Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 799
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
Mr. Trivikraman Thampy S/o Shreekumar Thampy - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10554, 10106 Of 2024 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 02-06-2025
For the Appellant :Sri. C.V.Nagesh, Senior Advocate For Sri. Manu Prabhakar Kulkarni, Sri. Abilash, Advocates
For the Respondent: Sri. Thejesh.P, HCGP, Smt. Avani Chokshi And Smt. Shilpa Prasad, Advs.
Disputes primarily of a civil nature cannot be converted into criminal proceedings; essential elements of the alleged criminal offences were not established by the complainant.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 420, 504, 506, 120-B r/w 34 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners sought quashing of FIR arising from allegations of financial disputes with de-facto complainant, positing that the disputes largely fall within the domain of civil matters rather than criminal - Court found the proceedings an attempt to turn civil disputes into criminal ones by alleging fraudulent conduct that did not meet criminal threshold. (Paras 15-26)
(B) Criminal Law - Abuse of Process - The court establishes that police and courts must distinguish between civil and criminal disputes to prevent misuse of criminal proceedings for what is fundamentally a civil issue. (Paras 7, 12, 24)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of dispute and procedural context. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. complaint lacks criminal merit, civil matter. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. defining nature of dispute: civil vs criminal. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. analysis of allegations and applicable law. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. judgment on quashing fir due to civil nature. (Para 26) |
ORDER :
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J.
In these petitions, petitioners seek quashing of the impugned proceedings arising out of FIR in Crime No.97/2024 dated 07.02.2024 registered by the 1st respondent – Police, pursuant to a complaint dated 06.02.2024 filed by the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 504, 506, 120-B r/w Section 34 IPC and for other reliefs.
2. W.P.No.10106/2024 is preferred by accused Nos.1, 2 and 5, while W.P.No.10554/2024 is preferred by accused Nos.3 and 4 respectively. Since common questions of law and fact arise for consideration in the present petitions, they are taken up together for consideration and disposed of by this common order.
3. The material on record discloses that the 2nd respondent –de-facto complainant joined the petitioner – company on 06.08.2018 and continued to work there till 17.10.2023 when he resigned from the company. On 17.11.2023, the petitioner – company transferred a sum of Rs.20,54,029/- to the 2nd respondent after deducting a sum Rs.6,37,200/-. Subsequently, on 29.11.2023, petitioner once again transferred a sum of Rs.20,54,029/- in favour of 2nd respondent. Thereafter, there was correspondence between the petitioners and 2nd respondent - complainant and a dispute in relation to alleged dues payable by the petitioners to the 2nd respondent or alleged to be refunded back to the petitioners by the 2nd respondent arose between the parties and on 06.02.2024, 2nd respondent – complainant filed the impugned complaint which was registered as an FIR in Crime No.97/2024 against the petitioners – accused Nos. 1 to 5, who are before this Court by way of the present petitions.
4. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for the 1st respondent – State as well as learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the material on record.
5. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned complaint and FIR in order to point out that the same did not disclose commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners. It was submitted that the allegations made in the complaint gave rise to a purely a civil / financial / monetary dispute between the parties, which was illegally sought to be given a criminal colour/ flavour by the 2nd respondent – complainant and as such, the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the 1st respondent – State as well as learned counsel for 2nd respondent – complainant would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submit that there is no merit in the petitions and that the same are liable to be dismissed. In support of her contentions, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) State of Haryana and Ors vs. Bhajan Lal and Ors. -(1992) Supp(1) SCC 335);
(ii) Trisuns Chemical Industry v Rajesh Agarwal and Ors. , (1999) 8 SCC 686 ;
(iii) V. Ravi Kumar vs. State by Tamilnadu , (2019) 14 SCC 568;
(iv) Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v State of Maharashtra and Ors , (2021) 19 SCC 401 ;
(v) Priti Saraf and Anr vs. State , (2021) 16 SCC 142 ;
(vi) Jitul Jentilal Kotecha v State of Gujarat , (2022) 13 SCC 652;
(vii) Salib @Shalu@Salim v State of UP and Ors , 2023 Online SC 947;
(viii) Divvijaysinh Himmasingh Jadeja v State of Gujarat Ors. , 2023 SCC Online SC 1610;
(ix) State of Madhya Pradesh v Shilpa Jain and Ors , 2024 SCC Online SC 507;
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and perused the material o
