The main legal point established in the judgment is that the FIR cannot be quashed solely based on the absence of detailed allegations against the petitioner, and the petitioner's involvement needed to be investigated by the police.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition is filed by accused No.4 under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the FIR in Crime No.46/2021 registered by Mahadevapura Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 406, 420 read with Sec. 34 of IPC.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and learned senior counsel for respondent No.2.

3. The case of the petitioner is that on the complaint of respondent No.2-Ravi Reddy, the Police registered a case on 11/2/2021 alleging that he has run the company in the name of Classic Engineering Industries and it has been sold down. In the year 2005, accused No.1-Shivaraj became friend and he has approached the complainant for financial help. Accordingly on 11/3/2016, the complainant had paid Rs.11.00 lakhs by cash and also Rs.15.00 lakhs by way of cheque in the name of wife of this petitioner, thereafter, the accused received cash on 18/3/2017, 10/4/2017, 12/6/2017, 30/6/2017, 1/10/2017, 12/10/2017 and 8/12/2017 and totally Rs.1,45,85,000.00 from the complainant and did not repaid. He has paid Rs.15.00 lakhs to the complainant and due for Rs.1,30,85,000.00. Subsequently, accused No.1 agreed to sell the property measuring 1,200 sq.ft. site No.222 situated at K.R. Puram Hobli, Kundanahalli Taluk and also executed the sale deed in favour of complainant. Accused No.2 sold the said property to the complainant and accused No.1 is said to be the witness for the same. Subsequently, when the complainant filed an application for change of khatha, at that time, it came to know that the accused were already sold the said property to some other person by name Lakshman, thereby, the accused person has cheated the complainant. Therefore, prayed for taking action. After registering the case, the Police had taken up the investigation and this petitioner is accused No.4 who is said to be the wife of accused No.1 filed this petition by challenging the FIR and to quash the proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that on perusal of the complaint, absolutely, there is no ingredients made out for registering the FIR against this petitioner except referring her name in the complaint that her husband received Rs.15.00 lakhs in her name by way of cheque, but she is not aware of it even she might have been received the amount, but she has not at all conspired with accused No.1 in order to cheat the complainant. If any amount received or cheated by the accused Nos.1 to 3, she is not the party to the any of the proceedings or agreement in order to cheat the complainant. The complaint itself cannot be acceptable for receipt of her lending huge lakhs of money to accused No.1 as there was demonetization implemented from November 2016 onwards. Absolutely, there is no ingredients to register the FIR or cognizable offence made out against this petitioner in order to register the case or proceed with the investigation. Hence, prayed for quashing the same.

5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2-defacto complainant objected and contended that the memo filed by the complainant clearly reveals that there were five cheques received in the name of this petitioner totally Rs.58,50,000.00 has been received by her in her account which reveals from the statement of account given by the Canara Bank which was received by her. The investigation is required to be proceeded in order to find out the truth, therefore, it cannot be quashed at this stage. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader has also contended that the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage since the investigation is under process and the matter requires investigation as huge amount has been involved and received by this petitioner through cheque and online payment. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.

7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, especially in the complaint, of c