/2024 REGISTERED BY THE REGISTERED WITH CCB,
BENGALURU CITY RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR O/P/U/S 149, 420, 465,
467, 471, 468 OF IPC 1860 WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE
OF HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY (I.E
11
ANNEXURE A AND B) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER ABOVE
NAMED IS CONCERNED; B. QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN
CC NO.39217/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
POLICE CCB FOR O/P/U/S 149, 420, 465, 467, 471, 468 OF IPC
1860 WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE I
ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY (I.E ANNEXURE C) IN
SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED IS CONCERNED; C.
QUASH THE COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 30.11.2024 IN CC
NO.3921/2024 ARISING OUT OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.03/2024
REGISTERED WITH CCB, BENGALURU CITY, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, BENGALURU CITY FOR
THE O/P/U/S 149, 420, 465, 467, 471, 468 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS
THE PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED AS CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-E).
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Conglomeration of these cases arise out of three different
crimes alleged against the petitioners/accused, one of whom is
common in most of the cases while the other two are different
12
accused. Since crimes are different, I deem it appropriate to notice
the facts in each of the petitions and the challenge that they have
raised.
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
Five criminal petitions are preferred by one Yousuf. S. They
are Criminal Petition Nos. 11335 of 2023, 12267 of 2023, 12268 of
2023, 12269 of 2023 and 6418 of 2025. Crl.P.Nos. 712 of 2024
and 12581 of 2023 are preferred by accused Nos.2 and 3 in respect
of Crime No.142 of 2023.
Criminal Petition No.11335 of 2023:
2.1 On 07-09-2018, one M/s Jagadish Advertising Company
belonging to the 2nd respondent/complainant is said to have
received a show cause notice from the Director General of GST
Intelligence, Bengaluru Zonal Unit demanding payment of
₹13,06,07,173/-. The said show cause notice comes to be
challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.7801 of 2020. The
said writ petition was allowed in terms of the order dated
13
19-08-2020 and about ₹4.15 crores was waived for tax credit. The
2nd respondent/complainant files another petition in Writ Petition
No.10415 of 2020 in connection with making payment of GST dues.
The 2nd respondent/complainant is said to have paid ₹1.75 crores in
cash to the petitioner for the purpose of remittance of GST. When
the GST was not paid and cash not returned, a complaint comes to
be registered before the jurisdictional Police on 19-07-2023, which
becomes a crime in Crime No.142 of 2023 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 419, 420, 120B and 34 of the IPC.
Aggrieved by the registration of crime, the present petition is
preferred.
Criminal Petition No.12267 of 2023:
2.2. This petition is by the same petitioner as in Criminal
Petition No.11335 of 2023. The complainant is different. The facts
in the case at hand are that the petitioner purchases a flat bearing
Flat No.2 in Swiss Castle building, 7th Cross, Malleshwaram,
Bengaluru from the 2nd respondent/complainant on 22-11-2019. It
is the case of the petitioner that on 12-08-2021, one Deekshit U
and others got a sale agreement executed coercively in their favour
14
from the hands of the petitioner. The petitioner registers a crime in
Crime No.124 of 2022 against the said Deekshit U and others. The
petitioner then files O.S.No.6785 of 2022 against the said Deekshit
U and others seeking specific performance. In the interregnum, the
petititioner is said to have issued several cheques in respect of the
subject flat amounting to ₹ 40 lakhs to respondent No.2, which are
dishonoured. The allegation in the complaint is that the petitioner
asks the 2nd respondent - complainant to pay a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs
towards GST settlement. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have
blackmailed respondent No.2 when she demanded the GST
settlement be done and the amount due from the hands of the
petitioner to be repaid to the complainant. The complaint thus
comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent, the original vendor
on 16-09-2023, which becomes a crime in Crime No.222 of 2023
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 406, 420
and 34 of the IPC. Since the petitioner had already approached this
Court in Criminal Petition No.11335 of 2023, this petition is also
preferred on the same grounds and proceedings are stayed.
15
Criminal Petition No.12268 of 2023:
2.3. This petition is also preferred by the same petitioner as
in Criminal Petition No.11335 of 2023 and Criminal Petition
No.12267 of 2023. The complainant is different. Facts in the case
at hand revolve round the same purchase of flat and suit filed
against Deekshit U and others. The petitioner is said to have
approached the 2nd respondent - complainant on the pretext of
helping him avail a loan. Later, the complainant finds out that the
petitioner has availed a loan of ₹2.4 crores by making the
complainant the guarantor to the said loan. The said loan is utilized
for the purchase of the subject flat. The petitioner is said to have
used the documents of the 2nd respondent - complainant and
submitted the same for the purpose of availing the loan.
Respondent No.2 - complainant then registers a complaint before
respondent No.1 - Police, which becomes a crime in Crime No.234
of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 406
and 420 of the IPC. The said crime is called in question in the case
at hand.
16
Criminal Petition No.12269 of 2023:
2.4. The petitioner remains the same as in the other three
petitions supra. The complainant is different. In the case at hand,
the petitioner is said to have approached the 2nd respondent -
complainant and taken money amounting to ₹ 5 lakhs on the
promise of helping him buy a car. Respondent No.2 registers a
complaint after the transaction had failed, which becomes a crime
in Crime No.208 of 2023 for the offences punishable under Sections
506, 504 and 420 of the IPC. This crime is called in question in the
present petition.
Criminal Petition No.12581 of 2023:
2.5. The petitioner in the case at hand is accused No.4 in
Crime No.142 of 2023 which is the crime challenged in Criminal
Petition No.11335 of 2023 supra. Therefore, he is a co-accused to
Yousuf S., who is accused No.1 in the said case. Therefore, the
facts that are narrated in the said petition would cover the facts
obtaining in the case at hand as well. Separate narration of facts
would not be required.
17
Criminal Petition No.712 of 2024:
2.6. The petitioner in this case is accused No.3 in the crime
that is challenged in Criminal Petition No.11335 of 2023. Therefore,
the same facts would become applicable to the case of this
petitioner as well.
Criminal Petition No.6418 of 2025:
2.7. This case arises out of crime in Crime No.3 of 2024
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467,
468, 471, 420 r/w 149 of the IPC. The distinguishing facts in the
case at hand are that by the time the present petition was
preferred, a charge sheet was filed against the petitioner/accused
No.2 - Yousuf S. and is pending as C.C.No.39217 of 2024 for the
offences as aforementioned. The petitioner is said to have taken
money amounting to ₹ 15 lakhs from the 2nd respondent -
complainant and promised her that he would help her become a
member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission. The
18
allegation in the complaint is that the accused have forged the note
of the Chief Minister and defrauded the complainant.
3. Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Petition Nos. 11335 of
2023, 12267 of 2023, 12268 of 2023, 12269 of 2023 and 12581 of
2023; Sri Kempe Gowda C.M., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner in Criminal Petition No.712 of 2024; Sri Siddharth
Suman, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Criminal
Petition No.6418 of 2025; Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 in all the
cases; Sri Rajath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in
all the cases except Criminal Petition No.6418 of 2025, in which
Sri Umesh, learned counsel appears for respondent No.2.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri D.R. Ravishankar appearing
for the petitioners, except in Criminal Petition Nos. 712 of 2024 and
6418 of 2025, would vehemently contend that the complaints so
registered against the petitioners do not make out any offence,
much less, the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. He
would submit that the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the
19
IPC cannot co-exist, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court
in the case of DELHI RACE CLUB v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. The learned senior counsel would
take this Court through the documents appended to the petitions to
demonstrate that the issue of tax concerning M/s Jagadish
Advertising Company was the subject matter of Writ Petition
No.7801 of 2020, in which a coordinate Bench has reduced the
amount of tax as demanded, to a large extent. Therefore, M/s
Jagadish Advertising Company was the beneficiary of the order. It
cannot be said that the petitioner is involved in any event, post the
said order. He would submit that Crime No.142 of 2023, which
concerns 3 of the accused - petitioners in some of these petitions,
must be obliterated on the ground of inherent improbability and the
issue being purely out of financial transaction between the parties.
This is the submission of the learned senior counsel qua other
petitions of other accused. Learned senior counsel would submit
that the parties to the lis are also before the Civil Court in a few of
these cases. The matter being adjudicated before the Civil Court,
the crime must not be permitted to be continued, as the matter is
20
purely civil in nature and the criminal law must not be set into
motion or continued.
5. The learned counsel Sri Siddharth Suman appearing for the
petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6418 of 2025 arising out of
C.C.No.39217 of 2024 would vehemently contend that none of the
allegations so made against the petitioner/accused No.2 would
meet the ingredients of offences so alleged. He would submit that
the criminal proceedings are vexatious and must not be permitted
to continue, more so in the light of the fact that there is an unseen
hand of a powerful officer behind all the investigations and crimes
that are registered.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Rajath appearing for
the respondents in some of these cases would vehemently refute
the submission to contend that the intention to cheat the
complainants has been the modus operandi of the accused right
from the beginning. He would submit that the matters are still at
the stage of crime and the allegations made clearly make out the
offences. Therefore, he would submit that this Court must not
interfere at this stage of the proceedings. Investigation must be
21
permitted to be continued. He would take cue from the charge
sheet filed against the very person Yousuf S., in C.C.No.39217 of
2024, which is challenged in Criminal Petition No.6418 of 2025 to
contend that the role of each accused is clearly spelt out in the
charge sheet concerning the said proceedings, as to what they have
done. On a perusal at the summary of the said charge sheet, none
can say that it is not a matter of trial. He would, in all, seek
dismissal of these petitions and permit investigation to be
conducted and the final report filed in their cases as well.
7. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri B.N. Jagadeesha would vehemently contend that 6 of the
matters are pending in crime stage. It is only in one of the cases -
C.C.No.39217 of 2024 that the charge sheet is filed. A perusal at
the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.39217 of 2024 indicates that the
ingredients of the offences alleged are met and the charge sheet
pins down every accused. The accused have formed a cartel to
deceive the complainants. He would seek dismissal of the petitions.
8. Learned counsel Sri Umesh appearing for respondent No.2
in Criminal Petition No.6418 of 2025 would toe the lines of the
22
learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in all the other cases and the
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor in contending that the
charge sheet in C.C.No.39217 of 2024 pins down every accused. He
would, thus, seek dismissal of the petition.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
10. 6 of the 7 petitions are still at the stage of crime. I deem
it appropriate to notice them crime wise. One of the crimes is Crime
No.142 of 2023, which is called in question in Criminal Petition
Nos.11335 of 2023, 12581 of 2023 and 714 of 2024, wherein the
complainant is one Ashwin P. The issue relates to payment of GST
and the involvement of the petitioners/accused is clearly set out in
the complaint. The complaint in Crime No.142 of 2023 reads as
follows:
"EªÀjUÉ
ೕ ಇ ೆಕ ,
ಮ ೇಶ ರಂ ೕ ಾ ೆ,
ಉತರ ಾಗ,
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ.
23
#ಾನ$%ೇ,
ಷಯ: ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ಎಂಬುವನು 0.ಎ .1 ಅ34ಾ56ಂದು ಪ5ಚಯ
#ಾ:4ೊಂಡು ಇತ%ೆ ಆ%ೋ=ಗ>ೆ ಂ?@ೆ ಒಳಸಂಚು ನBೆC ನನ@ೆ ನಂDC 1
4ೋ1 80 ಲF ರೂ ಾGಗಳH ವಂಚIೆ #ಾ:ರುವ ಬ@ೆJ KLMನN OಕದPQ
Rಾಖ ಸಲು ದೂರು.
****<><><>****
ಅT .=. ಾಟVW , ಜಗ?ೕY, ಅಡ -ೈCಂ[, ನಂ. 10/\ಾ$ಂK ರ\ೆ, D:ಎ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು
ಕ]ೇ5ಯ ಹ_ರ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ >ಾಸದ Iಾನು ಈ 4ೆಳಕಂಡಂaೆ ನನV ದೂರನುV bೕಡು_RೆPೕIೆ.
1. ಅT .=. ಆದ Iಾನು ಜಗ?ೕY, ಅಡ -ೈCಂ[ ನ cಂ?bಂದಲೂ ವ$ವdಾರವನುV
#ಾ:4ೊಂಡು ಬಂ?ರುaೇIೆ. ನನV ಈ ವ$ವdಾರ4ೆe ಸಂಬಂ3Cದಂaೆ 2018 ರ ಸ W
-ಾ$f ಕMಷನ ಕ]ೇ5, dೆg.ಎಂ.1.ಭವನ, ಬ>ಾi5 ರ\ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಮತು Bೈ%ೆಕ ,
%ೆ ನೂ$ ಇಂ-ೆ ೇjೆ£ïì, 0.ಎ .1. 4ೆ.dೆg.ರ\ೆ, ೆಂಗಳ ರು ರವರುಗಳH ನನV ಸಂ\ೆk@ೆ
ಸ W -ಾ$f ಕಟು ವ ]ಾರದ lೆmೕ4ಾ Iೋ1ೕ bೕ:ದುP, ನನV ಸಂ\ೆkGಂದ
ಸು#ಾರು 13.5 4ೋ1ಯಷು ಹಣವನುV ಾK ಇಟು 4ೊಂ:ದುP. ಕಟ ೇ4ೆಂಬ ಸ W -ಾ$f
ಕMಷ ರವರ lೆmೕ4ಾ Iೋ1ೕ @ೆ ಉತ5CRೆPೕIೆ ಮತು ನಮo ಸಂ\ೆkಯ ]ಾ-ೆWp
ಅ4ೌಂ-ೆಂp ಮತು ಅಡ 4ೇp ರವರ ಮೂಲಕ dೈ4ೋpW, ೆಂಗಳ 5ನ Iಾ$rಾಲಯದ
4ೇಸು ನBೆಯು_ರುತRೆ.
2. ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ಎಂಬುವರು ನನ@ೆ ಅ4ೊ ೕಬ /2022 ರ ನನV ಕಂಪb@ೆ ಬಂದು
aಾನು 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಇ ಾsೆಯ ಅ34ಾ56ಂದು ಪ5ಚಯ #ಾ:4ೊಂಡರು.
#ಾ:4ೊಂಡರು ಮತು ನನV
ಕಂಪb@ೆ ಸ W -ಾ$f ಕಂಪb@ೆ ಸಂಬಂ3Cದ 2012 5ಂದ 2017 ರವ%ೆ@ೆ ಎ ಾ
Rಾಖ ೆಗಳನುV aೋ5Cದರು.
aೋ5Cದರು ಆಗ Iಾನು ಆ ವ$KಯನುV 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಅ34ಾ56ಂದು
ನಂDRೆನು.
ನಂDRೆನು ಮುಂದುವ%ೆದು ಅIೇಕ ಾ5 Iಾನು ಮತು ಅವರು ಪ5ಚಯದ Qೕ ೆ
ೆಂಗಳ 5ನ 4ೆtೆ 4ಾuBೇ,
4ಾuBೇ ಮಲ$ ರ\ೆ.
ರ\ೆ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಮತು ಇತ%ೆ ಕBೆ ೇ1 #ಾ:Rಾಗ
ಆತನು 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಅ34ಾ5rಾv ಅIೇಕ ಜನ5@ೆ ಇ ಾsೆಯ -ಾ$f ಗಳ ]ಾರದ
ಸdಾಯ #ಾ:ರುವwRಾv ಉRಾಹರ ೆಗಳನುV 4ೊಟು ನನVನುV ನಂDCದುP. ನಂತರ ನನV
ಕಂಪb@ೆ ಸಂಬಂ3Cದಂaೆ,
ಸಂಬಂ3Cದಂaೆ ಇದP ಸಮ\ೆ$ಯನುV ಪ5ಹ5ಸಲು ತಮo ಬx ಅ34ಾ5ಗಳH ಮತು
ಇತ%ೆಯವರು ಇರುವwRಾv _xCದರು.
