Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
Harsha R, S/o. Ramachandramurthy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
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. Act
Criminal proceedings cannot proceed where allegations of fraud arise from civil disputes without clear evidence of mens rea, as reiterated by the court.
Criminal proceedings for cheating under Section 420 IPC cannot proceed concurrently with civil suits regarding property disputes, highlighting the need for civil resolution of complex property rights....
Criminal proceedings should not be initiated for disputes that are fundamentally civil in nature, and the essential ingredients of the alleged offenses must be clearly established for prosecution und....
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.
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 essential ingredients of criminal breach of trust and cheating must be established; mere deficiency in land measurement does not imply deceit or fraud.
Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC cannot co-exist in the same transaction; criminal breach of trust and cheating are distinct offences requiring different elements of fraud.
The court held that allegations against the petitioner-accused No.4 did not constitute cheating under Section 420 IPC due to lack of fraudulent intent.
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
