Sri.K.S.Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 2060 Kant

                                    Crl.P.No.2868/2017

                          1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2021

                      BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.2868/2017

BETWEEN:

SRI K.S.RAMESH
M.D. AND CEO, IDEA INFINITY
IT SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD.
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT NO.42
THAMBUCHETTY ROAD
COX TOWN
BENGALURU-560 005                    ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
        BENGALURU RURAL

2.      SRI MOHAN KUMAR L
        S/O LOKESH
        AGED ABOUT MAJOR
        RESIDING AT YELLAPPA BUILDING
        ATTIBELE MAIN ROAD
        ANEKAL TOWN
        ANEKAL TALUK
        BANGALORE DISTRICT
        KARNATAKA
                                  ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI BIKKANNAVAR S.T., ADV. FOR R2)
                                        Crl.P.No.2868/2017

                            2



      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN
C.C.NO.1208/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL
CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

Heard.

"Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.1208/2015

against the petitioner pending on the file of the

Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Anekal amounts

to abuse of the process of the Court?" is the question

involved in this case.

2. The petitioner is the Managing Director of

Idea Infinity IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limited

Company with its registered office at Cox Town,

Bengaluru. Respondent No.2 filed complaint dated

28.02.2013 against the said company before

respondent No.1 - Police.

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

3. The gist of the said complaint is as

follows:

The Idea Infinity IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,

appointed him as District Coordinator for Anekal. As

per the terms of the agreement, he had to employ

Data Entry Operators. The company assured him to

pay monthly salary of Rs.13,000/- and experience

certificate and payment of salary of Rs.6,000/- p.m.,

to each Data Entry Operator. But the company failed

to pay his salary and the salary of Data Entry

Operators and issue them experience certificates.

Therefore, he had to shed Rs.1,86,000/- to the Data

Entry Operators appointed by him. When he insisted

for payment of his salary and the amount paid to the

Data Entry Operators and experience certificates the

company declined to pay the salary and issue

certificate. Thereby the company had cheated him.

4. The endorsement on Annexure - B shows

that respondent No.1 received the complaint on Crl.P.No.2868/2017

15.05.2013. However, respondent No.1 registered

FIR in Crime No.226/2013 against the company on

27.07.2013 i.e., after two months of the complaint for

the offences punishable under Sections 506, 420,

114 of IPC.

5. On registering the FIR, respondent No.1

summoned the Idea Infinity IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd., for

enquiry. The petitioner as Managing Director of the

said company, appeared before the Investigating

Officer on 06.08.2013 and submitted his statement

as per Annexure-D along with the enclosures. In the

said statement, the petitioner denied that respondent

No.2 was appointed as District Coordinator. He

contended that as per the employment agreement

dated 26.10.2011 respondent No.2 was appointed as

Charge Centre In charge of the company. The other

terms of the employment regarding the authorization

of respondent No.2 to recruit the Data Entry

Operators or rate of salary were all disputed.

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

6. Annexure-D bears the seal and signature

of the Investigating Officer for having received the

same. Thereafter, on 26.08.2014 respondent No.1

charge sheeted the petitioner for the offences

punishable under Sections 114, 420 and 506 of IPC

alleging that the petitioner appointing respondent

No.2 as District Coordinator, in breach of the terms

of the employment agreement declined to pay the

salary of respondent No.2 and Data Entry Operators,

thereby cheated him.

7. The Trial Court vide order dated

02.12.2015 as per Annexure - A took cognizance of

the offence and registered the case in

C.C.No.1208/2015 and issued non-bailable warrant

against the petitioner. The Trial Court in its order

does not even say for which offences cognizance was

taken.

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

8. The petitioner seeks to quash the

complaint in C.C.No.1208/2015 and the proceedings

therein on the following grounds:

(i) The complaint and charge sheet records

themselves do not make out the offences alleged;

(ii) The petitioner is charge sheeted for the offence

of abetment and criminal intimidation for which there

are no allegations either in the complaint or in the

charge sheet records;

(iii) According to respondent No.2 himself, the

alleged act is breach of terms of employment contract

which constitutes a civil remedy. In such case, the

remedy of respondent No.2 is to seek the relief under

the Civil proceedings. Only to harass the petitioner,

the Civil case is given the color of criminal case;

(iv) There are no documents in proof of respondent

No.2 paying Rs.1,86,000/- to CWs.2 to 16. The

employment agreement was executed in Bengaluru.

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

Therefore, respondent No.1 had no jurisdiction to

register the FIR and investigate the matter.

9. Reiterating the grounds of the petition,

Sri. Shamanth Naik learned counsel for the petitioner

relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan

Lal and others1.

10. Per contra, Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G.,

learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.