_xCದರು
24
3. Qೕಲeಂಡ ವ$Kಯು ನಂತರದ ?ನಗಳ ಅಂದ%ೆ ಅ4ೊ ೕಬ _ಂಗಳ 4ೊIೆಯ yಾರದ
ಅಥyಾ ನyೆಂಬ OದಲIೇ yಾರದ ನನ@ೆ ಅ IಾY ಮತು ಪLlಾಂ| #ಾರು_
ಎಂಬುವರನುV ಸಹ ಪ5ಚಯC,
ಪ5ಚಯC ಅವರು ಈ Oದಲು ೆಂಗಳ 5ನ 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಇ ಾsೆಯ
ಕMಷನ ಆv 4ೆಲಸ #ಾ:ದP. Tyಾ0 ಎ Bಾಂ@ೆ ಎಂಬ ಕMಷನ , ಆ:p : ಜ ,
ಸೂರ|,
ಸೂರ| ರವ5@ೆ ಹ_ರದ
ಹ_ರದ ವ$Kಗ>ೆಂದು ಮತು ಸಂಬಂ3ಗ>ೆಂದು ಪ5ಚGC4ೊಂಡು ಅವರ
ಮೂಲಕ ºÁ° ಸೂರ| ನ 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಇ ಾsೆಯ 4ೆಲಸ #ಾಡು_ರುವ Tyಾ0 ಎ
Bಾಂ@ೆ ರವ5@ೆ ೕ ಮೂಲಕ #ಾತIಾ:Cದರು
#ಾತIಾ:Cದರು.
Cದರು ಅವರು ನನ@ೆ ೕ ನ ಸೂರ|@ೆ
ಸೂರ|@ೆ
Qೕಲeಂಡ ಮೂರು ಜನರ jೊaೆ@ೆ ಬಂದ #ಾತIಾ: ನನV ಸಮ\ೆ$ಯನುV ಇ ಾsೆಯ
ಾsೆಯ
ಮೂಲಕyೇ ೆಂಗಳ 5ನ.
5ನ 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಅ34ಾ5ಗ>ೆ ಂ?@ೆ ಚ}WC ಬ@ೆಹ5C4ೊಡುವwRಾv
_xCದರು.
_xCದರು ಈ ಎ ಾ ೆಳವ~@ೆಗಳH ಮತು ಸಂಪಕWಗxಂದ ಮತು Rಾಖ ೆಗxಂದ Iಾನು
ಯೂಸು* ರವರನುV 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಅ34ಾ56ಂದು ನಂD ಮತು ಅವರು ಪ5ಚಯ #ಾ:ದ
ಅ IಾY ಮತು ಪLlಾಂ| ರವರು Tyಾ0 ಎ Bಾಂ@ೆ ರವ5@ೆ ಸಂಬಂ3ಕ%ೆಂದು
ಕಂಡುಬಂ?ದP5ಂದ Iಾನು ಯೂಸು* ರವರು dೇxದಂaೆ ಸೂರ| @ೆ dೋv Bಾಂ@ೆ ರವರನುV
ೇ1 #ಾಡಲು ಒ=•4ೊಂqÉ.
4. ಅದರಂaೆ ?: 16/11/2022 ರಂದು Iಾನು,
Iಾನು %ಾ4ೇY (ನನV
ನನV ಸdೋದರ),
ಸdೋದರ ಅ IಾY,
IಾY
ಯೂಸು* ರವರುಗಳH ನನV ಕಂಪbಯಂದ ೇ ೆಂಗಳ 5bಂದ ಸೂರ|@ೆ
ಸೂರ|@ೆ ಏ 14ೆp ಬುf
#ಾ: Iಾಲುe ಜನರು dೋv TyಾC ಎ Bಾಂ@ೆ ರವರನುV ೇ1 #ಾ:Rೆವw.
#ಾ:Rೆವw
5. ಸೂರ|ನ
ಸೂರ|ನ Iಾಲುe ಜನರನುV ೇ1 #ಾ:ದ Tyಾ0 ಎ . Bಾಂ@ೆ,
Bಾಂ@ೆ ಕMಷನ , 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1
ರವರು ನಮo 4ೇC@ೆ ಸಂಬಂ3Cದ Rಾಖ ೆಗಳನುV Iೋ: 4ೋ1Wನ _ೕಪwWಗಳನುV _xC
ನಮ@ೆ ಆ yೇ>ೆ@ಾಗ ೇ ಸ C4ೊಂ:ದP S.V.L.D.R.S ¹ÌêÀiï£À ನಮ@ೆ ಸಂಪ•ಣWyಾv
Iಾವw ಸ4ಾWರ4ೆe ಕಟ ೇ4ಾದ ಶುಲeವನುV IಾG_ #ಾ:C4ೊಡುವwRಾv dೇx ಅದ4ೆe
ಅವರ ಾವIಾದ ಪLlಾಂ| ಮತು ಆತನ jೊaೆ@ೆ ಬಂ?ರುವ ಅ IಾY ಮತು ಯೂಸು*
ರವ%ೊಂ?@ೆ ಇನುV½ದ ]ಾ%ೆಗಳನುV #ಾತIಾಡುವಂaೆ _xCದರು.
_xCದರು
6. ಆ ಪL4ಾರ ೆಂಗಳ 5@ೆ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ
ನಂತರ ಒಂದು ?ನ ಯೂಸು*,
ಯೂಸು* ಅ IಾY ಮತು ಪLlಾಂ|
ರವರನುV ಯೂಸು* ರವರ ಮ ೇಶ ರಂನ ಕ]ೇ5ಯ ೇ1 #ಾ:Rೆ. ಯೂಸು* ರವರು
#ಾ:Rೆ (ಯೂಸು*
ಒಬ, 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಸ4ಾW5 ಅ34ಾ5rಾv ಒಂದು yಾg ಕಂಪbಯನುV ನBೆಸು_RಾP%ೆಂದು
_xCದPರು)
ು ಆಗ ಈ ಮೂರು ಜನರು ಸ4ಾW5 0.ಎ
ಎ . 1.
1 ಕ]ೇ5ಯ ರುವ ನನV ಕಂಪbಯ
ಕಂಪbಯ
lೆmೕ4ಾ Iೋ1ೕಸನುV under S.V.L.D.R.S scheme by using TRAN-1
Credit bಂದ 4ೇಸನುV ಪ•ಣWyಾv ಇ ಾsೆಯ ಅ34ಾ5ಗಳ ಸdಾಯ?ಂದ 4ೋ
#ಾ:C4ೊಡುವwRಾv ನಂDC,
ನಂDC ಅದ4ೆe 4 4ೋ1 ಹಣವನುV 4ೊಡ ೇ4ೆಂದು,
ೇ4ೆಂದು ಅದರ ಈ
25
Qೕ ೆ dೇxದ Iಾಲುe ಜನ5@ೆ ಒಟು 2 4ೋ1 ಹಣವನುV ಲಂಚyಾv 4ೊಡುವಂaೆ 4ೇxದರು.
4ೇxದರು
ಅದ4ೆe Iಾನು ಅವರ jೊaೆ@ೆ ನಮo ಕಂಪbGಂದ ಅಷು ಹಣ 4ೊಡಲು ಆಗುವw?ಲyೆಂದು
dೇxRಾಗ 1.75 4ೋ1@ೆ ಒ=•4ೊಂಡು ಆ ಹಣವನುV ಕೂಡ ೇ ನಗದು ರೂಪದ 4ೊಟ
ಒಂದು _ಂಗಳ ಒಳ@ಾv 0ಎ 1 ಇ ಾsೆGಂದ ನನ@ೆ rಾವwRೇ ಾK ಇಲyೆಂದು
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಅ34ಾ5Gಂದ ಈ Oದಲು 4ೊ1 ದP lೆmೕ4ಾ
lೆmೕ4ಾ Iೋ1ೕ ನುV yಾಪಸು
ಪBೆಯಲು ಮತು 4ೇಸು ಮು4ಾಯ #ಾಡುವ ಆRೇಶವನುV 4ೊ:ಸುವwRಾv ನಂDCದರು.
ನಂDCದರು ಈ
ಎ ಾ ೆಳವ~@ೆಗxಂದ Iಾನು ನಂD ಅವರು 4ೇxದಂaೆ 1.75 4ೋ1 ಹಣವನುV ನನV
caೈƒಗಳH,
caೈƒಗಳH, \ೆVೕcತರು ಮತು ಸಂಬಂ3ಕರುಗಳ ಕBೆGಂದ dೊಂ?C4ೊಂಡು ನyೆಂಬ
_ಂಗಳ 4ೊIೆಯ yಾರದ ಒಂದು ?ನ Iಾನು
Iಾನು ಯೂಸು* ರವ5@ೆ ಹಣ %ೆ:GRೆ ಬಂದು
aೆ@ೆದು4ೊಂಡು dೋv ಎಂದು dೇxRೆ.
dೇxRೆ ಅದ4ೆe,
ಅದ4ೆe, ಯೂಸು* gÀªÀgÀÄ D yೇ>ೆಯ
ಮIೆಯ ರುವwRಾv ಅ @ೆ ಹಣ ತಲು=ಸುವಂaೆ dೇxದರು.
dೇxದರು ಅದರಂaೆ Iಾನು Dated
21/11/22 at 7:30PM. ಅವರು 4ೊ1 ದP >ಾಸ ಅಂದ%ೆ :.ಎ
ಎ .#ಾ$f
#ಾ$f , C 4ಾ$ಸ N
ಅ ಾpWQಂ
ಾpWQಂp
Qಂp. ಮ ೇಶ ರಂ dೆಸ5ನ >ಾಸ4ೆe dೋv ಅ ರುವ ಅವರ ಮIೆ@ೆ 1.75
4ೋ1 ನಗದು ಹಣವನುV aೆ@ೆದು4ೊಂಡು dೋvRೆPನು.
ು
7.. ಅವರ ಮIೆಯ Iಾನು ಹಣವನುV 4ೊಡುವ Oದಲು ಯೂಸು* jೊaೆ@ೆ #ಾತIಾಡುyಾಗ
Iಾನು ಹಣವನುV dೊಂ?C4ೊಂಡು ಬಂ?ರುವ ಬ@ೆJ dೇx4ೊಳHi_ರುyಾಗ ಆ ಸಮಯದ
ಮIೆಯ ದP ಯೂಸು* ರವರ ತಂRೆ.
ತಂRೆ aಾG ಮತು ಯೂಸು* ರವರ dೆಂಡ_ ರವರು ಸಹ
ನIೊVಂ?@ೆ #ಾತIಾ:ದರು.
#ಾತIಾ:ದರು ಮತು ತಮo ಮಗ / ಗಂಡ ಅIೇಕ ೇ%ೆ ೇ%ೆ
ಅ34ಾ5ಗ>ೆ ಂ?@ೆ bಕಟ ಸಂಪಕW ಇಟು 4ೊಂ:RಾP%ೆ.ೆ ೆಂಗಳ 5ನ ಮುಖ$ಮಂ_LಗಳH
ಮತು ಅವರ ಮIೆಯವರ jೊaೆ@ೆ ಮತು ಅIೇಕ ಮಂ_Lಗಳ jೊaೆ@ೆ ಉತಮ
ಸಂಪಕW ಟು 4ೊಂ:RಾP%ೆಂದು dೇಳH_RಾPಗ ಯೂಸು* ರವರು ಅವರ O ೈNbಂದ
ೈNbಂದ
ಅIೇಕ D.jೆ
jೆ.=
jೆ = ಪFದ %ಾಜ4ಾರ~ಗ>ೆ ಂ?@ೆ ಸಂಪಕWದ ಬ@ೆJ ೕ-ೋಗಳನುV
aೋ5Cದರು.
aೋ5Cದರು ಅಲRೆ Iಾನು 4ೊಡು_ರುವ ಹಣ4ೆe ಅವರ dೆಂಡ_ ಮತು ತಂRೆ-aಾGಗಳH
ತಂRೆ aಾGಗಳH
ಸಹ,
ಸಹ dೇxದ #ಾತುಗxಂದ Iಾನು ಸಂಪ•ಣWyಾv ಯೂಸು† ಒಬ, 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಸ4ಾW5
ಅ34ಾ5 ಮತು ನಂDಕಸk ವ$K6ಂದು ನಂDRೆ.
ನಂDRೆ ಆತನ ಮೂಲಕ ನನಗೂ ಮತು 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1
ಕಂಪbಗೂ -ಾ$f ನ ]ಾರದ ರುವ ಸಮ\ೆ$ಯು ಇ ಾsೆಯ ಅ34ಾ5ಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ
4ಾನೂನುಬದ‡yಾv ಮು4ಾಯ@ೊಳHiತRೆ ಎಂದು ನಂD ಆ ?ನ ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದಸ$ರ
ಮುಂRೆ Iಾನು aೆ@ೆದು4ೊಂಡು dೋvದP 1.75 4ೋ1 ನಗದು ಹಣವನುV
ಹಣವನುV ಯೂಸು* ಕBೆ@ೆ
bೕ:Rೆ.
bೕ:Rೆ ಆ ಹಣವನುV dೇxದಂaೆ ಆತನ ತಂRೆ,
ತಂRೆ, aಾG ಮತು dೆಂಡ_ dಾಗೂ ಯೂಸು*
ರವರು ಒ1 @ೆ ಕುxತು ೆಕedಾK aೆ@ೆದು4ೊಂಡರು. ಅವರನುV Iಾನು Iೋ:ದ%ೆ
aೆ@ೆದು4ೊಂಡರು (ಅವರನುV
ಗು_WಸುaೇIೆ)
ಗು_WಸುaೇIೆ
26
8. ಇRಾದ ನಂತರ ಯೂಸು† ಮತು ಇತ%ೆಯವರು ನನ@ೆ dೇxದಂaೆ Iಾನು ಸು#ಾರು ಒಂದು
_ಂಗಳH ಸಂಪಕWದ ದುP, ನನV 4ೇCನ ಬ@ೆJ ]ಾ5ಸು_RೆPನು.
ು ಅದ4ೆe ಯೂಸು* ರವರು
ಅIೇಕ 4ಾರಣಗಳನುV 4ೊಟು ಈ@ಾಗ ೇ ಅ IಾY,
IಾY ಪLlಾಂ| ಮತು TyಾC ಎ Bಾಂ@ೆ
ರವರು ಅ34ಾ5ಗಳ jೊaೆ@ೆ #ಾತIಾಡು_ದುP, ಸದ$ದ 6ೕ ಮು4ಾಯ
#ಾ:C4ೊಡುaಾ%ೆ.
#ಾ:C4ೊಡುaಾ%ೆ ಅದ4ೆe ಇನುVxದ 2.25 4ೋ1 ಹಣವನುV ಅವ5@ೆ 4ೊಡಲು
dೊಂ?C4ೊಂ:5
dೊಂ?C4ೊಂ:5 ಎಂದು ನಂDC 4ಾಲಹರಣ #ಾ:ದರು.
#ಾ:ದರು
9. ಆದ%ೆ ನyೆಂಬ _ಂಗxನ ಹಣ ಪBೆದ ಯೂಸು* ರವರು ಕ>ೆದ 6-7 _ಂಗಳ ಅವರು
dೇxದಂaೆ 4ೆಲಸವನುV #ಾ:4ೊಡ ಲ ಮತು #ಾ:4ೊಡುವಂaೆ ಕಂಡುಬರ ಲ.
ಲ Iಾನು
ಯೂಸು*,
ಯೂಸು* ಅ IಾY ಮತು ಪLlಾಂ| ರವರನುV O ೈNನ
ೈNನ ಸಂಪKWಸಲು
ಪLಯ_VCRಾಗ
ಪLಯ_VCRಾಗ ಅವರು ನನV ಕ%ೆಗx@ೆ ಉತ5ಸ ಲ.
ಲ ಇದ5ಂದ @ಾಬ5@ೊಂಡ Iಾನು
ಯೂಸು* ರವರನುV ಸ ತಃ ೇ1 #ಾಡಲು ಅವರ >ಾಸದ ಬx@ೆ dೋRಾಗ ಯೂಸು*.
ಯೂಸು*
ರವರು ಸ4ಾW5 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಇ ಾsೆಯ ಅ34ಾ5ಯಲyೆಂದು ಮೂಲತಃ ಈತನು
4ಾಸರ@ೋಡು,
4ಾಸರ@ೋಡು 4ೇರಳ %ಾಜ$ದವIೆಂದು ಈ@ಾಗ ೇ ಅIೇಕ ಜನ5@ೆ ಇRೇ 5ೕ_ ವಂಚIೆ
#ಾ:RಾPIೆಂದು ಆ@ಾಗJ ಜನರು ಈತನನುV ಹುಡುK4ೊಂಡು ಬರುaಾ%ೆಂದು _xದುಬಂತು.
