Criminal proceedings cannot proceed where allegations of fraud arise from civil disputes without clear evidence of mens rea, as reiterated by the court.

ORDER :

SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.

The captioned petition is filed by the accused to quash the proceedings pending in PCR.No.348/2024 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala and the FIR registered in Crime No.677/2024 by the Madanayakanahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.

2. The facts of the case are as under:

Respondent No.2/complainant has instituted a private complaint under Section 200 read with Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. alleging that her brother, the present petitioner/accused, has fraudulently created a document styled as a "Release Deed" in his favour by resorting to misrepresentation and without her consent. It is further alleged that in the said release deed, the petitioner/accused has recited payment of Rs.4 Crores to the complainant through eight cheques. The complainant asserts that the immovable property covered under the release deed is the absolute property of her father, late H. Ramachandra Murthy. On these allegations, the complainant has prayed for reference of the matter to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

3. Acting upon the complaint, the learned Magistrate, in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., referred the matter to the jurisdictional police for investigation, pursuant to which Crime No.677/2024 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.

4. The petitioner/accused has approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, contending that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value, they do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. According to the petitioner, the dispute, at its core, is civil in nature, and the attempt of the complainant to give it a criminal colour amounts to an abuse of process of law, warranting interference by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant seeks to justify the order of reference made by the learned Magistrate, contending that the matter is still under investigation and hence, no indulgence is called for at this stage. Learned HCGP also supports the order of the Magistrate referring the matter to police investigation.

6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The pleadings in O.S. No.5465/2024 instituted between the parties have also been examined.

7. Before adverting to the rival contentions, this Court finds it appropriate to extract paragraphs 3, 6, and 7 of the complaint, which read thus:

"3. That the complainant and accused are brother and sister, the complainant father by name H Ramachandramurthy S/o Hanumanthappa is the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing Sy No.13, 3/3, 17/1, 18/2, 19, 20/4, 33/1, totally measuring of 10 Acre 30 Guntas and the above said land was granted by the Special Tahsildar under section 55(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 1961 and same is registered before the sub-registrar Nelamangala. The copy of the registered deed dated: 27.07.1982 is produced herewith and marked as Document No.1."

"6. That the accused has shown different draft to the complainant but has dishonestly to defraud the complainant has got registered different document by playing fraud on the complainant. That the accused has prepared the document and by playing fraud on the complainant has created forged, fabricated, illegal, sham document titled Release Deed and got it registered by misrepresentation of facts and without consent of the complainant. The accused has dishonestly induced the complainant and her father to execute released by only in respect of Survey No. 13 measuring 2 Acre 39 Guntas but at the time of registration has clandestinely changed the draft and got the release deed in respect of all properties and deceived the complainant.

7. The complainant sta