Bikkannavar S.T., learned counsel for respondent

No.2 submit that the charge sheet is already filed and

at this stage the proceedings cannot be quashed.

They further contend that the statements of CWs.2 to

16 make out a case against the petitioner and the

contentions raised in this petition at the most can be

defence at the trial.

11. It is no doubt true that the powers under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., have to be sparingly used to

AIR 1992 SC 604 Crl.P.No.2868/2017

quash the proceedings. However, if it is shown to the

Court that the criminal proceedings against the

petitioner are abuse of the process of the Court and

continuation of the proceedings lead to failure of

justice, this Court can certainly invoke powers under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and quash the proceedings.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in para

No.108 of the judgment in Bhajan Lal's case referred

to Supra identified categories of cases in which power

could be exercised to prevent abuse of process of the

Court and to secure ends of justice. For the purpose

of this case, paragraphs 108(1),(3),(5),(7) are relevant

which read as follows:

"108. 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 give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be Crl.P.No.2868/2017

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 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. ......

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. ...

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. ....

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted Crl.P.No.2868/2017

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)

13. In the light of the above observations of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has to

examine whether the uncontroverted allegations in

the FIR and the charge sheet constitute the offences

alleged. The basic contention of respondent No.2 is

that he was appointed as the District Coordinator.

But along with the complaint he has not produced

his employment agreement. The Investigating Officer

has not chosen to collect the said agreement.

14. Respondent No.1 does not dispute that on

registration of the FIR the petitioner appeared before

the Investigating Officer and submitted his statement

as per Annexure-D along with the employment

agreement of respondent No.2, the salary paid

receipts etc. Respondent No.1 has not made them

the part of the charge sheet.

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

15. The basic fact to be established was that

respondent No.2 was appointed as District

Coordinator and under the said employment

agreement, he was authorized to appoint the Data

Entry Operators. But that basic document itself was

not collected by the Investigating Officer.

The employment agreement dated 06.08.2013

produced with Annexure-D is not disputed by the

respondents. That does not authorize respondent

No.2 to employ any Data Entry Operators for the

company.

16. Further in Annexure-B the complaint

dated 28.02.2013 respondent No.2 claimed that he

had appointed certain Data Entry Operators. In that

he has not mentioned how many employees were

appointed and their names. The alleged applications

of CWs.2 to 16 were all dated 22.06.2014 and

23.06.2014. That was ten months post the complaint.

Crl.P.No.2868/2017

17. Nothing is forthcoming in the charge sheet

to show that respondent No.2 paid salary to CWs.2 to

16. The said material produced in the charge sheet

to prove the alleged employment of CWs.2 to 16 by

respondent No.2 is absurd and inherently improbable

to persuade any person to reach the conclusion that

he had appointed CWs.2 to 16 prior to the complaint

dated 28.02.2013. Therefore, this case fits into

category Nos.1, 3 and 5 of para 108 of the judgment

in Bajanlal's case.

18. One more thing to be noticed is that the

complaint was against the company. Even the FIR

was registered against the company. While filing the

charge sheet, the petitioner was not arrayed as

accused. It was not even stated in the complaint or

in the statements of the witnesses that the petitioner

was responsible for and incharge of the affairs of

company relating to employment agreement or he Crl.P.No.2868/2017

had some role in the alleged breach of terms of the

employment agreement.

19. If there was breach of employment

agreement, the remedy of respondent No.2 was to

approach the forums under the Labour or Industrial

Laws. He cannot divert the Civil Justice

Administration System by filing criminal case.

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Indian Oil

Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. and others2

observed that in commercial transaction and

disputes there is a tendency of turning them into the

criminal dispute with an intention to bring the other

side to terms. It was also held that the test whether

the allegations in the complaint disclosed criminal

offence or not is whether there was any criminal

intention.

21. It is material to note that though there is

only one accused, the Investigating Officer has filed

(2006) 6 SCC 736 Crl.P.No.2868/2017

the charge sheet for the offences under Section 114 of

IPC i.e., abetment to commit crime. When there are

no allegations of criminal intimidation in the

complaint the charge sheet is filed for offence under

Section 506 of IPC. Without the basic documents of

the employment agreement, the charge sheet is filed.

The said circumstances show that there is sufficient

force in the contention of the petitioner that the FIR

and charge sheet are manifestly attended with

malafides and the proceeding is maliciously

instituted with an ulterior motive to settle the private

disputes.

22. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this

Court is satisfied that the complaint and consequent

proceedings are abuse of the process of the Court and

their continuation lead to failure of ends of justice.

Therefore, the petition is allowed.

The complaint in C.C.No.1208/2015 on the file

of the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Anekal and Crl.P.No.2868/2017

all the consequential proceedings are hereby

quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KG