_xದುಬಂತು
10. ಆದP5ಂದ ನನVನುV 1Iೇ
Iೇ ಆ%ೋ= ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ಎಂಬುವನು 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಇ ಾsೆಯ
ಅ34ಾ56ಂದು ನಂDC,
ನಂDC ಅ IಾY,
IಾY ಪLlಾಂ| ಮತು Tyಾ0 ಎ Bಾಂ@ೆ ರವರನುV
aೋ5C ಮತು ನನV 4ೇC
4ೇCನ Rಾಖ ೆಗಳನುV ಇಟು 4ೊಂಡು ನಂDC ನbVಂದ 1.75 4ೋ1
ನಗದು ಹಣವನುV ಪBೆದು rಾವwRೇ 4ೆಲಸ #ಾ:4ೊಡRೆ ವಂಚIೆ #ಾ:ರುವwದು
ಕಂಡುಬಂತು.
ಕಂಡುಬಂತು ನಂತರ Iಾನು ಈ ]ಾರದ ಅವರ Qೕ ೆ ಕಂ ೆಂp 4ೊಡುaೇIೆಂದು
dೇxRಾಗ ಯೂಸು* ನನ@ೆ ಒಂದು ]ೆfನುV
]ೆfನುV 4ೊ1 ರುaಾIೆ.
ರುaಾIೆ ಈ Qೕಲeಂಡಂaೆ ನನ@ೆ ನಂ©4ೆ
RೊLೕಹ #ಾ: ವಂಚIೆ #ಾಡಲು ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ಒಳಸಂಚು ನBೆC.
ನBೆC ಹಣ
¥ÀBೆ?ರುವ
Bೆ?ರುವ Qೕಲeಂಡ ಎ ಾ ಆ%ೋ=ಗಳ ರುದ‡ 4ಾನೂನು ಬದ‡ ಕLಮ 4ೈ@ೊಳi ೇ4ೆಂದು ಈ
ಮೂಲಕ ದೂರು 4ೊ1 ರುaೇIೆ. Iೇ ಆ%ೋ= ಮತು ಆತನ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು yಾಸ #ಾಡುವ
ರುaೇIೆ 1Iೇ
ಸkಳ ಮತು Iಾನು 1.75 4ೋ1 ನಗದು ಹಣವನುV 4ೊಟ ಸkಳವw ಮ ೇಶ ರಂ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ಸರಹ?P@ೆ
@ೆ \ೇ5ದP5ಂದ ಈ ದೂರು bೕಡು_RೆPೕIೆ.
Iೆ ನನV ಈ ದೂ5@ೆ ಸಂಬಂ?Cದಂaೆ
ಅಗತ$yಾದ \ಾ‰ಾŠಾರಗಳನುV ತbsೆಯ ಒದvಸಲು Cದ‡bRೆPೕIೆ.
Iೆ ಇದ%ೊಂ?@ೆ ?:
16/11/2022 ರಂದು Iಾನು ಮತು ಆ%ೋ=ಗಳH ೆಂಗಳ 5bಂದ ಸೂರ|@ೆ
ಸೂರ|@ೆ ಪLrಾಣ
#ಾ:ದ ಬ@ೆJ. ನನಗೂ ಮತು 1Iೇ
Iೇ ಆ%ೋ=ಗೂ ನBೆ?ರುವ #ಾತುಕaೆಗಳ
#ಾತುಕaೆಗಳ O ೈN
yಾ-ಾ † ಕ%ೆಗಳ ಪL_ಯನುV dಾಗೂ ನನVನುV ನಂDಸಲು ಮತು ವಂ}ಸಲು aೋ5Cದ
%ಾಜ4ಾರ~ಗಳ ೕ-ೋಗಳನುV ಇದ%ೊಂ?@ೆ ಲಗ_CರುaೇIೆ.
ಲಗ_CರುaೇIೆ ಈ ಬ@ೆJ Iಾನು ನನV
caೈƒಗಳ ಸಮFಮದ ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ರವರನುV ನನV ಹಣ yಾಪಸು bೕಡುವ ಬ@ೆJ
27
4ೇxRಾಗ ನನV 4ೆಲಸ ನೂರ4ೆe ನೂರರಷು
ನೂರರಷು #ಾಡು4ೊಡುವwRಾv,
#ಾಡು4ೊಡುವwRಾv ಒಂದು yೇ>ೆ ಆಗ?ದP%ೆ
ಆತIೆ ಈ ವ$ವdಾರ4ೆe ಜyಾ ಾPರIೆಂದು ಒ=•4ೊಂಡು caೈƒಗಳ ಮುಂRೆ ಆತನ dೆಸ5ನ
\ಾ ಂಡ‹W ]ಾಟWqïð ಾ$ಂf,
ಾ$ಂf, ಎಂ.0
ಎಂ 0.%ೋ‹
%ೋ‹,
%ೋ‹ ೆಂಗಳ ರು lಾsೆಯ ರುವ ಆತನ
ಅ4ೌಂp ನಂ.
ನಂ 45610979567 sಾaೆಯ "000017" ಈ ನಂಬ5ನ ]ೆfನುV
]ೆfನುV (Oತ
Oತ 1
4ೋ1 80 ಲF ರೂ ಾGಗಳH)
ಾGಗಳH ನನ@ೆ ನಂD4ೆಯ Qೕ ೆ 4ೊ1 RಾP%ೆ.ೆ ಈ ಬ@ೆJ ಸಹ Iಾನು
4ೇxRಾಗ ಇದುವ%ೆ ಗೂ 4ಾಲಹರಣ #ಾ:4ೊಂಡು ]ೆfನುV
]ೆfನುV ಾ$ಂf@ೆ
ಾ$ಂf@ೆ dಾಕದಂaೆ ಮತು
ಾ$ಂKನ ಅಷು ಹಣ ಲyೆಂದು ಸುಳHi dೇಳHaಾ ನನ@ೆ Qೕಲeಂಡ Oತ4ೆe Oೕಸ
#ಾಡ ೇ4ೆಂಬ ದುರುRೆPೕಶ?ಂದ ಈ ]ೆfನುV
]ೆfನುV bೕ: ವಂಚIೆ #ಾ:ರುaಾ%ೆ
#ಾ:ರುaಾ%ೆ.
ರುaಾ%ೆ ಯೂಸು*
ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ಮತು ಆತನ ಸಹಚರರು dಾಗೂ ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ನbVಂದ
1 4ೋ1 80 ಲF ರೂ ಾG ಹಣವನುV ಪBೆಯಲು ಮತು ವಂಚIೆ #ಾಡಲು ಎ ಾ
ಆ%ೋ=ಗಳH ಸ#ಾನ ದುರುRೆPೕಶ?ಂದ ಒಳಸಂಚು ನBೆC ನನ@ೆ ನಂD4ೆ ಬರುವಂaೆ
ಒ ೊ,5@ೊಬ,ರು ಸಹಕ5C ಇದುವ%ೆ ಗೂ ನನV 4ೆಲಸ #ಾ:4ೊಡRೆ ಮತು ಹಣ yಾಪಸು
4ೊಡRೆ ವಂಚIೆ #ಾ:ರುaಾ%ೆ.
#ಾ:ರುaಾ%ೆ
11. ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ಮತು ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು ೆಂಗಳ 5ನ Qೕಲeಂಡ >ಾಸದ
yಾಸyಾvರುವwRಾv _xCದPರೂ ಸಹ ಇದುವ%ೆ ಗೂ ಆ >ಾಸದ sಾಯಂ ಆv
yಾಸyಾvಲyೆಂತಲೂ, ಅವರು ಸ ಂತ ಸkಳyಾದ 4ಾಸರ@ೋ:ನ ಹxiŒಂದರ
yಾಸyಾvRಾP%ೆಂದು ಜನರನುV ವಂಚIೆ #ಾಡಲು Qೕಲeಂಡ >ಾಸವನುV
ಉಪŒೕvಸು_ರುವwRಾv ಸಹ _xದುಬಂ?ರುತRೆ. ಇನುVxದ ಇತ%ೆ ಆ%ೋ=ಗಳH ಸಹ
ನಮo %ಾಜ$ದ yಾCಗ>ಾvರುವw?ಲ.
12. ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ಎಂಬ ಪLಮುಖ ಆ%ೋ=ಯು ಈ Oದಲು ದು ೈನ ವ$ವdಾರು
#ಾಡು_ದುP, ಅ°èನ ಜನ5@ೆ ವಂಚIೆ #ಾ: 4ೋpW ಗಳ 4ೇಸು ಇದPರೂ
ತ ೆಮ5C4ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು yಾಸyಾvRಾPyೆಂದು ಖ}ತyಾv _xದುಬಂ?ದುP, ಈ ಬ@ೆJಯೂ
ಸಹ ಆತನ ಬ@ೆJ ತbsೆ #ಾಡಲು 4ೋ5RೆPೕIೆ. ಈತನು ೆಂಗಳ 5ನ ಅIೇಕ ಜನ5@ೆ ಇRೇ
5ೕ_ ವಂಚIೆ #ಾ:ರುವwRಾv ಖ}ತyಾv _xದುಬಂ?ದುP, ತಮo ತbsೆ 4ಾಲದ ಆ
\ಾ•ಗಳನುV ಮತು Rಾಖ ೆಗಳನುV ತಮ@ೆ ಒದvಸುaೇIೆ.
ಆ%ೋ=ಗಳ dೆಸರು & >ಾಸ:
1) ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬು,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ , ನಂ.2. :.ಎ .#ಾ$f , C | 4ಾ$ಸ N ಅ ಾpW Qಂp,
ಮ ೇಶ ರಂ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÉÆ.£ÀA. 9844441177.
28
2) JA.C«£Á±ï, 42 ªÀµÀð, DzÁgÀ PÁqïð £ÀA.450686195632. ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï £ÀA.
9008320208 & 8904901856
3) ಪLlಾಂ| #ಾರು_, ಆŠಾರ 4ಾ‹W ನಂ. 792582801280 O ೈN ನಂ.
9823524700
4) Tyಾ0 ಎ Bಾಂ@ೆ, ಕMಷನ , 0.ಎ .1 ಸೂರ|
5) 1Iೇ ಆ%ೋ= ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ರವರ ತಂRೆ, aಾG ಮತು dೆಂಡ_ ರವರ dೆಸರು
>ಾಸ _xಯ ೇ4ಾvRೆ."
The allegation is that the accused introduced themselves as officers
of the GST, promised to get the work done under Sabka Vishwas
(Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 and towards the said
work to be done, the complainant parts with ₹1.75 crores.
Therefore, the complaint narrates that there was an intention to
cheat the complainant right from the beginning. The complaint
further narrates that the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.11335 of
2023 - Yousuf S., introduces the complainant to the petitioner in
Criminal Petition No.714 of 2024 - Avinash, the co-accused who
was projected to be a close aid of Sri Shivaji Dange, GST Audit
Commissioner, who is also arrayed as accused in the crime. Yousuf
S. then is said to have projected photographs of him being close to
prominent political leaders and officers belonging to the GST
Department to make the complainant believe that issues regarding
29
GST could be solved and further indicated that in the event the
complainant would not cooperate with the accused coercive action
including arrest could come about. With all these facts brought out
in the complaint, the complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.142 of
2023. Therefore, the alleged GST fraud forms the fulcrum in
Criminal Petition Nos.11335 of 2023, 12581 of 2023 and 714 of
2024.
10. Another set of petitions in Crl.P.Nos.12267 of 2023,
12268 of 2023 and 12269 of 2023 are concerning Crime Nos.222 of
2023, 234 of 2023 and 208 of 2023, respectively. The complainants
registers complaints before the jurisdictional police alleging habitual
cheating by Yousuf S. The complaints so made by different
complainants are required to be noticed.
11. In Criminal Petition No.12267 of 2023, the object of
cheating is in respect of money to be paid by the petitioner qua an
apartment. The apartment is Flat No.2 in Swiss Castle Building, 7th
Cross, Malleshwaram. The allegation is that the petitioner did not
repay money upon demand and further threatened to cause
30
problem in GST payable by respondent No.2 after promising her
that he would help her with GST settlement. The gist of the
complaint in column No.10 of the F.I.R. in Crime No.222 of 2023
pertaining to Criminal Petition No.12267 of 2023 reads as follows:
"ಈ 4ೇCನ \ಾ%ಾಂಶyೇIೆಂದ%ೆ =rಾWದುRಾರ%ಾದ ೕ ಾ Iಾ%ಾಯ• ರವರು ಮdಾಲ•'ಪwರಂ,
yೆ ಆ* 4ಾ‹W %ೋ‹, 2Iೇ ಹಂತ, 2Iೇ. ೇ ನ ರುವ CQf #ಾ$Iೇjೆoಂp ನ
#ಾ$Iೇ0ಂ[ Bೈ%ೆಕ ಆvರುaಾ%ೆ. ಮ ೇಶ ರಂ byಾCrಾvರುವ ಯೂಸು† ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ1 ರವರು
=rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ ಸು#ಾರು ವಷWಗxಂದ ಪ5ಚಯ ರುaಾ%ೆ,
ರುaಾ%ೆ =rಾWದುRಾರರು ಮ ೆಶ ರಂ 7Iೇ
Iೇ
4ಾL ನ ರುವ C 4ಾ$\ೆ N D ಂ[ ನ ರುವ ಾp ನಂ-02
ನಂ ಅನುV ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ
ರವ5@ೆ #ಾ%ಾಟ #ಾ:ರುaಾ%ೆ.
#ಾ:ರುaಾ%ೆ #ಾ%ಾಟದ ಸಮಯದ =LrಾWದುRಾರರು ಸದ5 ಾp @ೆ
ಸಂಬಂ3Cದಂaೆ ಇಂ1ೕ5ಯ ಆv 40 ಲF ರೂ ಹಣವನುV ಖಚುW #ಾ:ರುaಾ%ೆ.
#ಾ:ರುaಾ%ೆ ಯೂಸು*
ಸುಬು,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರು ಸದ5 ಾp ಅನುV 4ೊಂಡು4ೊಳHiyಾಗ ಇಂ1ೕ5ಯ ಖಚುWನುV ಪLaೆ$ೕಕyಾv
4ೊಡುವwRಾv dೇx =rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ ಆ dೆಣ4ೆe ಭದLaೆ@ಾv 40,00,000/- ರೂ Oತದ ]ೆಕನುV
bೕ:ರುaಾ%ೆ.
bೕ:ರುaಾ%ೆ ನಂತರ =rಾWದುRಾರರು ಸದ5 ]ೆf
]ೆf ಅನುV Bೆ ಾCp #ಾ:Rಾಗ,
#ಾ:Rಾಗ ]ೆf ೌ
ಆvರುತRೆ,
ಆvರುತRೆ ಈ ಬ@ೆJ =rಾWದುRಾರರು ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರನುV 4ೇxRಾಗ
dೊಂ?C4ೊಡುaೇIೆಂದು 4ಾರಣಗಳನುV dೇx 4ಾ ಾವ4ಾಶ ಪBೆದು4ೊಂಡರು.
ಪBೆದು4ೊಂಡರು =rಾWದುRಾರರು
ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರ ಬx ಮaೆ ಮaೆ ಹಣ yಾ ಾಸು 4ೊಡುವಂaೆ ಒaಾಯ #ಾ:Rಾಗ
#ಾ:Rಾಗ
ಮaೊಂದು ]ೆf ಅನುV 4ೊ1 ರುaಾ%ೆ.
ರುaಾ%ೆ ನಂತರ =rಾWದುRಾರರು ಪwನಃ ಆ ]ೆf ಅನುV Bೆ ಾCp @ೆ
dಾKRಾಗ ಆ ]ೆf ಕೂBಾ ೌ ಆvರುತRೆ.
ಆvರುತRೆ ಈ ಬ@ೆJ ಾ$ಂf ನ ]ಾ5CRಾಗ ಾ$ಂf ನವರು
\ಾ 'ಂಡpW ]ಾ-ೆW‹ ಾ$ಂf ನ ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ1 ರವರ ಅ4ೌಂp 4ೋ #ಾ:RಾP%ೆಂದು
%ೆಂದು
_xCರುaಾ%ೆ.
_xCರುaಾ%ೆ ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರು ಇ_ೕ}@ೆ ಮ ೇಶ ರಂನ ಸಂ=@ೆ ರ\ೆಯ
ಕ"ೇ5ಯನುV ಾLರಂ"CRಾPIೆಂದು _xದು =rಾWರುRಾರರು `ಯೂಸು*
ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರ
ಆuೕ @ೆ dೋv ಹಣವನುV 4ೇxRಾಗ ಆತನು ಪL_ ಾ5 ಸaಾGಸು_ರುವwದನುV
Iೋ: =rಾWದುRಾರರು ತಮo ಕಂಪbGಂದ ಕಟ ೇ4ಾvದP 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಮತು ಇ ಕ• -ಾ$f
ೇQಂp #ಾಡ ೇ4ಾvದುP
ೇ4ಾvದುP, ನಮ@ೆ ಹಣದ ಅವಶ$ಕaೆ ಇRೆ.
