Karnataka High Court
Sailen Das vs State By Kodigehalli Police Station on 11 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:36015
WP No. 26873 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.26873 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SAILEN DAS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
SON OF MR. BARADA PRASANNA DAS
102, PANCHAWATI RESIDENCY
BARBIL MAIN ROAD
BARBIL KEONJHAR-758035
ODISHA, INDIA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
1. STATE BY KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION
by AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH YELAHANKA SUB-DIVISION
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BB NAGAR, KOTI HOSAHALLI
BENGALURU-560 092
REPRESENTED THROUGH
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
2. A ONE STEELS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
COMPANIES ACT, 2013
REPRESENTED BY MR. SOHIL DATTANI
PRESIDENT (MARKETING)
A ONE HOUSE 326, WARD NO.08
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:36015
WP No. 26873 of 2024
HC-KAR
COAL LAYOUT, SAHAKAR NAGAR
BENGALURU-560 092
KARNATAKA, INDIA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R.1;
SRI.K.DIVAKARA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.ADITYA D, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT BEARING
NO.0303/2024 DATED 6-08-2024 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 506 AND 420 OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE, 1860 OF THE R1 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL
CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM THAT
HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT
DATED 6-08-2024 (ANNEXURE-B) PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE VII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner - sole
accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in
Crime No.0303/2024 for the offences punishable under
NC: 2025:KHC:36015
HC-KAR
Sections 506 and 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the
file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate
Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore.
2. The gist of the complaint is that respondent No.2
- a Private Limited Company entered into a sale-purchase
agreement with Jambu Odisha Trade Private Limited, of
which the present petitioner-accused is one of the
Directors. The principal allegation of respondent No.2, as
the complainant, is that despite the execution of the
agreement between the two companies, Jambu Odisha
Trade Private Limited, after receiving delivery of 20,000
Metric Tonnes of Iron Ore Fines, failed to deliver the same
to the complainant. On the strength of this allegation,
respondent No.2 lodged a written complaint before the
jurisdictional Police Station, asserting that the company
and its officials had committed offences punishable under
Sections 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Acting on
NC: 2025:KHC:36015
HC-KAR
the said complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a
crime against the accused.
3. Aggrieved by the initiation of criminal proceedings,
the petitioner, who is a Director of Jambu Odisha Trade
Private Limited, has approached this Court by way of the
present petition seeking quashing of the proceedings. The
challenge is laid primarily on two grounds:
(i) That the petitioner, merely by virtue of being a
Director, could not have been prosecuted unless the
company itself was arrayed as the principal accused; and
(ii) That a plain reading of the written complaint
demonstrates that the dispute, at its core, arises out of a
contractual transaction, and therefore, Respondent No.2
was not justified in giving a civil dispute the colour of a
criminal prosecution.
4. Per-contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 has sought to justify the registration of
the crime on the basis of the written complaint in its
NC: 2025:KHC:36015
HC-KAR
entirety. It is submitted that the materials placed on
record disclose sufficient grounds to infer that the
petitioner harboured a dishonest intention to cheat
respondent No.2 at the inception of the transaction,
thereby attracting the ingredients of the alleged offences.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as
well as the learned High Court Government Pleader, this
Court has bestowed its anxious consideration on the rival
contentions and has carefully examined the judgments
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
S.N.Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka1 and
in Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh v. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Others2. Before delving into the
merits of the matter, this Court considers it apposite to
reproduce paragraph Nos.6 to 9 of the written complaint,
which read as follows:
AIR 2025 SC 3601
2025 INSC 869
NC: 2025:KHC:36015
HC-KAR
"6. Jambu's director Mr.Sailen Dass visited our
corporate office on 21st December, 2023 to meet to our
directors and we entered into two new contracts:
i) 20,000 MT IOF (Fe 55%) for Rs.2200/MT
(delivery within 20 working days) (Offer copy
and Performa invoice attached as
Annexure 5)
ii) 3,000 MT IOF (Fe 57%) for Rs.5800/MT
(delivery within 7 working days from mining
permit) (Offer copy and Performa invoice
attached as Annexure 6)
iii) We also sent purchase orders on 21st December
2023 specifying the urgent delivery terms of
7 working days (Purchase Orders as
Annexure - 7).
