Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Manjunatha Reddy G, S/o. Gopala Reddy A – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek to quash fir in ongoing criminal proceedings. (Para 2) |
| 2. petitioners' claims are supported by lack of representation from the opposing party. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. allegations span a long period which may affect the validity of complaints. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. nature of allegations should not criminalize civil disputes. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. examining the distinction between civil and criminal allegations. (Para 9 , 11) |
| 6. final ruling quashes the proceedings and allows for legal recourse. (Para 10) |
ORDER :
In Crl.P.No.2390/2025, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
"Wherefore, the petitioner/accused No.4 most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.2/2025 of Byappanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, which is pending on the file of the Hon'ble 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru for the offences under sections 506, 504, 420 and 34 of I.P.C. and the consequent investigation as an abuse of process of law, in the ends of justice."
2. In Crl.P.No.2246/2025, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:
"Wherefore, the petitioner/accused No.2 most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be
Civil disputes should not be criminalized; lack of fraudulent intent and delay in filing complaint vitiate criminal proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be sparingly used and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of....
Mere non-payment in business supply transaction does not constitute cheating under IPC Section 420 absent proof of dishonest inducement at inception; such civil disputes warrant FIR quashing to preve....
Mere breach of contract does not constitute cheating unless fraudulent intention is established from the outset, as per Section 420 IPC.
The allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence under IPC Sections 406 and 420, as they lack essential elements of criminal intent, reflecting a civil dispute instead.
(1) Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Appreciation of contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements lies within exclusive domain of trial Court and not in proceedings under Section 482 Cr....
Criminal proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the basis of a civil nature claim; prima facie evidence of criminal intent under Section 420 IPC necessitates trial.
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
