[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Lob Property Management Private Ltd vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:8395
CRL.P No. 5330 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5330 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
LOB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
PRIVATE LIMITED, (PREVIOUSLY
NITESH PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
PRIVATE LIMITED) REGD. OFFICE.
PLOT NO.76-8, UNIT 3,
COMMISSARIAT ROAD,
ASHOKANAGAR, BENGALURU-560025
AND AT 7TH FLOOR, NITESH TIME SQUARE
#8, M.G ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT 2013 AND REPRESENTED
BY HEREIN BY ITS SPECIAL OFFICER AND
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY SRI K B. SWAMY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed AND:
by
PRASHANTH N 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
V
Location: High
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
Court of HALASUR POLICE STATION
Karnataka
BENGALURU CITY,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. M/S. STEADFAST MANAGEMENT SERVICES
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. MANJUNATH, OFFICE AT #436/A,
13TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 1ST BLOCK
MANJUNATH NAGAR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:8395
CRL.P No. 5330 of 2022
HC-KAR
RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. BABU D.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 16.04.2022 PASSED BY THE HONBLE X ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU IN PCR
NO.51239/2020 (THAT IS ANNEXURE-A) REFERRING THE CASE TO
HALASUR POLICE FOR INVESTIGATION U/S.156(3) OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. AND ETC.,
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner being the accused in Crime No.100/2022 of
Halasur Police Station (in PCR No.51239/2020), pending on the
file of the learned X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 415 and 425 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'),
is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against
him.
2. Heard Sri Siddharth Suman, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government
NC: 2026:KHC:8395
HC-KAR
Pleader, for respondent No.1 - State and Sri Babu D.R. learned
counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made out any
grounds to allow the petition and to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against him?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
4. Respondent No.2-the Company into property
management is said to have entered into an agreement with
the petitioner / accused, which is also into property
management business. The complainant was providing house
keeping services. The petitioner took such services of the
complainant / respondent no.2 for management of various
properties. It is stated that there was an agreement between
the petitioner and respondent No.2 on 31.07.2015 and dated
01.04.2016. The agreements were valid for a period of 12
NC: 2026:KHC:8395
HC-KAR
months. As per Clause 16.3, both the parties have agreed to
refer the dispute if any, to Arbitration.
5. Respondent No.2 is said to had filed a complaint with
the police alleging commission of the offences under Sections
415 and 425 of IPC. The police issued NCR and refused to
register FIR. Therefore, the private complaint in
PCR.No.51239/2020 came to be filed. The learned Magistrate
referred the matter for investigation, upon which, the FIR in
Crime No.100/2022 came to be registered. As per the FIR, the
date of offence is from 01.07.2015 till 24.05.2022. There is
absolutely no reason as to how the offence could be committed
upto 24.05.2022 i.e. till the date of registration of the FIR when
the private complaint is dated 22.01.2020.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that there is non-compliance of the directions issued
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava V/s State
of U.P.1 as no complaint was made as required under Section
154(3) Cr.PC. He also contends that there was no affidavit in
accordance with law which was filed accompanying the
(2015) 6 SCC 287
NC: 2026:KHC:8395
HC-KAR
complaint, as initially it is only the verifying affidavit that was
filed, which is subsequently replaced by another affidavit.
7. As per the averments made in the complaint, the
complainant is the proprietor of the Company providing
services for property management and the petitioner has
availed such services under two agreements dated 31.07.2015
and 01.04.2016. It is not in dispute that the said agreements
were for a period of 12 months. It is also not in dispute that
there was an Arbitration Clause as per 16.3 of both these
agreements.
8. The allegations made in the complaint is that, even
though the petitioner has made certain payments clearing some
invoices, it has not cleared all the invoices. As per the
complaint, there were 18 invoices totaling into Rs.14,00,000/-.
Therefore, it is the only allegation that even though the
petitioner has received the services from the complainant, as
per agreement, he has not cleared the amount mentioned in
the invoice. There is also reference to a legal notice dated
17.09.2019 issued by the complainant to the petitioner
demanding settlement of the amount. It is alleged that in-spite
NC: 2026:KHC:8395
HC-KAR
of receipt of notice, the petitioner had not replied to the same.
Therefore, it is stated that the petitioner has committed the
offences punishable under Sections 415 and 425 of IPC.
9. When admittedly there is a written agreement
between the parties and the complainant is claiming certain
sum of money under the terms of the agreement, the dispute
could be referred to the Arbitration as per Clause 16.3 of the
agreement. Prima-facie, it is the civil dispute between the
parties as the complainant claiming amount towards services
that was rendered. By no stretch of imagination either the
offence under Section 415 or under 425 of IPC could be made
out against the petitioner. However, the Trial Court proceeded
to refer the matter for investigation without application of mind
and the FIR came to be registered and the investigation was
undertaken. In the meantime, there is an interim order granted
by this Court.
10. Even if the contention taken by the complainant in
the private complaint is to be accepted, no offence either under
Section 415 or 425 of IPC is made out when there are no prima
NC: 2026:KHC:8395
HC-KAR
facie materials to constitute the offence, and prima facie the
dispute between the parties is of civil nature.
11. In view of the above, I am of opinion that the
criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to
be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the
petitioner in Crime No.100/2022 of Halasur
Police Station (in PCR No.51239/2020), pending
on the file of the learned X Additional Chief
Metropolitan magistrate, Bengaluru, registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 415
and 425 of IPC, is hereby quashed.
SD/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MKM
CT:VS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