ಇRೆ bೕನು ಹಣವನುV ಈಗ ೇ bೕಡ ೇ4ೆಂದು
ಒaಾGCRಾಗ ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರು =rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ bಮo ಹಣವನುV
ಖಂ:ತyಾvಯೂ cಂ?ರುvಸುaೇIೆ. ನbVಂದ bಮ@ೆ ಆvರುವ
ಆvರುವ aೊಂದ%ೆಯ ಬದ ಾv ನನ@ೆ
0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಅ34ಾ5ಗಳH ತುಂ ಾ 4ೋ\ಾvದುP
4ೋ\ಾvದುP, bೕವw 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 @ೆ ಕಟ ೇ4ಾvರುವ ಹಣವನುV ಕ:Q
#ಾ:ಸುaೇIೆಂದು =rಾWದುRಾರರನುV ನಂDCRಾಗ =rಾWದುRಾರರು ತಮo ಆ:ಟ %ಾಘyೇಂದL
31
ರವರನುV ಈ ಬ@ೆJ ]ಾ5CRಾಗ,
]ಾ5CRಾಗ %ಾಘyೇಂದL ರವರು ಸಹ 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಅ34ಾ5ಗಳH ಪ5ಚಯ ದP%ೆ
\ಾಧ$yಾಗಬಹುದು ಎಂದು _xCದರು.
_xCದರು ನಂತರ ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರು %ಾಘyೇಂದL
ರವ%ೊಂ?@ೆ 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಆuೕ @ೆ ಕ%ೆದು4ೊಂಡು dೋv #ಾತIಾ:4ೊಂಡು ಬಂದು
=rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ ನಂD4ೆ ಬರುವಂaೆ ವ_WC 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಪ•_W \ೆಟN Qಂp #ಾಡಲು 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1
ಅ34ಾ5ಗx@ೆ 10 ಲF ರೂ ಹಣವನುV 4ೊಡುವಂaೆ 4ೇxರುaಾ%ೆಂದು ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರು
=rಾWದುRಾರರನುV ನಂDಸುವ ಸಲುyಾv aಾನು ಈ@ಾಗ ೇ ಒಂದು ಕಂಪbಯ 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 ಯ
4ೋ1ಗಟ ೆ \ೆಟN Qಂp #ಾ:CರುaೇIೆ.
#ಾ:CರುaೇIೆ bಮoದು ಬಹಳ ಸಣ-- ಅ#ೌಂp ಎಂದು ನಂDC aಾನು
0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 \ೆಟN Qಂp #ಾ:ಸು_ರುವ ಜಗ?ೕY ಅಡ -ೈWCಂ[ ಕಂಪb@ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ
Rಾಖ ೆಗಳನುV aೋ5C =rಾWದುRಾರರ ಮುಂRೆ6ೕ yಾ$p ಆ* 4ಾN #ಾ: #ಾತIಾ:Cದನು
ಅವರು ಸಹ ಯೂಸು* Iೊಂ?@ೆ ಸೂರ| @ೆ dೋv Tyಾ0 Bಾಂ ಎಂಬುವIೊಂ?@ೆ ವ$ವಹ5ಸದ ಬ@ೆJ
=rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ _xCದನು.
_xCದನು ನಂತರ =rಾWದುRಾರರು ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರು
4ೇxದಂaೆ
4ೇxದಂaೆ 10 ಲF ರೂ ಹಣವನುV ತಮo ಆuೕ ನ 4ೊ1 ರುaಾ%ೆ.
ರುaಾ%ೆ
ತದನಂತರ ?ನಗಳದ =rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 Gಂದ rಾವwRೇ 5 ೆ,ೆ ಬರRೇ
ಇRಾPಗ =rಾWದುRಾರರು ಯೂಸು* ರವ5@ೆ ]ೆf ಹಣದ ಬ@ೆJ dಾಗೂ 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 @ೆ 4ೊ1 ದP ಹಣವನುV
ಕೂಡ ೇ cಂ?ರುvಸುವಂaೆ 4ೇxRಾಗ ಅವನು ಹಣವನುV Tyಾ0 Bಾಂ ರವ5@ೆ bೕ:ರುವwRಾvಯೂ
ಅದಲRೇ =rಾWದುRಾರರು 4ೊ1 ದP ಹಣದ ಸ ಲ• ಖಚುW #ಾ: ಮಲ ಾ @ೋN˜ bಂದ
BೈQಂ‹ ಬ>ೆಯನುV ಖ5ೕ?C Tyಾ0 ರವರ ಪ_V ಅಚWIಾx@ೆ 4ೊ1 ರುವwRಾv ೕ-ೋ ಅನುV
=rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ aೋ5C,
aೋ5C Tyಾ0 O ೈN ನಂಬ ಕxC ಇದುವ%ೆ ಗೂ ಆತನು 4ೆಲಸ
#ಾ:4ೊ1 ಲ bಮ@ೆ ಅನು#ಾನ ದP ಆತIೊಂ?@ೆ #ಾತIಾ: ಎಂದು =rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ
dೇxರುaಾIೆ. Iೇ ಇಸ
dೇxರುaಾIೆ 2023Iೇ ಜೂ _ಂಗxನ , ಒಂದು ?ನ ಯೂಸು* ರವರು =rಾWದುRಾರರ
ಕ"ೇ5@ೆ ಬಂ?RಾPಗ =rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ ಬರ ೇ4ಾvದP 30 ಲF ರೂ ]ೆf ಬ@ೆJ ಮತು 10 ಲFವನುV
cಂ?ರುvಸುವ
cಂ?ರುvಸುವ ಬ@ೆJ, ಒaಾGCRಾಗ ಯೂಸು* ರವರು ಈ ವ$ವdಾರಕೂe ನನಗೂ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಲ
ದುಡ˜ನುV _ಂ?ರುವwದು Tyಾ0 Bಾಂ ರವರು.
ರವರು ಇದರ Qೕಲೂ ಹಣ4ಾev ಒaಾGCದ%ೆ
=rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 Gಂದ aೊಂದ%ೆ #ಾ:ಸುವwRಾv dಾಗೂ =rಾWದುRಾರರ Qೕ ೆ
4ೇ ಗ>ಾಗುವಂaೆ #ಾಡುaೇIೆಂದು ಾ$f QೕN #ಾ: ಜಗಳ #ಾ: =rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ
ಬರ ೇ4ಾದ ]ೆf ನ 30 ಲF ರೂ ಹಣ dಾಗೂ 0.ಎ
ಎ .1
1 @ೆ 4ೋ1
4ೋ1 ರುವ 10 ಲF ರೂ ಹಣವನುV
yಾ ಾಸು 4ೊಡRೇ Oೕಸ #ಾ:ರುವ ಯೂಸು* ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ dಾಗೂ Tyಾ0 Bಾಂ ರವರ Qೕ ೆ
ಕLಮ ಜರುvಸ ೇ4ೆಂದು 4ೊಟ ದೂರು ಇaಾ$?."
ಇaಾ$?
The gist of the complaint would indicate that the petitioner had
given cheques to the complainant in respect of the amount due for
32
the completion of interiors in the subject apartment. The petitioner
issues the cheques and then closes his bank account. Subsequently,
the petitioner represents to the complainant that he would help her
with GST settlement to the tune of ₹ 10 lakhs. Since there was no
response from the GST officials, respondent No.2 demanded the
payment of the amount of ₹ 40 lakhs, and the petitioner is said to
have threatened the complainant.
12. Criminal Petition No.12268 of 2023 pertains to cheating
by making the complainant a guarantor to the loan availed by the
petitioner. The gist of the complaint in column No.10 in the F.I.R. in
Crime No.234 of 2023 pertaining to Criminal Petition No.12268 of
2023 reads as follows:
"ಈ 4ೇCನ ಸಂ•ಪ \ಾ%ಾಂಶyೇIೆಂದ%ೆ, urಾWದುRಾರರು dೋ-ೆN ಬು$0Iೆ
#ಾ:4ೊಂ:ರುaಾ%ೆ, ಯುಸೂ* ಎಂಬುವವರು urಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ ಸು#ಾರು ವಷWಗxಂದ
ಪ5ಚಯದವ%ಾvರುaಾ%ೆ, ನಂತರ urಾWದುRಾರರು ೋ ಪBೆಯಲು ಹುಡುಕು_ರುyಾಗ
ಯುಸೂ* ರವರು ೆಂಗಳ 5ನ ಹಲಸೂರು 4ೆನ%ಾ ಾ$ಂf ನ #ಾ$Iೇಜ
#ಾ$Iೇಜ ಪ5}ತ%ಾvರುaಾ%ೆ
ತಮ@ೆ ಎಲ,
ಎಲ ಾ$ಂf ಅ34ಾ5ಗಳH @ೊ_ರುತRೆಂದು ನಂ"C urಾWದುRಾರರನುV ಾ$ಂf
#ಾ$Iೇಜ ಬx ಕ%ೆದು4ೊಂಡು dೋv ಪ5ಚGC ೋ #ಾ: 4ೊಡುವwRಾv ನಂ"C
urಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ Rಾಖ ೆಗಳನುV ಪBೆದು4ೊಂಡು ೋ Lೕ\ೆ
#ಾ:ಸು_ರುವwRಾv _xCರುaಾ%ೆ
_xCರುaಾ%ೆ,
Cರುaಾ%ೆ ನಂತರದ ?ನಗಳ urಾWದುRಾರರು ತಮo yೈಯKಕ
4ೆಲಸPÉÌAದು ಾ$ಂf @ೆ dೋRಾಗ _xದು ಬಂ?RೆPೕIೆಂದ%ೆ,
Iೆಂದ%ೆ ಸದ5 ಯುಸೂ* ರವರು ಮ ೇಶ ರಂ,
ರಂ 7
Iೇ 4ಾL , C ೕ 4ಾ$ಟN :ಎ #ಾ$f ಅ ಾಟWQಂp ನ ಾp ನಂ:
ನಂ 002 ಅನುV 2019 ರ
33
ಖ5ೕ? #ಾಡಲು ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ ಹಲಸೂರು 4ೆನ%ಾ ಾ$ಂf ನ 2.4 4ೋ1 ರೂ ೋ
ಪBೆ?ದುP, ಅದ4ೆe urಾWದುRಾರರ Rಾಖ ೆಗಳನುV ಾ$ಂf @ೆ ಸ C @ಾ$ರಂಟ £Áßv
urಾWದುRಾರರ ಸc ಪBೆದು4ೊಂ:ರುaಾ%ೆ,
ಪBೆದು4ೊಂ:ರುaಾ%ೆ ಆದ%ೆ ೋ ಪBೆದು4ೊಂಡು ಸ5rಾv ೋ ಅನುV
ಕಟ Rೆ ಸುCkrಾvರುaಾIೆ,
ಾvರುaಾIೆ urಾWದುRಾರರ Rಾಖ ೆಗಳನುV ಬಳC4ೊಂಡು ಯುಸೂ* ರವರು ಾ$ಂf
bೕ: @ಾ$%ೆಂಟ ಆv #ಾ:4ೊಂಡು ೋ ಪBೆದು4ೊಂಡು ನಂ"4ೆ RೊLೕಹ #ಾ: Oೕಸ
#ಾ:ರುaಾIೆ,
#ಾ:ರುaಾIೆ ಇದ5ಂದ urಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ ಬು$0Iೆ ಮತು ಇತ%ೆ ವ$ವdಾರಗಳ
cನVBೆrಾಗುವಂaೆ #ಾ:ರುaಾIೆ dಾಗೂ 4ೇಳಲು dೋದ urಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ ಅyಾಚ$ ಶಬPಗxಂದ
ೈದು 0ೕವ ೆದ54ೆ dಾKರುವ ಸದ5 ಯುಸೂ* ರವರ Qೕ ೆ ಸೂಕ 4ಾನೂನು ಕLಮ ಜರುvಸಲು
bೕ:ದ ದೂರು ಇaಾ$?.
ಇaಾ$?."
The gist of the complaint in this case would indicate that the
petitioner had approached the 2nd respondent and promised to help
him avail a bank loan since he is acquainted with the officials of the
bank. Thereafter, the petitioner is said to have taken the
documents of the complainant by taking his signature and making
him a guarantor and availed a loan of ₹ 2.4 crores, which was
utilized to purchase the apartment, which is the subject matter of
the companion petition in Criminal Petition No.12267 of 2023. The
petitioner defaults on payment of the loan, and the complainant
being drawn as the guarantor registers the crime in Crime No.234
of 2023.
13. Criminal Petition No.12269 of 2023 concerns crime in
Crime No.208 of 2023. The crime is registered after the petitioner
34
takes an amount of ₹ 5 lakhs from the complainant on the score
that he would help him purchase a car. The gist of the complaint as
per column No.10 of the FIR reads as follows:
"ಈ ಪLಕರಣದ \ಾ%ಾಂಶyೇIೆಂದ%ೆ =rಾWದುRಾರ%ಾದ TLೕ Tyಾನಂದ ಮೂ_W D 4ೆ. ಆ
Tವ•ಣ 48 ವಷW, ರವರು ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ ನಂ?b ೇಔp 4Iೇ ಹಂತ 15Iೇ ಮುಖ$ ರ\ೆ, 3Iೇ
4ಾL , yಾಸ ನಂ- 49/11 ರ yಾಸyಾvರುaಾ%ೆ. =rಾWದುRಾರರು yೆ ಆ† 4ಾ‹W %ೋ‹,
ೋ ಾಳ$ದ ರುವ ಗರುBಾ?L ಆ4ೆW‹ ಕಟ ಡ ನಂ-370 ರ ಯ ಾಸಂ ಾ$ಂ4ೆ p dಾN ಅನುV
bವWಹ ೆ #ಾ54ೊಂ:ರುaಾ%ೆ, ಸದ5 ಕಟ ಡದ bವೃತ ಎ .=
= TLೕ ಓಂ4ಾರಯ$ ರವರು ಒಂದು
ಕ"ೇ5ಯbVಟು 4ೊಂ:ದುP ಅ @ೆ ಓಂ4ಾರಯ$ರವರನುV Iೋಡಲು ಯೂಸು† ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ಎಂಬ ವ$K
ಬರು_RಾPಗ crಾWದುRಾರ5ಗೂ ಪ5ಚಯyಾv \ೆVೕcತ%ಾvರುaಾ%ೆ,
\ೆVೕcತ%ಾvರುaಾ%ೆ ಒಂದು ?ನ =rಾWದುRಾರರು
ಯೂಸು† ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರ jೊaೆ ತಮo 4ಾರನುV ಬದ ಾGC ೇ%ೆ 4ಾರನುV ಖ5ೕ?
#ಾಡ ೇ4ೆಂದು #ಾತIಾಡು_ರುyಾಗ ಯೂಸು† ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ರವರು ತನV \ೆVೕcತ ಅವನ
tಾಚುWನ 4ಾರನುV #ಾ%ಾಟ #ಾಡ ದುP, ಅದನುV bಮ@ೆ 4ೊ:ಸುaೇIೆಂದು dೆg.ಆ
dೆg ಆ -26 C.ಎN
ಎN-
ಎN
2233 tಾಚುWನ 4ಾ5ನ •ೕ-ೋಗಳನುV =rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ aೋ5C?P, =rಾWದುRಾರರು
ಸದ5 tಾಚುWನ 4ಾ •ೕ-ೋಗಳನುV ಇಷ ಪ1 ರುaಾ%ೆ,
ರುaಾ%ೆ ನಂತರ ಯೂಸು† ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ರವರು
rಾರRೋ jೊaೆ ೕ ನ #ಾತIಾ: tಾಚುWನ 4ಾ ಓನ @ೆ ಹಣ4ಾCನ ಅವಶ$ಕaೆ ಇದುP,
ಕbಷ 5 ಲF ರೂ.
