Authority: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru

Order Date: 25 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: SIC Stocks and Services Pvt. Ltd. (represented by Director Sidharth Handa), Dr. Nupur Handa, Sidharth Handa (individual), and Rajinder Handa (retired). They filed Criminal Petition No.2738/2019 and Criminal Petition No.1233/2021 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., seeking quash of FIRs registered by Ashok Nagar Police Station.
  • Respondents: The State (represented by the State Public Prosecutor) and Ashwin (or Aswini) Raikar, the complainant, who is also Managing Director of Silicon Designs (M) India Pvt. Ltd.
  • FIRs:
  • Crime No.180/2018 dated 27‑04‑2018 (registered on complaint of Ashwin Raikar) alleging offences under IPC Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34.
  • Crime No.404/2018 dated 03‑11‑2018 (registered on same complainant) alleging offences under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471 and 120B.
  • Allegations: The complainant claims that SIC Stocks, a stock‑broking firm, opened trading accounts for him in 2012, assured profits, collected excess money, forged documents submitted to BSE, and caused a loss of Rs 7,49,73,549/‑. Specific accusations include cheating, forgery, creation of fake contract notes, non‑transfer of securities to demat accounts, and violation of SEBI circulars.
  • Petitioners’ Contentions: (i) the transactions are purely civil/commercial and should be resolved under SEBI guidelines; (ii) the complaint is time‑barred (events occurred 2012‑13, FIR filed 2018); (iii) the complainant engaged in forum‑shopping (SEBI → NSE → BSE → arbitration → criminal court); (iv) the company is dissolved and therefore cannot be prosecuted; (v) arbitration awards (Award No.7/2019 dated 11‑07‑2019, Appellate Award No.4A/2019 dated 05‑12‑2019, etc.) pre‑empt criminal action.
  • Respondent’s Counter‑Contention: The FIR discloses prima facie material; the complaint need not be exhaustive; the allegations of cheating, forgery and misappropriation are specific and warrant investigation; limitation and arbitration arguments are not fatal; the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 cannot be exercised to quash when the FIR shows cognizable offence.
  • Evidence Produced: Annexures A‑E (FIR, complaint, notice from Central Crime Bengaluru, etc.); corporate status documents from Ministry of Corporate Affairs showing dissolution; email correspondences dated 13‑02‑2018 and 14‑02‑2018; KYC documents; statements of transactions amounting to Rs 7,49,73,549/‑; multiple arbitration awards (Award No.7/2019, 8/2019, Appellate Awards 4A/2019, 5A/2019); pending commercial court petitions (125/2010, 370/2019).
  • Judicial Precedents Cited: Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel vs State of Gujarat (2018) 3 SCC 104 – principles on exercise of inherent powers under Section 482; State of W.B. v Swapan Kumar Guha – limits of High Court’s power to quash FIR; Karnataka High Court judgments Crl.P.No.6248/2020 (23‑03‑2021) and Crl.P.No.200628/2021 (09‑11‑2021) – refusal to quash on similar facts.
  • Court’s Reasoning: The FIR contains specific allegations of cheating, forgery, and misappropriation; such allegations are sufficient to constitute cognizable offences; the matter is not merely a civil dispute; limitation and arbitration do not bar criminal investigation; the investigating officer must probe; the High Court cannot substitute its assessment for the investigating agency under Section 482.

Final Outcome

  • The Court dismissed both Criminal Petition No.2738/2019 and Criminal Petition No.1233/2021, refusing to quash the FIRs. The investigations under Crime No.180/2018 and Crime No.404/2018 will continue.

Topics: Court Order, Criminal Procedure, Stock‑Broking Fraud