[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Dhirendrachara vs State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
CRL.P No. 201725 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201725 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. DHIRENDRACHARA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
S/O SHESHAGIRICHAR
R/AT 222/2, 3RD MAIN
PJ EXTN, DAVANAGERA,
DAVANAGERE, KARNATAKA-577002
2. NIKHIL D PAPPU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
S/O DHIRENDRACHAR PAPPU
Digitally signed by R/AT NO. 41 DHANVANTHRI NILAYA
SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA UDAGI 5TH MAIN RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
Location: HIGH CHAMARAJAPETE
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE SOUTH
BENGALURU KARNATAKA-560018
3. SRIPAD D PAPPU
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
OCC: BUSINESS
S/O DHIRENDRACHAR PAPPU
R/AT NO. 41 DHANVANTHRI NILAYA
5TH MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA COLONY
CHAMARAJAPETE
VTC BANGALORE SOUTH
PO CHAMRAJPET
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
CRL.P No. 201725 of 2025
HC-KAR
DISTRICT BENGALURU
STATE KARNATAKA PIN CODE-560018
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. NEEVA M. CHIMKOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIJAYAPURA CEN
CRIME POLICE STATION
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT COMPLEX
KALABURAGI-585103
2. SIDDAPPA BALAGOND
S/O DUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO.KOLHAR
TQ: KOLHAR, VIJAYAPURA
KARNATAKA-586210
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI R. S. LAGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS
(NEW), U/S.482 OF CR.P.C.(OLD), PRAYING TO QUASH THE
FIR AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.59/2025
REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 VIJAYAPURA CEN CRIME
POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF 3RD ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC COURT, BIJAPUR DIST, BIJAPUR FOR
THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 409, 420
OF IPC 1860 AND S 66(D) OF IT ACT, 2008.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
CRL.P No. 201725 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the
FIR against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime
No.59/2025 dated 11.10.2025, registered by Vijayapura
CEN Police Station, for the offences punishable under
Sections 406, 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
Section 66(D) of Information Technology Act, 2008
presently pending on the file of the III Additional Civil
Judge and JMFC, Vijayapura.
2. The factual matrix of the case is,
complainant/respondent No.2 owns landed property to an
extent of 160 acres at Dodihal, Masooti Ronihala villages
of Kolhar Taluk, Vijayapura District. In the year 2016, he
came in contact with one Suresh Asangi (accused No.4)
and one Iranna Kalasagond of the same village and they
informed the respondent No.2 that they are the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
HC-KAR
representatives of a Company known as EPDC Project
Private Limited and the said Company proposed to
establish a Solar Power Generation Project and investors
can earn monthly income from solar energy generation.
Later the said Suresh and Iranna had introduced
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 and they assured that
respondent No.2 would earn good returns, if he invests in
the Company. Accordingly, they floated a limited liability
partnership company in the name and style of "Mahatma
Eco Power LLP" and opened a Bank account at Canara
Bank. The Petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 i.e., the
Managing Directors of the EPDC Project Private Limited
informed respondent No.2 that in order to generate one
Megawatt electricity, they have to spend Rs.80,00,000/-
and for which respondent No.2 has to initially invest
Rs.10,00,000/- and the balance amount would be invested
by the Company and once the said amount was invested,
respondent No.2 would get income of Rs.2,50,000/- per
month. Believing their words, respondent No.2 requested
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
HC-KAR
petitioners to start 20 megawatt solar plant, for which,
pettioners demanded respondent No.2 to invest
Rs.1,00,00,000/-. For which, respondent No.2 agreed and
transferred the amount to the Bank Account of petitioners
on different dates to the tune of Rs.1,37,13,000/- from the
year 2016 to 2018 with the assurance of petitioners that
once they receive the amount from respondent No.2, they
will start the project by purchasing materials and installing
the same in the landed property of respondent No.2.
However, petitioners kept on postponing the purchase of
materials as agreed by them for setting up solar power
project for one or the other pretext till October, 2025.
Though respondent No.2 insisted the petitioners either for
installation of the power project or to return the payment
made by him, they failed to do so. As such, left with no
other option, he lodged the complaint before respondent
No.1-Police on 11.10.2025. On the strength of said
complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.59/2025
against four persons by arraigning the petitioners as
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
HC-KAR
accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforementioned offences.
Aggrieved by the registration of FIR, the petitioners filed
this petition to quash the FIR.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that on perusal of
the FIR and complaint materials, prima facie it disclose
that the dispute arise out of commercial transaction
between the partnership Company and respondent No.2.
She further contended that, at no point of time, the
petitioners had any culpable intention of cheating
respondent No.2. According to her, respondent No.2
voluntarily entered into the agreement with the
petitioners' Company and paid the amount from the year
2016 to 2018. Though the petitioners made their best
efforts to install the solar project in the field of respondent
No.2, due to situation beyond their control, they were
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
HC-KAR
unable to install the same. By relying on the agreement
executed between the petitioners and respondent No.2,
she contended that there is an arbitration clause, as such,
the remedy available to respondent No.2 is to file a
dispute before the Arbitrator. As such, the complaint is
filed by respondent No.2 with an ulterior motive and the
same cannot be sustained under law.
5. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors.
vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. passed in Criminal
Appeal No.3114/2024 dated 23.08.2024 she contended
that the offences invoked against the petitioners i.e., 406
and 420 of IPC cannot go hand in hand as held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court. In such circumstance, she prays to
allow the petition by quashing the FIR. To buttress her
arguments, she relied on the following judgments:
(i) Suchil Sethi and another vs. State of Arunachal
Pradesh and others (2020) 3 SCC 240;
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
HC-KAR
(ii) Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand and
another passed in Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.3606/2024 dated 24.09.2025;
(iii) Ashok Kumar Jain vs. The State of Gujarat and
Another passed in SLP (Criminal)
No.1850/2022 dated 01.05.2025
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submits that respondent No.2 being a farmer, believing
the words of petitioners, invested huge sum of
Rs.1,37,13,000/- in the Company of the petitioners. From
the inception of the agreement executed between the
petitioners and respondent No.2, there was a clear
intention on the part of the petitioners to cheat respondent
No.2 by inducing him. The complaint averments disclose
that petitioners assured him that if he invests Rs.1 crore,
he would get Rs.25,00,000/- return per month. Upon
such assurance, respondent No.2 invested with the
petitioners' Company. Moreover, the petitioners assured
him that they are the Managing Directors of the Company
and they have contact with the Director, DRE Solar
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
HC-KAR
Division, Railway Board, New Delhi. As such, respondent
No.2 invested the money. However, till today, the
petitioners neither installed the machinery nor returned
the amount paid by respondent No.2. As such, the
intention could be gathered from the act of the petitioners.
He also contented that, the petitioners have admitted the
receipt for having received the amount of
Rs.1,37,13,000/- from respondent No.2, on the guise of
installing the solar power project. As such, according to
learned counsel, there is a clear inducement and cheating
on the part of the petitioners.
7. By placing the private complaints filed by three
other companies against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to
3, he submits that, the petitioners are habitually involved
in similar kind of offences with the same modus operandi.
In those cases, the aggrieved parties have initiated private
complaints for the offence punishable under Section 138
of N.I Act. He also contended that, since the case is in the
crime stage and investigation is still under progress, at
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
HC-KAR
this stage, this petition under section 528 of BNSS cannot
be entertained. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
petition.
8. Learned HGCP also opposed the prayer by
adopting the argument of learned counsel for respondent
No.2.
9. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and the documents made available on
record.
10. As could be gathered from records, on perusal
of the complaint averments, it is clear that,
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 through accused No.4
introduced themselves to respondent No.2, who is a
farmer and induced him that, if he invests the amount in
their Solar Power Project Company, he would get good
returns. Upon such inducement, they made him to invest a
sum of Rs.1,37,13,000/- with a clear assurance that he
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
HC-KAR
would get Rs.25,00,000/- per month. After receiving the
huge amount, the petitioners neither executed the
agreement by installing the power project for a period of 6
years nor repaid the amount of respondent No.2.
11. No doubt, there is an arbitration clause in the
agreement. However, on careful perusal of the complaint
averments, it prima facie reveals that the petitioners
executed the agreement by floating a Company with an
ulterior motive for unlawful gain. The culpable intention of
the petitioners is clearly forthcoming with their act, after
receiving the huge sum from respondent No.2 for a period
of 7 years, they have not acted upon the agreement,
though the time to complete the project is prescribed in
the agreement for a period of 5 years. Further, the
documents placed by respondent No.2 clearly depicts that
the petitioners were involved in similar kind of acts and
there are multiple cases have been filed against them by
the other aggrieved persons under the provisions of
Section 138 of N.I. Act.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
HC-KAR
12. It is contended by learned counsel for
respondent No.2 that the petitioners have cheated the
poor farmers in and around Bagalkot and Vijayapur
Districts and thereby, illegally obtained Rs.11,00,00,000/-
13. On perusal of the records of the case, the same
is at a premature stage and the investigation has not
proceeded, except some preliminary effort taken on the
date of registration of the case and evidence has to be
gathered after a thorough investigation and the same has
to be placed before the concerned Court and on the basis
of which, the Court can come to a conclusion one way or
another on the plea of false implication or malafide.
Further, if the allegations are bereft of truth and made
falsely, the investigation will reveal the same.
14. Hence, at this stage, when there are prima facie
allegations forthcoming against these petitioners for the
commission of the offences under Section 420 of IPC and
other provisions, this Court cannot anticipate the result of
the investigation and render findings on the question of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
HC-KAR
false implication on the materials presently available. No
doubt, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race
Club (supra) held that the offence under Section 406 and
420 of IPC cannot go hand in hand, however, the same
has to be considered after filing of the charge sheet.
15. At this stage, it cannot be presumed that
respondent No.1-Police will invoke all the provisions
against the petitioners in the charge sheet. Therefore, it
cannot be said that the complaint should be thrown
overboard on the ground that Section 406 and 420 of IPC
are invoked in the FIR. Even assuming that the complaint
is falsely filed for an illegal gain, that by itself will not be a
ground to discard the complaint containing serious
allegations of cheating and if, there was serious allegation
of cheating, the same has to be tested and weighed after
the evidence is collected by the Investigation Officer.
16. In such circumstances, I am of the considered
view that, at this stage, FIR cannot be quashed against
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:1919
HC-KAR
the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3. Accordingly, the
petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK,THM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
CT-BH
