Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Shilpa @ Shilpa K.L. D/o Lingappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
1. In this petition petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a. Call for the entire records in Crime No.115/2023 dt. 12.06.2023 u/ss 406, 420 and 417 of the IPC pending on the file of Hon’ble IV th Addl. CMM court at Bangalore.
b. Quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.115/2023 dt. 12.06.2023 registered by the respondent No.1 Byappanahalli Police Station, Bangalore city u/ss 406, 420 and 417 of the IPC pending before IV th ACMM, Bengaluru based on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 and quash the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners.
c. Pass such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.2 – defacto complainant filed the instant impugned complaint against the petitioner on 12.06.2023 making certain allegations in relation to alleged sale agreement said to have been executed between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 and an alleged GPA dated 19.11.2022 said to have been executed between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the al
The distinction between criminal breaching of trust and cheating must establish prior dishonest intent from the outset, and purely civil disputes cannot be criminally prosecuted.
The FIR was quashed as it lacked essential elements of criminal breach of trust and cheating, being merely a misuse of criminal process to enforce a contractual obligation.
The FIR did not disclose essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust or cheating, reflecting a misuse of police powers to convert a civil dispute into a criminal proceeding.
The court held that mere breach of contract does not constitute a criminal offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, emphasizing the necessity of fraudulent intent from inception.
A breach of contract does not constitute a criminal act unless there is fraudulent intent at the transaction's inception, distinguishing civil liabilities from criminal offences of cheating and breac....
The essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust and cheating must be established; mere deficiency in land measurement does not imply deceit or fraud.
Charges of criminal breach of trust and cheating can coexist in separate transactions, but not for a single act or transaction which is mutually exclusive.
The mere failure to pay for goods in a commercial transaction does not constitute criminal breach of trust or cheating under IPC without evidence of dishonest intention.
Mere non-performance of a contract does not amount to cheating or criminal breach of trust; such civil disputes must be resolved through civil law remedies rather than criminal proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