ರೂ ಗಳನುV ಅBಾ ಆv 4ೊಟ %ೆ tಾಚುWನ 4ಾ ಅನುV ೇ%ೆಯವ5@ೆ
ೇ%ೆಯವ5@ೆ #ಾ%ಾಟ
#ಾಡದಂaೆ dೇಳHವwRಾv =rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ ನಂDC ?ನಂಕ 04-12-2022 ರಂದು
=rಾWದುRಾರ5ಂದ 5 ಲF ರೂ.
ರೂ ನಗದು ಹಣವನುV ಓಂ4ಾರಯ$ ನವರ ಎದು5ನ ಯೂಸು†
ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ ರವರು ಪBೆದು4ೊಂ:ರುaಾ%ೆ.
ಪBೆದು4ೊಂ:ರುaಾ%ೆ ನಂತರ =rಾWದುRಾರರು ಯೂಸು† ಸುಬ,ಯ$ಕ-ೆ
ರವರನುV ೇ1 #ಾ:Rಾಗ 4ಾ ೋ #ಾ:C4ೊಳiಲು Rಾಖ ೆಗಳನುV ಕೂ:ಸು_ರುವwRಾv
?ನಗಳನುV ನೂಕು_ದುP ನಂತರ =rಾWದುRಾರ%ೊಂ?@ೆ rಾವwRೇ ಸಂಪಕW ಇಟು 4ೊಂ:ರುವw?ಲ.
4ೊಂ:ರುವw?ಲ
ತದನಂತರ =rಾWದುRಾರರು ?Iಾಂಕ 27-06-2023 ರಂದು ಓಂ4ಾರಯ$ರವರನುV ಮಧ$Ckಕ%ಾv
#ಾ: ಯೂಸು† ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವ5@ೆ ಹಣ yಾ ಾ 4ೊ:ಸುವಂaೆ
4ೊ:ಸುವಂaೆ 4ೇxRಾಗ
ಓಂ4ಾರಯ$ರವ5ಗೂ ಸಂಪಕW4ೆe CKeರುವw?ಲ.
CKeರುವw?ಲ ಒಂದು ?ನ ಓಂ4ಾರಯ$ರವರ ೕ @ೆ ಯೂಸು†
ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರು yಾ$-ಾ † ಕ%ೆ #ಾ: =rಾWದುRಾರ%ೊಂ?@ೆ tಾಚುWನ 4ಾ5ನ ]ಾರ
#ಾತIಾ: ತನ@ೆ Rೊಡ˜ ವ$KಗಳH ಪ5ಚಯ ದುP bೕವw ಏನು ೇ4ಾದರು #ಾ:4ೊxi ಎಂದು dೇx
=rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ
=rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ ಅyಾಚ$ ಶಬPಗxಂದ ೈದು,
ೈದು 0ೕವ ೆದ54ೆ dಾK =rಾWದುRಾರ5@ೆ dೆg.ಆ
dೆg ಆ -
26 C.ಎN
ಎN-2233
ಎN tಾಚುWನ 4ಾ 4ೊ:ಸುವwRಾv 5 ಲF ರೂ.
ರೂ ಹಣ ಪBೆದು 4ಾ ಅನುV
35
4ೊ:ಸRೇ,
4ೊ:ಸRೇ ಹಣವನುV yಾ ಾ 4ೊಡRೇ Oೕಸ #ಾ:ರುವ ಯೂಸು† ಸುಬ,ಯ$ ಕ-ೆ ರವರ ರುದ‡
4ಾನೂನು ಕLಮ ಜರುvಸ ೇ4ೆಂದು 4ೊpಟ
4ೊpಟ ದೂರು ಇaಾ$?."
ಇaಾ$?
The gist of the complaint would indicate that the petitioner has
taken money from respondent No.2 on the score that the amount is
demanded by the seller of the Fortuner car as a booking amount to
ensure that the car is not sold to another person. Thereafter, the
petitioner is said to have threatened the complainant when the
complainant asked him to return the money.
14. What remains is Criminal Petition No.6418 of 2025. That
arises out of a Crime in C.C.No.39217 of 2024 wherein the Police
have filed their final report/charge sheet against several persons,
including Yousuf S. who is accused No.2 and all his associates. It is
necessary to notice the entire charge sheet so filed. The summary
of the charge sheet qua all the accused reads as follows:
"zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ,
J1-jAiÀiÁeï CºÀªÀÄäzï ªÉÄð£À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J1 DgÉÆæ jAiÀiÁeï CºÀªÀÄäzï FvÀ£ÄÀ
EvÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ J2, J3 ºÁUÀÆ J4 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀ®ªÀÅ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«zÉ JAzÀÄ
¦gÁå¢AiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸ÉêÁ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ
£ÀA©¹ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁr CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ
36
J2,J3, J4, gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ gÀÆ 1,00,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ««zsÀ
¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼À°è ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ CzÀgÀ°è F J¯Áè DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ºÀAaPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆæ-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ gÀÆ
5,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É. ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ DgÉÆæ-1 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ
DgÉÆæ-5 FvÀ£À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ-7 FvÀ£ÀÄ PÀgÀÄ£ÁqÀ gÀPÀëuÁ ªÉ¢PÉAiÀÄ gÁeÁåzsÀåPÀë£ÉAzÀÄ
ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ DgÉÆæ-5 FvÀ£ÀÄ PÀ¼À¸À vÁ®ÆèPï£À PÁAUÉæøï AiÀÄĪÀ ªÀÄÄRAqÀ£ÉAzÀÄ
¥ÀjZÀ¬Ä¹ EªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÀ®ªÀÅ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðj G£ÀßvÀ ªÀÄlÖzÀ
C¢PÁjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÉ.¦.J¸ï.¹ AiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ EzÀPÉÌ ºÀt
RZÁðUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ºÉý ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀ ºÀAvÀ ºÀAvÀªÁV ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ««zsÀ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è
¸ÁQë-1 ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀjAzÀ CAzÁdÄ gÀÆ 1,80,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ CzÀgÀ°è
gÀÆ 57,50,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÁ£ÀÄ ¸ÀéAvÀPÉÌ §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ G½zÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß EvÀgÉ
DgÉÆævÀjUÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
£ÀAvÀgÀ J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PɦJ¸ï¹ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀ PÉ®¸À
¥ÀæUÀwAiÀÄ°èzÉ ¤ªÀÄä PÉ®¸À DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀA©¹ EzÀPÉÌ ºÀ®ªÀÅ ªÀåQÛUÀ½UÉ ºÀt ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ
JAzÀÄ £ÀA©¹ ¸ÁQë-1 ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-2, ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
¸ÀA§A¢PÀgÀ SÁvÉUÀ½AzÀ ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼À°è J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¨ÁåAPï SÁvÉUÀ½UÉ
CAzÁdÄ gÀÆ 60,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
¥ÀæPÀgÀt J1 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ J2, J3, J4, J5, J6, ºÁUÀÆ J7
DgÉÆævÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 ²æêÀÄw ¤Ã®ªÀÄä, EªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ
¸ÁQë-²æêÀÄw ¸ÀÄzÁ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀjAzÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ««zsÀ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è £ÀUÀzÁV
ºÁUÀÆ vÀ£Àß CPËAmïUÉ MlÄÖ CAzÁdÄ gÀÆ 1,22,50,000/- ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ ¯Á¨sÀ
ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ªÀiÁr ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è
¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A 420, 406, 120(©) ¸À»vÀ 34 L.¦.¹ jÃvÁå
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
J2-AiÀÄƸÀÆ¥ï ¸ÀĨÉâÃPÀmÉÖ FvÀ£À ªÉÄð£À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ.
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ EvÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ J1,
J3 ºÁUÀÆ J4 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ
¢£ÁAPÀ:05.07.2023 gÀAzÀÄ J2 ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ ªÀįÉè±ÀégÀA 13£Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°ègÀĪÀ £ÀA-218, 2£É
ªÀĺÀr, eÉ.¦ gÁAiÀįï PÁA¥ÉèPïì, 13£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ¸ÀA¦UÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ªÀįÉè±ÀégÀA, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560003
£À°ègÀĪÀ ACCURATE TIME PVT LTD E°èUÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß §gÀªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ
£À£ÀUÉ ««zsÀ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRAqÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«zÀÄÝ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PɦJ¸ï¹ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV
£ÀA©¹ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæ-3, 4 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀÆqÀ EzÀÄÝ EzÀPÉÌ 4-5 PÉÆÃn ºÀt
RZÁðUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ F ªÉÆzÀ¯Éà J3, J4 DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ PɦJ¸ï¹
¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ w½¹zÀAvÉ J2 DgÉÆæ PÀÆqÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÉ.¦.J¸ï.¹ AiÀÄ°è
¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀÄÝ CzÉà ¢£À gÀÆ 20,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ
J2 DgÉÆæ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
37
£ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ-2 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PɦJ¸ï¹AiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ J-1,
J-3 ºÁUÀÆ J4 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀÀ¢AzÀ J2 FvÀ¤UÉ ²æÃ
ªÉÃtÄUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï, PÁAUÉæÃ¸ï ªÀÄÄRAqÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjavÀjzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ
¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ D±Áé¸À£É ¤Ãr CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃn ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ºÉý ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß
¢£ÁAPÀ:19.08.2023 gÀAzÀÄ J2 ºÁUÀÆ J3 gÀªÀgÀÄ zɺÀ°UÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ºÉÆÃmɯï
vÁeï £À°è G½zÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ²æà ªÉtÄUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃn ªÀiÁqÀ¸À®Ä gÀÆ 50,00,000/-
ºÀt RZÁðUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ºÉý D«ÄµÀ MrØ ºÉý ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀjAzÀ
DgÉÆæ-4 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.08.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ËvïJAqï ªÉÄmÉÆæøÉÃÖ µÀ£ï ºÀwÛgÀ gÀÆ
50,00,000/- ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F ºÀtzÀ°è gÀÆ 10,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
DgÉÆæ-4 ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ gÀÆ 40,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß J2 DgÉÆævÀ£ÀÄ w½¹zÀ ªÀåQÛUÉ CzÉà ¢£À
¤ÃrzÀÄÝ J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ 40 ®PÀë ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zɺÀ°AiÀÄ vÁeï ºÉÆÃmɯïUÉ DvÀ£À PÀqÉAiÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ vÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ vÁeïºÉÆÃmɯï£À°è ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ C°è J2,J3 ºÁUÀÆ J4 DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ
¸ÉÃjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀ£ÀÄß ²æà ªÉÃtÄUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃn ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ 3 ¢£À C¯ÉèÃ
EzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ ¨sÀj¹ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃn
ªÀiÁr¸ÀzÉà ºÀt ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è J3 DgÉÆæ gÀÆ 40,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ElÄÖPÉÆArzÀÄÝ
DgÉÆæ 2 FvÀ£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ-1, 3, 4 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj PÀÈvÀå J¸ÀVgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è
zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
PÉ® ¢£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ CPËAmï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ gÀÆ
5,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆÃ£ï ¥Éà ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀgÁzÀÀ ¸ÁQë-3 gÀªgÀÀ CPËAmï¤AzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:28.08.2023gÀÆ 5,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ Alfalah Enterprisess ºÉZï.r.J¥sï.¹ CPËAmï £ÀA-
50200026925572 LJ¥sïJ¸ï¹-HDFC0009233 EzÀPÉÌ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É,
ºÁUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ:22.09.2023 gÀAzÀÄ J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ Uniheal PÀA¥À¤AiÀÄ CPËAmï
Uniheal robust pvt, L¹L¹L, CPËAmï £ÀA-777705019377, LJ¥sïJ¸ï¹-
ICIC0003437 EzÀPÉÌ 15,00,000/- gÀÆ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß DgïnfJ¸ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ºÀt ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ
ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀqÉzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
J2 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ EvÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁr
CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸ÉªÁ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ°è
¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV D«ÄµÀ MrØ ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ £ÀUÀzÁV ºÁUÀÆ CPËAmï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EªÀgÀ ¸ÀA§A¢PÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÉßûvÀjAzÀ MlÄÖ gÀÆ 45,00,000/-
ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ªÀiÁr ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è
¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A.420, 406, 120(©) ¸À»vÀ 34 L¦¹ jÃvÁå
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
J3-ZÉÊvÀ£Àå @ ZÉÃvÀ£ï FvÀ£À ªÉÄ°£À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ:-
38
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J3 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ EvÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ J1,
J2 ºÁUÀÆ J4 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß J2 DgÉÆæUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ:05.07.2023 gÀAzÀÄ J2 ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ ªÀįÉè±ÀégÀA
13£Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°ègÀĪÀ £ÀA-218, 2£É ªÀĺÀr, eÉ.¦ gÁAiÀįï PÁA¥ÉèPïì, 13£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ¸ÀA¦UÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ,
ªÀįÉè±ÀégÀA, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560003 £À°ègÀĪÀ ACCURATE TIME PVT LTD E°èUÉ
¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß §gÀªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ DvÀ£À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ««zsÀ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRAqÀgÀÄ
¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«zÀÄÝ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PɦJ¸ï¹ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæ-3, 4
gÀªÀgÀÄPÀÆqÀ EzÀÄÝ EzÀPÉÌ 4-5 PÉÆÃn ºÀt RZÁðUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ F ªÉÆzÀ¯É J3, J4 DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ
¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ w½¹zÀAvÉ J2 DgÉÆæ PÀÆqÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ CzÉà ¢£À gÀÆ
20,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ J2 DgÉÆæUÉ PÉÆr¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É.
DgÉÆæ-2 ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ-4 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.08.2023 gÀAzÀÄ zɺÀ°UÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV C°è ²æà ªÉÃtÄUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï
gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃn ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ ºÀt RZÁðUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ºÉý D«ÄµÀ MrØ EzÀPÉÌ gÀÆ
50,00,000/- ºÀt PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉý ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-3 gÀªÀjAzÀ DgÉÆæ-4
FvÀ£À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.08.2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ËvïJAqï ªÉÄmÉÆæøÉÖõÀ£ï ºÀwÛgÀ gÀÆ 50,00,000/-
ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F ºÀtzÀ°è gÀÆ 40,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zɺÀ°AiÀÄ vÁeï
ºÉÆÃmɯïUÉ vÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀgÀ°è ²æà ªÉÃtÄUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃn ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ 3 ¢£À
C¯Éèà EzÀÄÝ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃn ªÀiÁr¸ÀzÉ ºÀt ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÀļÀÄî
¨sÀgÀªÀ¸É ¤Ãr £ÀA©PÉ ¨sÀj¹ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ CzÀgÀ°è gÀÆ 40,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß
¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è J3 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ J1,J2,J4 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÉÃj CPÀæªÀĪÁV ºÀt ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ
¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁr ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸ÉªÁ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ°è
¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV D«ÄµÀ MrØ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ 1,00,00,000/-
£ÀUÀzÁV ºÁUÀÆ CPËAmï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ºÀtzÀ°è gÀÆ 40,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ªÀiÁr ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ
ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ J3 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A 420, 406, 120(©) ¸À»vÀ 34 L¦¹ jÃvÁå
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
J4-²ªÀ±ÀAPÀgï eÉ @ ±ÀAPÀgï FvÀ£À ªÉÄð£À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ:-
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J4 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ EvÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ
J1,J2 ºÁUÀÆ J3 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁr CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À
GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß J2 DgÉÆæUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹ ¢£ÁAPÀ:05.07.2023 gÀAzÀÄ J2
ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ ªÀįÉè±ÀégÀA 13£Éà PÁæ¸ï£À°ègÀĪÀ £ÀA-218, 2£Éà ªÀĺÀr, eÉ.¦ gÁAiÀįï PÁA¥ÉèPïì,
13£Éà PÁæ¸ï, ¸ÀA¦UÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ, ªÀįÉè±ÀégÀA, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-560003 £À°ègÀĪÀ ACCURATE TIME
PVT LTD E°èUÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß §gÀªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ DvÀ£À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ««zsÀ
gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRAqÀgÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«zÀÄÝ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PɦJ¸ï¹ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV £ÀA©¹ ¸ÀzÀj
39
¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆæ-3, 4 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀÆqÀ EzÀÄÝ EzÀPÉÌ 4-5 PÉÆÃn ºÀt RZÁðUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ F
ªÉÆzÀ¯É J3, J4 DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ w½¹zÀAvÉ J2 DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ
w½¹ CzÉà ¢£À gÀÆ 20,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ J2 DgÉÆæUÉ
PÉÆr¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É.
£ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ-2 ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ-3 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:19.08.2023 gÀAzÀÄ J2 ºÁUÀÆ J3 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ zɺÀ°UÉ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV
C°è ²æà ªÉÃtÄUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃn ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ EzÀPÉÌ ºÀt RZÁðUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ºÉý
D«ÄµÀ MrØ EzÀPÉÌ gÀÆ 50,00,000/- ºÀt PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ºÉý D«ÄµÀ MrØzÀÄÝ CzÀgÀAvÉ J2,J3
gÀªÀgÀÄ w½¹zÀAvÉ J4 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À°èzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-3 gÀªÀjAzÀ
DgÉÆæ-4 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¸ËvïJAqï ªÉÄmÉÆæøÉÃÖ µÀ£ï ºÀwÛgÀ gÀÆ 50,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt
¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ F ºÀtzÀ°è gÀÆ 10,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÁ£É ElÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ G½zÀ
gÀÆ 40,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß J2 DgÉÆævÀ PÀqÉAiÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ zɺÀ°AiÀÄ vÁeï
ºÉÆÃmɯïUÉ ºÉÆÃV J2,J3 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj ²æà ªÉÃtÄUÉÆÃ¥Á¯ï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃn
ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ 3 ¢£À C¯Éèà EzÀÄÝ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ ¨sÀj¹ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
J4 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ J1,J2,J3 gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¸ÉÃj ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸ÉªÁ
DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV D«ÄµÀ MrØ ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ 1,00,00,000/-
£ÀUÀzÁV ºÁUÀÆ CPËAmï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ºÀtzÀ°è gÀÆ 10,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ªÀiÁr ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ FvÀ£À «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A 420, 406, 120(©) ¸À»vÀ 34 L¦¹ jÃvÁå
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ
ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
J5-ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà.¹ FvÀ£À ªÉÄð£À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ:-
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J5 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ EvÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ
J1, J6, J-7 ºÁUÀÆ J8 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁr CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß J1 ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ G½zÀ
J6,J7,J8 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj £À£ÀUÉ ««zsÀ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«zÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉý
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸ÉêÁ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ°è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀA©¹ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ
DgÉÆæ-7 FvÀ£ÀÄ PÀgÀÄ£ÁqÀ gÀPÀëuÁ ªÉ¢PÉAiÀÄ gÁeÁåzsÀåPÀë£ÉAzÀÄ EªÀjUÉ ºÀ®ªÀÅ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ
ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ w½¹ FvÀ£À£ÀÄß ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ
DgÉÆæ-6 FvÀ£ÀÄ PÀ¼À¸À vÁ®ÆèPï£À PÁAUÉæøï AiÀÄĪÀ ªÀÄÄRAqÀ£ÉAzÀÄ ºÉý EªÀjUÉ ºÀ®ªÀÅ
gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÉ.¦.J¸ï.¹ AiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ
ºÉý ¥ÀjZÀ¬Ä¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É, ºÁUÀÆ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸À®Ä ºÀt RZÁðUÀÄvÀzÀvÀzÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀĸÀ¯Á¬Ä¹
£ÀA©ü¹ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ««zsÀ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è ¸ÁQë-1 ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀjAzÀ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ
CzÀgÀ°è J1,J5 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ºÀAaPÉÆAqÀ ºÀtzÀ°è gÀÆ 1,18,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß
¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ £ÉÃgÀªÁV ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ gÀÆ 45,00,000/-
£ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ MmÁÖV PÀÈvÀåPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ gÀÆ
40
1,63,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV EvÀgÉ
DgÉÆævÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁr ««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ J6 FvÀ¤UÉ gÀÆ
19,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ J8 FvÀ¤UÉ gÀÆ 15,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß
¤ÃrzÀÄÝ J5 FvÀ£ÀÄ gÀÆ 1,29,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀAZÀ£É
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ
zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ºÁUÀÆ J5 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ £ÀA©¸ÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ
ªÀiÁ£ÀåªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è n¥ÀàtÂ, £ÀqÁªÀ½, ªÀiÁ£Àå ¦æAiÀiÁAPÀ RUÉðAiÀĪÀgÀ ¯Élgï
ºÉqï£À°ègÀĪÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£Àå gÁdå¥Á®gÀ £ÉÆÃn¦üPÉõÀ£ï UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁV ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ
J9 DgÉÆæ PÀ¼À¸ÀzÀ°è avÁÛgÀ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆà ElÄÖPÉÆArzÀÄÝ FvÀ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁV
¸Àȶ׹ EªÉà £ÉÊd zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸ÉªÁ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ°è
¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀéPÉÌ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀgÀÄ DzÉò¹zÁÝgÉ ºÁUÀÆ F §UÉÎ ªÀiÁ£Àå PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ
gÁdå¥Á®zÀÄ £ÉÆÃn¦üPÉõÀ£ï ºÉÆgÀr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ J9 DgÉÆæ£ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj ¸Àȶ׹zÀ £ÀPÀ°
zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ EªÉà £ÉÊd zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ºÉý £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ
ªÀiÁr ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É, F §UÉÎ DgÉÆæ-9 FvÀ£À avÁÛgÀ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆÃzÀ°è
¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ dgÀÄV¹ DvÀ£ÀÄ £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁV ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §¼À¹zÀÝ ¹¦AiÀÄÄ C£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹
jnæÃªï ªÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁV ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀiÁrzÀÝ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀgÀ n¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄÄ
¥ÀvÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ DgÉÆæ-5 FvÀ£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ-9 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁV zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß
¸Àȶ׹ F zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ EªÉ £ÉÊd
zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ ºÉý £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁV ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀiÁrzÀ n¥ÀàtÂUÉ J5 DgÉÆæAiÉÄà £ÀA§jAUï
ªÀiÁr £ÀAvÀgÀ D ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á±À ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ F §UÉÎ J5 w½¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÀܼÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ
dgÀÄV¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ ªÉÄ¯É w½¹zÀ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À°è n¥Ààt ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÊd ¥ÀæwAiÉÄAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀjUÉ ªÁmÁì¥ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ ¨sÀj¹ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
J5 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ J8 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß d£ÀªÀj 2024 gÀ°è
MAzÀÄ ¢£À ¤Ã®ªÀÄägÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ FvÀ£Éà ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀgÀ vÀAVAiÀÄ
ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ ºÀµÀðªÀzsÀð£À£ÉAzÀÄ PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ºÀµÀðªÀzÀð£À£ÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÁîV ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ
ªÀiÁr EªÀjAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä PÉ®¸À DUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî D±Áé¸À£É ¤Ãr ªÀåQÛUÀvÀ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¥ÀæPÀgÀt J5 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ J1, J4, J6, J7, J8, ºÁUÀÆ J7
DgÉÆævÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj ¥ÀqÉzÀ ºÀt ºÁUÀÆ £ÉÃgÀªÁV ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ºÀt MlÄÖ gÀÆ
1,63,00,000/- ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ EzÀgÀ°è gÀÆ 1,29,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ªÀiÁr ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ
zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥n
À ÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ J5 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A. 420, 465, 467,468, 471, 406, 201,
120(©) ¸À»vÀ 34 L.¦.¹ jÃvÁå zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
J6-ªÀĺÉñï FvÀ£À ªÉÄð£À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ:-
41
¥ÀæPÀgÀt J6 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ J1, J5 ºÁUÀÆ J7 DgÉÆævÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj
CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁr vÁ£ÀÄ J5 ªÀÄÆ®PÀ
aPÀ̪ÀÄUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ PÀ¼À¸À vÁ®ÆèQ£À PÁAUÉæøï AiÀÄÆxï ¥Éæ¹qÉAmï JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß
¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀA©¹ PÉ.¦.J¸ï.¹AiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé ¤Ãr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV DgÉÆæ-5 gÀªÀgÀ
eÉÆvÉ ¸ÉÃj M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁr J5 w½¹zÀAvÉ ²ªÁ£ÀAzÀ ¸ÀPÀð¯ï §½ ºÉÆÃV ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ
gÀÆ 25,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ DgÉÆæ-5 UÉ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ
««zsÀ ¢£ÁAPÀUÀ¼ÀAzÀÄ J5 PÀqɬÄAzÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ J5 ¥ÀqÉzÀ
ºÀtzÀ°è gÀÆ 19,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ J6 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÁ£ÀÄ PÀ¼À¸À vÁ®ÆèPï£À°è PÁAUÉæøï AiÀÄÆxï ¥Éæ¹qÉAmï
JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjUÉ PɦJ¸ï¹AiÀÄ°è ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV D±Áé¸À£É ¤Ãr
£ÀA©ü¹ J1 J5,J7 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj CPÀæªÀÄ ¯Á¨sÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ
EzÀĪÀgÉV£À vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A 420, 120(©)¸À»vÀ 34 L¦¹ L¦¹ jÃvÁå
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
J7-gÀÄzÉæñï FvÀ£À ªÉÄð£À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ:-
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J7 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ EvÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ
J1, J5, J-6 ºÁUÀÆ J8 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁr CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É
ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß J1 ºÁUÀÆ J5 ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ
ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ PÀgÀÄ£ÁqÀ gÀPÀëuÁ ªÉâPÉAiÀÄ gÁeÁåzsÀåPÀë£ÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀ®ªÀÅ
gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ w½¹ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸ÉêÁ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ°è
¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ £ÀA©¹ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ««zsÀ ¸ÀܼÀUÀ¼À°è J1, J5 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀ
CAzÁdÄ gÀÆ 1,80,00,000/- £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ CzÀgÀ°è gÀÆ 29,50,000/- £ÀUÀzÄÀ
ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ EzÀĪÀgÉV£À vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è PÀAqÀħAzÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ
ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
ºÁUÀÆ J7 FvÀ£ÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ vÀ£Àß CPËAmïUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ
ºÀt ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ DgÉÆæUÀ½AzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ gÀÆ 29,50,000/-£ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtzÀ°è E£ÉÆêÁ PÁgï
£ÀA. PÉJ-51-JAPÀÆå-1154 EzÀ£ÀÄß gÀÆ 25,35,150/- gÀÆUÀ½UÉ Rjâü¹zÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÁQë-1
gÀªÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR¯ÁUÀĪÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ ªÀiÁvÀÄPÀvÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÄÀ
w½¹zÀ CªÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀÜgÁzÀ n© §¼ÀUÁ« gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß
ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ w½zÀħA¢zÀÄÝ G½zÀAvÉ J7
DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ gÀÆ 4,14,850/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÁ¥Á¸ÀÄì PÉÆqÀzÉà £ÀA©PÉ
zÉÆæúÀ ªÀiÁr ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ
¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A. 420, 406, 120(©) ¸À»vÀ 34 L.¦.¹ jÃvÁå
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
42
J8-ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ªÉÊ© @ ºÀµÀðªÀzsÀð£À FvÀ£À ªÉÄð£À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ:-
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J8 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ EvÀgÉ DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ
J5 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁr CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªiÀ Á£À
GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß J5 ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¤dªÁzÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß
ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa vÁ£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀgÀ vÀAVAiÀÄ ªÀÄUÀ vÀ£Àß ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ ºÀµÀðªÀzÀsð£À
JA§ÄzÁV ªÀåQÛUÀvÀªÁV ¸ÀļÁîV ©A©¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ £ÀA©PÉ §gÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉý £À£ÀUÉ
ºÀ®ªÀÅ gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÀ¸ÉêÁ DAiÉÆÃUÀzÀ°è
¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåvÀé PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀvÀªÁV ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁr J5 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjAzÀ
¥ÀqÉzÀ ºÀtzÀ°è DgÉÆæ 5 FvÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß CtÚ ªÀįÉèñÀ¥àÀ FvÀ£À CPËAmïUÉ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ£Àß CtÚ ªÀįÉèñÀ¥Àà£À CPËAmï¤AzÀ ¤AzÀ gÀÆ 9,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß
J8 DgÉÆæ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ J5 DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ gÀÆ 1,00,000/-
ºÀt ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ J5 DgÉÆæ¬ÄAzÀ £ÀUÀzÁV gÀÆ
5,00,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß MmÁÖV gÀÆ 15,00,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è
zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥n À ÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
J8 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ J5 DgÉÆæAiÉÆA¢UÉ J8 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ
¸ÉÃj ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁr CPÀæªÀÄ ¯Á¨sÀ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀåQÛAiÀÄ §zÀ¯ÁV vÀ£Àß ¤d
ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa ªÀåQÛUÀvÀªÁV ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁr ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÉÃj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀAZÀ£É
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ
zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A. 420, 419, 406, 120(©) ¸À»vÀ 34 L.¦.¹
jÃvÁå zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
J9-C±ÉÆÃPï FvÀ£À ªÉÄð£À zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ:-
zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ J9 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ EvÀgÉ J5, J8
gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁr CPÀæªÀÄ ºÀt ¸ÀA¥ÁzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ
£ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶ׸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¨Á»gÀ PÀÈvÀåªÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ FvÀ£ÀÄ J5
DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ w½¹zÀAvÉ ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀgÀ n¥ÀàtÂ, £ÀqÁªÀ½, ªÀiÁ£Àå ¦æAiÀiÁAPÀ
RUÉðAiÀĪÀgÀ ¯Élgï ºÉqï£À°ègÀĪÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£Àå gÁdå¥Á®gÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁV
J9 DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÀ£Àß ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀvÀézÀ PÀ¼À¸ÀzÀ°è avÁÛgÀ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆÃzÀ°è £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁV ¸Àȶ׹ EªÉÃ
£ÉÊd zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ J5 DgÉÆæUÉ ªÁmÁì¥ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ £ÀA©PÉ zÉÆæúÀ ªÀiÁr ºÀt
¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛ£É, F §UÉÎ DgÉÆæ-9 FvÀ£À avÁÛgÀ ¸ÀÄÖrAiÉÆÃzÀ°è ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄ
dgÀÄV¹ DgÀ£ÀÄ £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁV ¸ÀÈ¶× ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §¼À¹zÀÝ ¹¦AiÀÄÄ C£ÀÄß CªÀiÁ£ÀvÀÄÛ¥Àr¹ jnæêï
ªÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ CzÀgÀ°è ªÀiÁ£Àå ªÀÄÄRåªÀÄAwæAiÀĪÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°ègÀĪÀ £ÀPÀ° n¥ÀàtÂAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀvÉÛAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ
DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁV ¸Àȶ׹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DgÉÆæ-9 FvÀ£ÀÄ DgÉÆæ-5 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÉÃj £ÀPÀ°AiÀiÁV vÁ£ÀÄ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ
PÀA¥ÀÆålgï£À°è £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶ׹ F zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÊd zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀAvÉ
43
PÀÈvÀåPÉÌ §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ ¯Á¨sÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ DgÉÆæ-5 gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ PÀÈvÀåPÉÌ
¸ÀºÀPÀj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀPÀ° ¸Àȶ×vÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß PÀA¥ÀÆålgï£À°è £Á±À
ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è ¸ÀAUÀ滹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ½AzÀ
zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÀ®A. 420, 465, 467,468, 471, 201, 120(©) ¸À»vÀ
34 L.¦.¹ jÃvÁå zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÉ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
(Emphasis added at each instance)
The summary of the charge sheet would indicate the role played by
the petitioner and the other accused in the teeth of the allegations
made by the 2nd respondent in her complaint. The petitioner has led
the complainant to part with her money on the score that he would
help her obtain membership in the Karnataka Public Service
Commission.
15. The issue now would be, in the teeth of maze of aforesaid
facts, whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and obliterate the crime on a twin
circumstance. One, the financial transaction and the other, civil suit
pending. It is trite law that a financial transaction cannot become
the fulcrum of the crime; a caveat, not in all circumstances. A given
case can project both civil liability and criminal culpability. The
cases at hand involve financial transaction and cheating in those
44
transactions. These cases form classic illustration of the principles
delineated by the Apex court in a plethora of judgments.
15. 1. The Apex Court in ROCKY v. STATE OF TELANGANA1
has held as follows:
".... .... ....
24. The appellant's core contention, that the
dispute is purely civil in nature, is untenable at this stage.
Although courts must guard against giving criminal
colour to civil disputes, it is equally well settled that the
existence of civil remedies does not preclude criminal
prosecution where the allegations disclose the essential
ingredients of an offence. Civil and criminal proceedings
may validly coexist if the factual matrix supports both."
15.2. The Apex Court in ANURAG BHATNAGAR v. STATE
(NCT OF DELHI)2 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
45. The allegations in the application moved under
Section 156(3) CrPC and the material in support thereof
reveals that SHL is contending breach of the conditions of
MoU dated 11.03.1995 and that it has been induced and
deceived by VLS for entering into the aforesaid MoU. VLS
has cheated SHL and its officers by making a false
promise which was legally impossible to be carried out.
The allegations of breach of conditions of the MoU or of
making a false promise by itself may not give rise to any
criminal action as no criminality is attached to it.