7. Between December 21st 2023 and January 10th
2024, we made further payments to Jambu despite their
continued delays and promises of material delivery.
(Bank statement attached as Annexure 8 for each
payment).
8. On January 3rd 2024, they offered 5400 MT
ready stock at yard (Fe 55%) for Rs.2.5 Cr., which we
paid immediately to procure the material. But again
this time they have not provided the material due to
their habit of taking payment and denying afterwards.
They finally provided 4737 MT on January 8th 2024 with
NC: 2025:KHC:36015
HC-KAR
3 different grades blended, but it was sub-standard. We
have appointed 3rd party agency Mitra SK for analysis
and sampling of Iron Ore Fines and same is attached
herewith. (Purchase order and 3rd party analysis report
attached as Annexure 9)
9. On January 25th 2024, we paid Rs.1.5 Cr. On
the condition that they have to give us blank cheque in
case material is not delivered to us. We have been
chasing them for the remaining materials for over 30
days and till date we have not received any material.
(Bank statement attached as Annexure 10)."
Jambu's director Mr.Sailen Dass visited our
corporate office on 21st December, 2023 to meet to our
directors and we entered into two new contracts:
6. On a careful reading of the extracted portion of
the written complaint, it is evident that the dispute arises
out of a sale-purchase agreement entered into between
two companies, namely, Respondent No.2 - the
complainant company and Jambu Odisha Trade Private
Limited, of which the petitioner is a Director. Under the
terms of the contract dated 20.11.2023, the petitioner,
representing Jambu Odisha Trade Private Limited,
undertook to supply two rakes (wagon series) of Iron Ore
NC: 2025:KHC:36015
HC-KAR
Fines (IOF) to the complainant at Vizag Port within a
period of 7 to 10 working days from the date of execution
of the contract. The essence of the grievance raised by
respondent No.2 is that the said material was not supplied
within the stipulated period as agreed under the
sale-purchase agreement.
7. If these facts, as set out in the complaint, are
taken at their face value, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in S.N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of
Karnataka (supra) is squarely attracted to the case on
hand. The Apex Court has categorically held that, in the
absence of any element of criminality or dishonest
intention at the inception of the transaction, a party
cannot be permitted to pursue both civil and criminal
remedies simultaneously, for such parallel proceedings
would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
NC: 2025:KHC:36015
HC-KAR
8. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the
petitioner, the recitals in the complaint itself disclose that
a substantial portion of the contractual obligations was, in
fact, performed by Jambu Odisha Trade Private Limited, of
which the petitioner is one of the Directors. This aspect is
specifically acknowledged in the written complaint
extracted hereinabove. Therefore, in the absence of any
material to prima-facie indicates that the company, acting
through the petitioner, entertained a fraudulent or
dishonest intention to deceive the complainant at the
inception of the contract, the basic ingredients of the
offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC are not
satisfied. Even if the allegations contained in the complaint
are assumed to be true in their entirety, no offence, as
alleged, can be said to have been made out against the
petitioner.
9. Be that as it may, the admitted position remains
that the parties are bound by a valid and subsisting
contract and the controversy essentially pertains to the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36015
HC-KAR
performance of obligations arising therefrom. Such
disputes are, in their nature, civil and are amenable to
adjudication before an appropriate forum in accordance
with law. This Court is, therefore, of the considered view
that respondent No.2, albeit inadvertently, has been
ill-advised in setting the criminal law in motion in respect
of what is, at its core, a contractual dispute. Allowing the
prosecution to proceed in these circumstances would
clearly amount to permitting an abuse of the process of
law.
10. In the light of the foregoing discussion, this
Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is allowed.
(ii) The FIR registered in Crime
No.0303/2024by Kodigehalli Police Station
for the offences punishable under
Sections 506 and 420 IPC, as
per Annexure-A, together with all
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:36015
HC-KAR
consequential proceedings pending on the
file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru,
are hereby quashed.
(iii) It is, however, clarified that this
order shall not preclude respondent No.2
from initiating appropriate proceedings, in
accordance with law, before a competent
forum to enforce its contractual rights,
if so advised.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
