The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish mens rea element of criminality in alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code, and the significance of the sequence of events in determining the validity of criminal proceedings.

B.K. Sangalad, J.—These five petitions are filed for quashing the proceedings pending on the file of I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in CC Nos. 3200 of 1999, 2299 of 1999, 2330 of 1999, 2323 of 1999 and 2324 of 1999.

2. The complaints have been filed on 10.11.1998 before the Commissioner of Police who in turn referred them to the Additional DGP who in turn referred them to be CCB for investigation. On 16.12.1998 the Respondents have filed their FIRs before the IV Additional CMM, Bangalore, alleging offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 Indian Penal Code read with Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. After perusal of the cases, the learned Additional CMM, Bangalore ordered issuance of summons and after receipt of the summons the Petitioners on 28.9.1999 have filed these petitions. Filing of the complaint before the Commissioner of Police, on 10.11.1998, the complainants in each of the cases have filed Regular Civil Suits before the City Civil Courts in O.S. No. 7408 of 1998, 7409 of 1998, 7412 of 1998, 7413 of 1998 and 7415 of 1998. These are all the Money Recovery Suits.

3. The main allegation by the complainants are to the effect that the Petitioners have received a large sum of amount agreeing to sell land which did not belong to any SC/ST grant lands. Admittedly, the subject matter of lands are 2 acres in Sy. No. 125/7 and 1 acre in Sy. No. 125/8. These lands were granted to Adi Karnataka Nimma Varga Person. A copy of the saguvali chit is also filed. The alleged transaction took place on 31.5.1995. The complaints have been filed after a delay of 41 months. The complainants have not stated with clarity and precision that the accused have wilfully and dishonestly acted at the time of Promise/Transaction. Merely because the Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of Petitioner No. 2, it cannot be said that there was a conspiracy between the Petitioners. The further facts are that the monies alleged to have been paid by the complainants are actually by Mrs. Salarpuria Properties Private Limited, a company operating in Calcutta through their Power of Attorney Holders. The clauses in the agreement also mention that the requisite permission is to be procured under Section 4(2) of the SC/ST Prevention of Transfer of Certain Lands Act, 1979. The permission was applied in 1997 and procured in 1999. The necessary documents are also produced. In view of the sequence of facts and circumstances of the case, the initiation of the proceedings have to be quashed.

4. Mr. Sriram, learned Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the decision in the case of M/s Silk Import and Export Inc. Vs. M/s Exim Aides Silk Exporter and another, ILR (1997) KAR 2595 wherein it is stated as follows:

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings instituted on a private complaint for the offences punishable under Section 418 and 420 Indian Penal Code - can be quashed if it is shown that at the time of entering into the contract or transaction, the only intention of the opposite party was to cheat the complainant and not otherwise.

He further relied upon another decision in the case of A.P. Thirumalaisamy Vs. Tmt. Bangarammal and Others, (1999) CriLJ 1256 wherein it is stated as follows:

Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974), Section 203-Private complaint-Complainant entered into agreement with accused for sale of property-Accused alleged to have made part payment-Private complaint against accused that he had forged document proving full payment-Complainant also filed a suit in civil Court for specific performance-However, complainant failed to produce documents after collecting materials to show that said documents were forged Filing of private complaint in absence of materials for offences under Penal Code not permissible.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482 read with Section 245-Inherent powers of High Court-Quashing of Criminal Proceedings-Filing of application before trial Court for discharge is not a bar to exercise jurisdiction by High Court.

ii)