However, there are elements of inducement, criminal
conspiracy and cheating which are also borne out from
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2713
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514
45
the allegations made in the application and the
complaint, which if proved, may amount to commission of
an offence. Therefore, once such allegations are made
out, it is difficult for the court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction to interfere with the FIR, only for the reason
that some of the disputes are of civil nature which may or
may not be having any criminality attached to it.
46. It is well settled by a catena of decisions of this
Court, especially in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal Singh,
that the discretion to quash an FIR at a nascent stage has to be
exercised with great caution and circumspection. In this
connection, it would be beneficial to refer to an old case of Privy
Council in King Emperor v. Nazir Ahmad Khwaja wherein the law
was well settled that the courts would not thwart any
investigation or that the courts should be very slow in
interfering with the process of investigation. It is only in rare
cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed in the FIR that
the court may stop the investigation so as to avoid the
harassment of the alleged accused. Even in such exercise of
power, the court cannot embark upon an inquiry as to the
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or
the complaint which have to be examined only after the
evidence is collected.
47. The breach of conditions of the MoU or
allegations of false promises in relation to the aforesaid
MoU are undisputedly subject matter of the different FIRs
lodged by VLS itself. Therefore, violation of those
conditions for some reasons have been considered by VLS
to be offensive. Therefore, the High Court rightly held
that if breach of those conditions of the MoU itself has
been considered to be of criminal nature by VLS, it cannot
be permitted to turn around and allege that such breach
of conditions would be of pure civil nature.
48. Thus, in the above facts and circumstances, we do
not consider to go into detail as to the exact nature of disputes
involved in the FIR and leave the same to be adjudicated upon
by the appropriate court where the chargesheets have been
submitted."
46
15.3. In KATHYAYINI v. SIDHARTH P.S. REDDY3 the Apex
Court has held as follows:
".... .... ....
19. We now come to the issue of bar against
prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We
hereby hold that no such bar exists against prosecution if
the offences punishable under criminal law are made out
against the parties to the civil suit. Learned senior counsel
Dr.MenakaGuruswamy has rightly placed the relevant judicial
precedents to support the above submission. In the case of K.
Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.3, this Court has reviewed its
precedents which clarify the position. The relevant paragraph
from the above judgment is extracted below:
"8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the
very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as
well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is
availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in
motion the proceedings in criminal law."
20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar4, this Court summed
up the distinction between the two remedies as under:
"21. ... There are a large number of cases
where criminal law and civil law can run side by side.
The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but
clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their
content and consequence. The object of the criminal
law is to punish an offender who commits an offence
against a person, property or the State for which the
accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his
liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not,
however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the
wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an
anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available,
a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types
of actions are quite different in content, scope and import.
It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the
husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428
47
of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar
prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients
of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that
because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the
custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken
as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real
intent of the law."
21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi
Agarwal v. State of W.B.,
"17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to
the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not
justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the
appellant against the respondents. We are also not
impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was
pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified
to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the
basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with
in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil
action in a different court even though higher in status and
authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the
proceedings."
22. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this Court
in K. Jagadish (supra) set aside the holding of High Court to
quash the criminal proceedings and held that criminal
proceedings shall continue to its logical end.
23. The above precedents set by this Court make it
crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the
same subject matter, involving the same parties is no
justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima
facie case exists against the accused persons. In present
case certainly such prima facie case exists against the
respondents. Considering the long chain of events from
creation of family tree excluding the daughters of K.G.
Yellappa Reddy, partition deed among only the sons and
grandsons of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, distribution of
compensation award among the respondents is sufficient
to conclude that there was active effort by respondents to
reap off the benefits from the land in question. Further,
the alleged threat to appellant and her sisters on
48
revelation of the above chain of events further affirms
the motive of respondents. All the above factors suggest
that a criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the
appellant."
15.4. In PUNIT BERIWALA v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)4
the Apex Court holds as follows:
".... .... ....
MERE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS CANNOT ACT AS A
BAR TO INVESTIGATION OF COGNIZABLE OFFENCES
28. It is trite law that mere institution of civil
proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to hold
that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This Court in
various judgments, has held that simply because there is a
remedy provided for breach of contract, that does not by
itself clothe the Court to conclude that civil remedy is the
only remedy, and the initiation of criminal proceedings, in
any manner, will be an abuse of the process of the court.
This Court is of the view that because the offence was
committed during a commercial transaction, it would not be
sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a further
investigation and if necessary, a trial. [See: Syed Aksari Hadi Ali
Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admin.), (2009) 5 SCC
528, Lee Kun Hee v. State of UP, (2012) 3 SCC
132 and Trisuns Chemicals v. Rajesh Aggarwal, (1999) 8
SCC 686]".
15.5. The Apex Court in the case of C.S. PRASAD v. C.
SATYAKUMAR5, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 983
5
2026 SCC OnLine SC 50
49
22. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised
with great caution. This Court in catena of judgments
has emphasised that the High Court must avoid usurping
the function of a trial court or conducting a mini-
trial when disputed factual questions attend the
maintainability of a complaint. The only requirement is to
examine whether the uncontroverted allegations, as contained
in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of
any cognizable offence. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal5, a
Division Bench of this Court had discussed about the scope of
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
50
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
(emphasis supplied)
23. Furthermore, in Neeharika Infrastructure
6
Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra , a three-Judge
Bench of this Court had held that the power to quash
criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, and
only where the complaint, even if accepted in full,
discloses no offence or continuation would amount to
abuse of process. This Court had issued the following
directions to the High Courts to be kept in mind while
exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.:
"Conclusions
33. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core
issue, whether the High Court would be justified in
51
passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or
"no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency
of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in
what circumstances and whether the High Court would
be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the
accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the
investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed
under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing
of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal
proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under
Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as
under:
33.1....
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation
into the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
information report that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on.
33.4. The power of quashing should be
exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has
been observed, in the "rarest of rare cases" (not
to be confused with the formation in the context of
death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court cannot
embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or
genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made
in the FIR/complaint.
33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be
scuttled at the initial stage.
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8 to 33.11....
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details
52
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the allegations in the
FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts
to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure.
33.13 and 33.14....
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR
is made by the alleged accused and the court when
it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC,
only has to consider whether the allegations in the
FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or
not. The court is not required to consider on merits
whether or not the merits of the allegations make
out a cognizable offence and the court has to
permit the investigating agency/police to
investigate the allegations in the FIR.
....."
(emphasis supplied)
24. On these lines, it is apt clear that even though
the powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. are very
wide, its conferment requires the High Courts to be more
cautious and diligent. While examining any FIR, the High
Court exercising its power under this provision cannot go
embarking upon the genuineness of the allegations
made. The High Court must only consider whether there
exists any sufficient material to proceed against the
accused or not and must not be concerned with the
reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of the evidence.
25. Testing on the aforesaid parameters, we find that
the complaint dated 08.01.2020 made by the appellant
contains categorical allegations that respondent Nos. 1 to 3, by
abusing the advanced age and medical vulnerability of the
53
executants, caused the execution and registration of the three
settlement deeds to their unlawful advantage, and thereafter
used such documents as genuine for the purpose of deriving
proprietary benefits. The allegations in the complaint also
disclose dishonest intention at the inception of the
transaction as well as fabrication and wrongful use of
documents. At this stage, we must note that the High
Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C. is bound to take the allegations on its face value.
Whether these allegations can ultimately be proved is a
matter strictly within the province of the Trial Court.
26. In the impugned order, the High Court has
quashed the proceedings primarily on the ground that
the validity of the settlement deeds has been upheld in
the proceedings before the Civil Court. We are of the
view that this approach adopted by the High Court is not
correct. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence
that civil liability and criminal liability may arise from the
same set of facts and that the pendency or conclusion of
civil proceedings does not bar prosecution where the
ingredients of a criminal offence are disclosed.
In Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy7, this Court had
made it crystal clear that "pendency of civil proceedings
on the same subject matter, involving the same parties
is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a
prima facie case exists against the accused persons."
27. Adjudication in civil matters and criminal
prosecution proceed on different principles. The decree
passed by the Civil Court neither records findings on
criminal intent nor on the existence of offences such as
forgery, cheating, or use of forged documents.
Therefore, civil adjudication cannot always be treated as
determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of
quashment. Moreover, in the case at hand, the civil
proceedings have not attained finality.
28. Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of
forged documents in relation to a settlement deed will
always carry a civil element. Therefore, there cannot be
any general proposition that whenever dispute involves
a civil element, a criminal proceeding cannot go on.
54
Criminal liability must be examined independently.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to acquittal only upon
failure of proof in the trial and not at the threshold jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. To permit quashing on the
sole ground of a civil suit would encourage unscrupulous
litigants to defeat criminal prosecution by instituting
civil proceedings.
29. A further perusal of the impugned order would show
that the High Court has also attached significance to the
conduct of the appellant and the delay of almost 6 years on his
part in initiation of criminal proceedings without any plausible
explanation. The High Court had noted that the appellant
remained ex parte instead of participating in the civil
proceedings in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 of which he was already
a party. Instead, the appellant had preferred a private
complaint suppressing the fact that the settlement deeds are
already a subject matter of the said suit. The High Court had
found this conduct of the appellant to be in favour of
respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and had proceeded to quash the
proceedings against them. Before we express our opinion on
this, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant observations of the
High Court on this aspect:
"8. ....... In the said suit O.S. No. 2190 of 2014,
the defacto complainant C.S. Prasad was arrayed as
2nd defendant. He had entered appearance through a
counsel, but had not contested the suit neither he filed
statement or adduced evidence challenging the validity
of the registered documents. He remained exparte. If
really he had any material to establish that he was
cheated by his elder brother by making false documents
and forgery, he should have participated in the suit
proceedings or atleast filed complaint immediately. He
had filed a complaint to the Commissioner of Police only
on 08.01.2020 and the same after enquiry was closed
on 17.03.2020 as civil dispute. When his complaint was
closed as dispute is civil in nature, the suit O.S. No.
2190 of 2014 was pending. Hence, he had all
opportunities to file application to set aside the exparte
order passed against him on 08.06.2015 and participate
in the suit where the validity of the 3 settlements deeds
were one of the issues under consideration.
55
9. Instead of participating in the civil proceeding,
the private complaint filed on 12.10.2021 under
Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., suppressing the fact that
settlement deeds are subject matter in the pending suit.
In this regard it can be safely presumed that the
2nd respondent herein had knowledge about the
settlement deeds if not earlier at least on the date of
receipt of suit summons in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014.
Whereas no plausible explanation placed by him in his
complaint for delay of 6 years in filing the complaint."
(emphasis supplied)
30. We are not impressed with the above findings
reached by the High Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure
Private Limited (supra), this Court had made it clear that
while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr.
P.C., the High Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry
into the disputed questions of fact or record findings on
the merits of the allegations. On perusal of the above
observations of the High Court, we find that the High
Court has erred in law by embarking upon an inquiry
with regard to the conduct of the appellant and
credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the
complaint and the FIR. Delay in filing a complaint, by itself,
is never a ground for quashing criminal proceedings at the
threshold. Whether the delay stands satisfactorily explained or
whether it impacts the credibility of the prosecution, is a matter
of appreciation of evidence before the Trial Court and not for
summary determination by the High Court under Section 482 of
the Cr. P.C.
31. It is a settled proposition that when a factual
foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be
short-circuited by invoking inherent jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Where allegations require
adjudication on evidence, the proper course is to permit
the trial to proceed in accordance with law. In the
present case, the issues relating to the state of mind of
the executants at the time of execution of the settlement
deeds, the role of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the
execution and the use of the settlement deeds, the
existence of fraudulent intent, and the manner in which
56
proprietary advantage was obtained by them, all require
a full-fledged trial on evidence."
The Apex Court in ROCKY's case supra reaffirmed the settled
principle, that a mere availability of a civil remedy does not by itself
eclipse the jurisdiction of the criminal law, where the allegations on
their face disclose essential ingredients of a recognizable offence. In
the said matter, the allegations levelled were invoking Sections
406, 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC. Upon a careful and nuanced
examination of the factual matrix, the Apex Court deemed it
appropriate to interdict the prosecution, only insofar as the
offence under Section 406 of the IPC was concerned, while
allowing the remaining charges to stand and the criminal
trial to proceed. This course was adopted upon Court's
satisfaction, that notwithstanding the presence of civil
elements, the controversy could not be characterized as one
of a purely civil complexion.
In ANURAG BHATNAGAR's case supra, the Apex Court once
again declined to exercise its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceedings, noting that the memorandum of understanding
between the parties was not a mere commercial arrangement
57
simpliciter, but one imbued with allegations of inducement and
criminal breach of trust, as borne out from the averments contained
in the complaint. The Court held that the allegations, if taken
to its face value, were sufficient to constitute the
commission of a criminal offence and therefore, warranted
adjudication through the rigours of a criminal trial.
In KATHYAYINI's case supra, where civil suits involving
identical parties arising out of the same transaction were
admittedly pending, the Apex Court held that pendency of
civil proceedings cannot be employed as a shield to thwart
criminal prosecution. The Court underscored that where the
allegations disclose a prima facie case against the accused, the
continuance of criminal proceedings is neither impermissible nor an
abuse of the process, notwithstanding the existence of parallel civil
litigation between the same parties.
Echoing this well entrenched jurisprudence, the Apex
Court in PUNIT BERIWALA supra categorically held that
mere institution of civil proceedings does not operate as a
legal embargo upon the investigation or prosecution of a
58
cognizable criminal offence. The Court, thus, reinforced the
salutary principle that civil and criminal remedies though
they may arise from the same set of facts, operate in distinct
spheres and pursue fundamentally different objectives, a
caveat, it would depend on facts obtaining in each of the cases.
In C.S. PRASAD supra, the Apex Court holds that civil
liability and criminal liability may arise from the same set of
facts and that the pendency or conclusion of civil
proceedings does not bar prosecution where the ingredients
of a criminal offence are disclosed. The Apex Court was
considering a case pertaining to a fraudulent settlement deed and
observed that adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged
documents in relation to a settlement deed will always carry a civil
element. Therefore, there cannot be any general proposition
that whenever a dispute involves a civil element, a criminal
proceeding cannot go on. Further, the Apex Court reiterates the
principle that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot
be exercised in cases where disputed questions of fact exist.
59
16. It is trite law that a FIR is not an encyclopedia of
offences. The Apex Court in NEEHARIKA INFRASTRUCTURE (P)
LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA6 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the allegations in the
FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts
to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure."
16.1. Again, the Apex Court in the case of SOMJEET
MALLICK v. STATE OF JHARKHAND,7 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the
impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of
deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the
case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not,
the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the
complaint, including the materials collected during
6
(2021) 19 SCC 401
7
(2024) 10 SCC 527
60
investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be
taken at their face value so as to determine whether a
prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against
the accused, as the case may be, is made out. The
correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this
stage.
16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute
provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential
ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact
which may be inferred from the act in question as well
as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the
accused. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the
accused, despite taking possession of the truck on hire,
has failed to pay hire charges for months together,
while making false promises for its payment, a prima
facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part
of the accused, is made out which may require
investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is
quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing
short of an act which thwarts a legitimate
investigation.
17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia
of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR
discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to
be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but
the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to
find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence
has been committed or not. At this stage, the court is
not required to ascertain as to which specific offence
has been committed.
18. It is only after investigation, at the time of
framing charge, when materials collected during
investigation are before the court, the court has to
draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence
the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the
court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR
alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused
which, if supported by materials, would disclose
61
commission of a cognizable offence, investigation
should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR.
19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not
become infructuous on submission of a police report
under Section 173(2)CrPC, but when a police report
has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay
on the investigation, the court must apply its mind to
the materials submitted in support of the police report
before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential
proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when
the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest
conduct of the accused."
The Apex Court in terms of the afore-quoted judgments holds that
investigation cannot be interdicted when a cognizable offence is
made out in the FIR. In the light of 6 out of 7 petitions challenging
the crimes that are still at the stage of investigation, there can be
no warrant of interference.
17. In one of the petitions i.e., Criminal Petition No.6418 of
2025 final report quoted hereinabove would clearly mandate a trial
against the petitioner. The issue is neither civil nor financial. It is
clearly laced with luring dishonest intention from the inception and
alleged fraud. It is by now too well-settled that this Court while
exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. cannot
62
embark on a mini-trial by entering into the merits of the
allegations.
