The court held that distinctions between civil and criminal transactions may not bar criminal proceedings when fraud or wrongdoing is alleged, requiring an investigation into the claims.

ORDER :

The petitioners, in all these cases, are members of the same family and the complainant is common. All these petitions call in question registration of a crime in Crime No.302 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 , 468, 471, 420, 120-B r/w Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Smt Irfana Nazeer, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri B. N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Vineet Sham Bhat, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, in all these cases.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows :

The petitioner in Crl.P.3087 of 2022 is said to be an employee of this Court. He and his family get acquainted to the family of the complainant. It is the case of the complainant that on certain assurances of the accused and their family, several crores of money transaction happens between the two, wherein the accused is said to have borrowed Rs.1.5 crores from the complainant and also got a sale deed executed in their favour in respect of the property of the complainant situate at Jayanagar, which according to the complaint is about Rs.4.5 crores. The further allegation is that the sale deed registered in favour of the accused is without any money coming into the coffers of the complainant, who is the owner of the property. This is the crux of the complaint which leads to registration of a crime in Crime No.302 of 2021 for the afore- quoted offences. Registration of the crime has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners would vehemently contend that the transaction between the petitioners and the 2^nd respondent/complainant is purely civil in nature. Criminal law is set into motion only to arm-twist the petitioners in getting a higher value for the property that the petitioners purchased. All contents of the complaint are completely false. If there is any registration of a document is done, it is always open to the complainant to institute a civil suit and seek appropriate relief at the hands of the civil Court.

5. Per-contra, the learned counsel representing the 2^nd respondent submits that the complainant has been cheated. The cheating is on the score that the petitioner in one of the petitions is an employee of the High Court and he has lured the complainant on him being a Court official. The learned counsel would submit that initially Rs.1.5 crores was taken as loan and the employee of the High Court had projected that since he is an employee, the amount should not be transferred to his account and therefore, the amount was transferred to the account of the family members. Thereafter, the property of the complainant was purchased on a forged document. Today the complainants neither have the property nor the money of the property. He would submit that it is not a civil transaction, but cheating and forgery by the petitioners.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The acquaintance between the family of the accused and the family of the complainant is a matter of record. The transaction between the two, at the first blush, would seem to be a money transaction and thereafter, it is for the purpose of purchase of a site which was valued at Rs.4.5 crores belonging to the complainant. The transaction goes wrong and the complaint emerges. Complaint is registered on the score that the complainant was lured into selling the property and today she neither has property nor the money, as the registration documents are allegedly forged. Since the entire issue has now sprung from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complainant and it reads as follows:

The complaint is in vivid detail, as to how the employee of the Court got in touch with the complainant and indulged in a transaction. The matter is still at the stage of investigation. If t