Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/7822/2018 of MR. P. SUDHIR RAO (PALEPU SUDHIR RAO) Vs M/S ARVIND MURJANI BRANDS PRIVATE LTD on 21 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010280062018 NC: 2026:KHC:51759 CRL.P No. 7822 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 7824 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7822 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7824 OF 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7822 OF 2018
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7824 OF 2018
IN CRL.P NO.7822/2018:
BETWEEN:
1.
MR. P. SUDHIR RAO (PALEPU SUDHIR RAO),
SON OF P.H.RAO,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.7,
1ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN,
ASHWINI LAYOUT, EJIPURA,
BENGALURU - 560 047.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.A-10,
EPSILON YEMLUR MAIN ROAD,
OFF H.A.L. AIRPORT ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 037,
OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI &
SRI. VAMSHI KRISHNA C., ADVOCATES)
AND:
1.
M/S. ARVIND MURJANI BRANDS PRIVATE LTD., THE ARVIND MILLS PREMISES, NARODA ROAD, RAILWAYPURA POST, AHMEDABAD - 380 025.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
ALSO AT NO.4,
BRUNTON 1ST CROSS ROAD,
NEAR OLD PASSPORT OFFICE,
BENGALURU - 560 025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORISED SIGNATORY
MR. DHRUVARAJ.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MANISH SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI LOMESH KIRAN N., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.26351/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XV
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XXIII ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU.
IN CRL.P NO.7824/2018:
BETWEEN:
1.
MR. P. SUDHIR RAO,
SON OF P.H. RAO,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
C/O. M/S. PRIMUS RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED, HAVING OFFICE AT NO.7, 1ST CROSS, 3RD MAIN, ASHWINI LAYOUT, EJIPURA, BENGALURU-560 047.
RESIDING AT NO.A-10,
EPSILON, YEMLUR MAIN ROAD,
OFF H.A.L. AIRPORT ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 037,
OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ANAND MUTTALLI &
SRI. VAMSHI KRISHNA C., ADVOCATE)
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
M/S. ARVIND MURJANI BRANDS PRIVATE LTD., THE ARVIND MILLS PREMISES, NARODA ROAD, RAILWAYPURA POST, AHMEDABAD-380025.
ALSO AT:
NO.4, BRUNTON 1ST CROSS ROAD,
NEAR OLD PASSPORT OFFICE,
BENGALURU-560 025,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
M. DHRUVARAJ.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.MANISH SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI LOMESH KIRAN N., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE
C.C.NO.26215/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE XV
ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE AND XXIII ACMM AT
BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon several judgments with regard to the fact that there is no any
HC-KAR
specific averments in the complaint in respect of this petitioner is concerned. The learned counsel would contend that accused No.3 has not signed the cheque and only accused No.2 has signed the cheque. The learned counsel also would submit that this petitioner is not the part of the settlement agreement and in 2012 itself it was wound up. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioner is only an Additional Director in terms of the records.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent also relies upon several citations. The learned counsel produced document Nos.1 to 3 along with the memo. The learned counsel would contend that the petitioner is not the Additional Director and he is a Director and also he participated in the settlement arrived between the parties with regard to the addendum agreement and though he has not signed, but he was part of it in respect of the discussion is concerned. The learned counsel also would submit that already complainant has been examined and he was also cross-examined and thereafter defence evidence has been led by this accused and he was also cross-examined.
HC-KAR
4. Having taken note of the said submissions, it is not in dispute that the parties have already participated in the trial before the Trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the stay was granted, already the trial had commenced. When the trial has commenced and the parties have already subjected for trial before the Trial Court, the question of invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not arise. When the witnesses have already been examined and cross- examined, the Trial Court is required to record its findings with regard to the grounds urged before this Court as well as the defence taken by the accused before the Trial Court. Once such defence has been put to the witnesses during the course of cross-examination, it is for the Trial Court to consider and adjudicate upon the same on the basis of the evidence on record. This Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., cannot entertain the petition at this stage, particularly when the trial has already commenced and the witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination. Hence, no grounds are made out for invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
HC-KAR
5. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
This Court had earlier called for explanation and the explanation was also submitted by the Presiding Officer. This Court already set aside the judgment passed by the Trial Court since the judgment was passed inspite of stay granted by this Court. When such being the case, the question of consideration of the explanation does not arise. Hence, consideration of the said report also does not arise in view of disposal of the matter on merits.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1