Civil disputes should not be criminalized; lack of fraudulent intent and delay in filing complaint vitiate criminal proceedings.

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 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."

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and perused the material on record.

4. Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant having been served with notice of the petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petitions.

5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 in the impugned FIR registered as Cr.No.2/2025 dated 03.01.2025 filed by respondent No.2-defacto complainant against the petitioner/accused No.2 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 506 , 504, 34 and Section 420 of IPC.

6. In this context, it is relevant to state that the period for which the allegations are made by respondent No.2 are between 2015-2022 and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in CHANCHALPATI DAS Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER reported in (2023) 20 SCC 120, the long unexplained inordinate delay in filing the complaint would vitiate the impugned proceedings.

7. A perusal of the impugned material on record comprising of the complaint and FIR would also indicate that insofar as petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, there are no allegations in relation to offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and the only allegation is restricted to Section 420 of IPC and consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed on this ground also.

8. Insofar as the allegation made against the petitioners for alleged offences under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, apart from the fact that the bare perusal of the complaint allegations do no disclose the commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioners, under identical circumstances, the Apex Court has held that purely civil/commercial dispute between the parties which is predominantly, essentially and overwhelmingly of a civil character/nature cannot be given a criminal colour/texture and in the case of SATISHCHANDRA RATANLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2019 SC 1538 , it is held as under:

"Leave granted. The present appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment, dated 12-4-2018, passed by the High Court of Gujarat, in Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat [Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3329], wherein the High Court