17.1. The Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH8, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted
that in the present case the High Court in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,, has quashed the
criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections
147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required
to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,, quashed the
criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating
officer after recording the statement of the
witnesses, statement of the complainant and
collecting the evidence from the incident place and
after taking statement of the independent witnesses
and even statement of the accused persons, has filed
the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for
the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329
and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also
took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and
order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC
OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not
appear that the High Court took into consideration the
material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even
the statements recorded. If the petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C.,, was at the stage of FIR in that case the
allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to
be considered and whether a cognizable offence is
disclosed or not is required to be considered.
However, thereafter when the statements are
recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet
is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry
8
(2021) 9 SCC 35
63
the matter stands on different footing and the Court
is required to consider the material/evidence
collected during the investigation. Even at this stage
also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of
decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the
merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the
case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate
jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this
Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai
Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 :
(2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether
factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or
not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency
nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is
further observed and held that that question is required to
be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and
prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such
stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor
can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR
and material relied on. It is further observed it is
more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is
further observed that in such a situation, it becomes
the job of the investigating authority at such stage to
probe and then of the court to examine questions
once the charge-sheet is filed along with such
material as to how far and to what extent reliance
can be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram
Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC
191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the
decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC
(Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,, to quash the proceedings is an
exception and not a rule. It is further observed that
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,,
though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully
and with caution, only when such exercise is justified
by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It
is further observed that appreciation of evidence is
not permissible at the stage of quashing of
64
proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C., Similar view has been expressed by this Court
in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC
686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of
Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC
(Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10
SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to
hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are
of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise
of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and
consider the fact that there are very serious triable
issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and
considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost
sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the
course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to
appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a
joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and
Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta
Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was
transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required
to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated
27-10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25
lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to
Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the
possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the
same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to
be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have
been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession
to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not
the accused have to establish during the trial, because the
accused are relying upon the said document and payment
of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit
dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that
the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to
be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment
of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The
65
aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are
required to be considered at the time of trial. The High
Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material
collected during the investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High
Court that no case is made out for the offence under
Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the
High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit
dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the
High Court the same is required to be considered in the
civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an
error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another
FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences
under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said
alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the
accused the possession was handed over to them.
However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned
in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and
even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2
lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they
were handed over the possession (which is seriously
disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property.
Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out
for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the
aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also
required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni
Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the
accused and that too for permanent injunction only.
Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance
has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects
are required to be considered at the time of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred
in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into
the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was
exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or
conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
66
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that
original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation
is made on the premise that the complainant has not
placed on record the power of attorney along with the
counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is
specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed
the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating
officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded
the statement of the complainant, accused and the
independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant
is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered
during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam
Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed
by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in
exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and
set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now,
the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in
accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear
that the observations made by this Court in the present
proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only and the trial
court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its
own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and
without being influenced by any of the observations made
by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly
allowed."
17.2. The Apex Court in the case of MUSKAN v. ISHAAN
KHAN (SATANIYA)9, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
C. ANALYSIS
9
2025 SCC Online SC 2355
67
17. The main issue that arises for our analysis is
whether the High Court was right in quashing the criminal
proceedings against the private respondents primarily on the
ground that the earlier complaints did not mention the two
specific incidents dated 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022, which
were later on added in the FIR and whether the same would
not amount to conducting a 'mini trial' which is clearly
prohibited under the scheme of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.
18. At the outset it will be appropriate to advert to the
observations made by the High Court in paragraphs 9 and 10
of the impugned order:
"9. It is undisputed that prior to filing FIR
(Annexure P/5), a written complaint dated 22.01.2023
(Annexure P/3) was filed before Mahila Police Station,
Ratlam, District Ratlam (MP) for the alleged harassment
meted out to respondent No. 2 from her husband and
in-laws (applicants before this Court). It is also not in
dispute that both the parties i.e. applicant No. 1 and
respondent No. 2, on their counter allegations, were
advised by Police Mahila Thana, Ratlam to take recourse
of law, but no action was taken on the above 3 MCRC-
10695-2024 complaint by respondent No. 2. In such a
situation, if respondent No. 2 was aggrieved of advice
dated 23.01.2023 given by Mahila Police Station,
Ratlam, she might have approached the Superintendent
of Police for inaction on the part of the concerned Police
Station on her complaint, but this has not been done.
10. It is also pertinent to note that in the (sic)
above written complaint, there has not been a whisper
of the events of harassment on 22.07.2021 and
27.11.2022, as narrated in the FIR (Annexure P/5). It
manifests that the alleged incidents of harassment
meted out to the complainant allegedly took place on
22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 are afterthought. The
contentions raised on behalf of the applicants that FIR
(Annexure P/5) is a counterblast to notice (Annexure
P/1) given by applicant No. 1 to respondent No. 2 also
finds support from the above."
(emphasis supplied)
68
19. From a bare perusal of the above mentioned
paragraphs it can be seen that one of the important factors
that weighed in while allowing the quashing application of the
private respondents was that in the earlier complaints filed by
the appellant, there was no mention of the events of
harassment that happened on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022,
which were later on added in the FIR dated 28.01.2024.
Hence, we extract the relevant portion of the complaints dated
22.01.2023 and 23.01.2023 which would clearly indicate prime
facie allegations of harassment and demand of dowry against
the private respondents:
"22.01.2023
...That immediately after the Nikah, the
respondents namely Ishan, father-in-law Ishaq Khan,
mother-in-law Irfana Bi, sister-in law (Nanad) Ayesha,
Nandoi Shayid Khan, Jeth Hemuddin son of Akbar Khan
resident of Ujjain started raising demand of dowry from
me. They are constantly causing physical and mental
harassment for the last two years. A demand of dowry is
being raised every day since the day of my marriage. My
father gave a Pulsar Bike but I was asked to bring a car.
On the occasion of my sister-in-law's wedding, they
asked me to ask my father to give an A.C to their
daughter Ayesha in the dowry. My mother-in-law did not
allow my husband to come to the hospital at the time of
my delivery. At the time of my 'God-Bharai', she
demanded clothes and my mother-in-law puts
restrictions on my eating food and having breakfast. She
asks me to eat the same vegetable three times a day
and asks me not to eat breakfast, she lets me drink tea
once a day, she has installed cameras in my kitchen. My
mother-in-law locks me in the house from outside. She
does not allow me to talk to my husband. My husband
would come to me at 11 o'clock in the night and would
quarrel with me and assault me. My sister-in-law and
brother-in-law would come to Ghosla almost every day
and would scare me and threaten to kill me. They do not
give me my mobile phone, they do not let my family
members come to Ghosla and talk to me even on the
phone. It is the daily routine of my father-in-law to hurl
abuses morning and evening."
*****
69
23.01.2023
.... Since after my marriage, I have been tortured
and threatened. Ask your father to give a car and a
demand was raised for an A.C. in my sister-in-law's
marriage. When the demand could not be fulfilled by my
father, I am being made to eat same vegetable for three
days and they do not allow me to take my breakfast and
I am given tea only once in a day.
My mother-in-law, sister-in-law, brother-in-law
and father-in-law come together to my room and hurl
abuses and threaten me. My father-in-law hurls abuses
in obscene language and my mother-in-law makes me
work the entire day and does not let me eat anything.
My sister-in-law and brother-in-law everyday tell my
mother-in-law to send him away over the phone. Many
times they confine me in the room and lock the same
from outside and I am not allowed to go out and I am
not even allowed to open the window of the house. They
have confined me as hostage in the house for many
days. They do not let me talk to my family on phone and
do not even let my family members meet me. My
husband is also involved in all this. He never gives me
even 2 rupees for expenses. They do not even allow me
to visit my relatives. As such, being troubled by all this,
I came to my parents' house.
...."
It is also apposite that we extract the relevant portions
of the FIR so as to better understand the allegations against
the private respondents, particularly the two specific incidents
that happened on 22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022. The relevant
extract reads thus:
".....I kept tolerating their taunts in order to save
my marital life. But on 22.07.2021, my husband Ishan
Khan, mother-in-law Irfana Bee, father-in-law Ishaq
Khan, sister-in law Aaysha Bee and brother-in-law
(Nandoi) Syed Khan hurled abuses to me. My brother-
in-law (Nandoi) Syed Khan slapped me also and asked
me to bring dowry from your father's house. Despite all
this, I kept tolerating their torture. But on 27.11.2022,
my husband Ishan Khan told me that I have passed the
examination of M.B.B.S. and now I have to pursue
70
M.C.I. Examination, as such, now if you will bring an
amount of Rs. fifty lacs from your father, only then, I
will keep you with me and say this, he ousted me and
my son Iwaan Khan from the house while holding our
hand. Thereafter, I came to my father Zahid Khan's
house at Alot and narrated the entire incident to my
father and mother Parveen Bee. Since then, I am
residing at Alot alongwith my father. My father made
several attempts to make my husband and in-laws
understand but these people are adamant for their
demand of dowry of a sum of Rs. fifty lacs that unless
and until, they are given a dowry of Rs. fifty lacs, they
will not take me with them. Today, I have come to make
a report in the police station alongwith my father Zahid
Khan. I lodge the report, action may be taken."
(emphasis supplied)
20. The classic exposition on law under Section 482 of
the CrP.C is found in Bhajan Lal (supra) wherein this Court
elaborated upon the scope of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. It
was held thus:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent
powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelized and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
71
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a
non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
21. In Daxaben v. State of Gujarat9, a two-Judge Bench
held as follows:
"26. Even though, the inherent power of the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC, to interfere with criminal
proceedings is wide, such power has to be exercised
with circumspection, in exceptional cases. Jurisdiction
72
under Section 482 CrPC is not to be exercised for the
asking.
27. In Monica Kumar v. State of U.P. [(2008) 8
SCC 781 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 649], this Court held that
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC has to be
exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only
when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically
laid down in the section itself.
28. In exceptional cases, to prevent abuse of the
process of the Court, the High Court might in exercise of
its inherent powers under Section 482 quash criminal
proceedings. However, interference would only be
justified when the complaint did not disclose any
offence, or was patently frivolous, vexatious or
oppressive, as held by this Court in Dhanalakshmi v. R.
Prasanna Kumar [1990 Supp SCC 686 : 1991 SCC (Cri)
142 : AIR 1990 SC 494].
*****
36. Offence under Section 306 IPC of abetment
to commit suicide is a grave, non-compoundable
offence. Of course, the inherent power of the High Court
under Section 482 CrPC is wide and can even be
exercised to quash criminal proceedings relating to non-
compoundable offences, to secure the ends of justice or
to prevent abuse of the process of court. Where the
victim and offender have compromised disputes
essentially civil and personal in nature, the High Court
can exercise its power under Section 482 CrPC to quash
the criminal proceedings. In what cases power to quash
an FIR or a criminal complaint or criminal proceedings
upon compromise can be exercised, would depend on
the facts and circumstances of the case."
22. On the aspect of the powers of the Courts
under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., it is settled that at the
stage of quashing, the Court is not required to conduct a
mini trial. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of
the Cr. P.C. with respect to quashing is somewhat
limited as the Court has to only consider whether any
sufficient material is available to proceed against the
73
accused or not. If sufficient material is available, the
power under Section 482 should not be exercised.
23. This Court in the case of State of Odisha v. Pratima
Mohanty10 held that:
"8.2. It is trite that the power of quashing should
be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and in
rare cases. As per the settled proposition of law while
examining an FIR/complaint quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon any enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness of allegations made in the
FIR/complaint. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be
an exception rather than any ordinary rule. Normally the
criminal proceedings should not be quashed in exercise
of powers under Section 482 CrPC when after a
thorough investigation the charge-sheet has been filed.
At the stage of discharge and/or considering the
application under Section 482 CrPC the courts are
not required to go into the merits of the
allegations and/or evidence in detail as if
conducting the mini-trial. As held by this Court the
powers under Section 482 CrPC are very wide, but
conferment of wide power requires the court to be
more cautious. It casts an onerous and more
diligent duty on the Court."
24. Further in the case of Central Bureau of
Investigation v. Aryan Singh11, this Court held that at
the stage of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the High Court
is not required to conduct a mini trial.
"6. From the impugned common judgment
and order [Aryan Singh v. CBI, 2022 SCC OnLine
P&H 4158] passed by the High Court, it appears
that the High Court has dealt with the proceedings
before it, as if, the High Court was conducting a
mini trial and/or the High Court was considering
the applications against the judgment and order
passed by the learned trial court on conclusion of
trial. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the
stage of discharge and/or quashing of the criminal
proceedings, while exercising the powers under
Section 482 CrPC, the Court is not required to
conduct the mini trial. The High Court in the
74
common impugned judgment and order has
observed that the charges against the accused are
not proved. This is not the stage where the
prosecution/investigating agency is/are required
to prove the charges. The charges are required to
be proved during the trial on the basis of the
evidence led by the prosecution/investigating
agency."
(emphasis supplied)
25. This Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Private
Limited (supra) gave following directions to the Courts
exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.:
"Conclusions
33. In view of the above and for the reasons
stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core
issue, whether the High Court would be justified in
passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or
"no coercive steps to be adopted", during the pendency
of the quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC and/or
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in
what circumstances and whether the High Court would
be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the
accused or "no coercive steps to be adopted" during the
investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed
under Section 173 CrPC, while dismissing/disposing
of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal
proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under
Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under:
33.1 ....
33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation
into the cognizable offences.
33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable
offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first
information report that the Court will not permit an
investigation to go on.
75
33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised
sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed,
in the "rarest of rare cases" (not to be confused with the
formation in the context of death penalty).
33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint,
quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark
upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or
otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint.
33.6 ....
33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an
exception rather than an ordinary rule.
33.8 to 33.11 ....
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details
relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the
investigation by the police is in progress, the court
should not go into the merits of the allegations in the
FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the
investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the
conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR
does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts
to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the
investigating officer finds that there is no substance in
the application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate which
may be considered by the learned Magistrate in
accordance with the known procedure.
33.13 and 33.14 .....
33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is
made by the alleged accused and the court when it
exercises the power under Section 482 CrPC, only has to
consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose
commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is
not required to consider on merits whether or not the
merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence
and the court has to permit the investigating
agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR."
76
(emphasis supplied)
26. Further, this Court in the case of State of
Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani12 held that:
"13. There can be no dispute over the
proposition that inherent power in a matter of
quashment of FIR has to be exercised sparingly
and with caution and when and only when such
exercise is justified by the test specifically laid
down in the provision itself. There is no denial of
the fact that the power under Section 482 CrPC is
very wide but it needs no special emphasis to
state that conferment of wide power requires the
Court to be more cautious. It casts an onerous and
more diligent duty on the Court.
14. In this regard, it would be seemly to
reproduce a passage from Kurukshetra University
[Kurukshetra University v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4
SCC 451 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 613] wherein Chandrachud, J.
(as his Lordship then was) opined thus : (SCC p. 451,
para 2)
“2. It surprises us in the extreme that the High
Court thought that in the exercise of its inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it
could quash a first information report. The police had not
even commenced investigation into the complaint filed
by the Warden of the University and no proceeding at all
was pending in any court in pursuance of the FIR. It
ought to be realised that inherent powers do not confer
an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act
according to whim or caprice. That statutory power has
to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the
rarest of rare cases.””
SPONSORED
(emphasis supplied)
27. We are of the view that the High Court has
erred in law by embarking upon an enquiry with regard
to credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the
complaints and the FIR. Normally, for quashing an FIR,
it must be shown that there exists no prime facie case
against the accused persons. In the present case, from
the conjoint reading of the complaints and the FIR, it
77can be seen that prime facie allegations of harassment
and demand of dowry are made out, despite that the
High Court quashed the FIR against the private
respondents primarily on the ground that the earlier
two complaints that were filed by the appellant did not
mention the specific instances that happened on
22.07.2021 and 27.11.2022 and the same were later on
mentioned in the FIR only as an afterthought and was a
counterblast to the legal notice sent by respondent no.
1/husband to the appellant as she was not coming back
to her matrimonial home. This approach adopted by the
High Court, in our considered opinion, amounts to
conducting a mini trial.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court, this
Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C. and adjudicate on disputed questions of fact. Therefore, it is
for the petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial.
18. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in these
petitions, the petitions stand dismissed.
Interim order, if any, operating shall stand dissolved.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:MJ
