SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 8909

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
PRAVEEN R., BASAVARAJAPPA P, MANISH KUMAR BANSAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE BY DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION & MR. BASAVALINGSWAMY – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 29255 OF 2023 (GM-RES)



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA
For the Respondents: SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH

Criminal proceedings cannot be maintained for civil disputes, where allegations of cheating lacked basis and defined elements, leading to quashing of the FIR.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - FIR quashed - Petition filed to quash FIR for offences under Sections 409, 420, 506 and 34 IPC - Allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust in a civil transaction found unsubstantiated - Continuation of proceedings tantamount to abuse of process of law and thus warrant interference. (Paras 3-8)

(B) Criminal Law - Use of Criminal Proceedings - Criminal law cannot be employed to settle personal or civil disputes, and the courts should be cautious in permitting misuse for recovery of money, which is a civil matter disguised as a criminal one. (Paras 17-19)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused in an FIR alleging offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust related to a contractual transaction, which was deemed to be civil in nature without necessary ingredients being fulfilled for criminal prosecution—there were prior inquiries and a compromise with the main accused.

Findings of Court:
The allegations were primarily civil in nature, and there was no valid justification to proceed with criminal charges against the petitioners, as it was found to be a misuse of legal proceedings.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the FIR contained sufficient grounds to proceed criminally against the petitioners when the matter was fundamentally civil.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were to prevent abuse of process and secure justice, allowing the quashing of proceedings lacking substantive criminal elements.

Result: Criminal petition allowed and FIR quashed.

Table of Content
1. fir lacks basis for criminal offences (Para 3 , 8)

ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioners seeks the following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ of certiorari and/or a direction and/or an order or any other appropriate writ to Quash the First Information Report bearing No.0062/2023 dated 18.03.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 409, section 420, Section 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-A) and all consequent proceeding arising therefrom that have been initiated on the basis of a complainant dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure- B) pending on the files of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City in favour of the petitioner; and

ii. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. Respondent No.2/complainant having been served with notice has chosen to unrepresented before this Court and not contested the petition.

3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the impugned complaint does not contained necessary ingredients so as to constitute offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 & 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners, who have been illegally arraigned as accused Nos.2, 3 & 4 in the impugned complaint. It is submitted that the dispute, if any, between the petitioners and respondent No.2/complainant is purely civil in nature and the same cannot be given a criminal colour by resorting to filing the present false and frivolous complaint, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would tantamount to abuse of process of law warranting interference in the present petition. In support of the submission, leaned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments.

i) Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of West Bengal , AIRONLINE 2022 SC 380

ii) Santhosh Chinnappa Reddy Tulasiram, s/o Mr.Tulasiram Chinnappa Reddy, Bengaluru vs. State of Karnataka, AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 3377

iii) Deepak Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Chhattisgarh , AIRONLINE 2024 SC 88

4. As stated supra, respondent No.2 having been served in this matter and has chosen to unrepresented before this Court and does not contested the petition.

5. In the case ofVijay Kumar Ghai vs. State ofWest Bengal,as stated supra the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para No.42 as under:

42. The order of the High Court is seriously flawed due to the fact that in its interim order dated 24.03.2017, it was observed that the contentions put forth by the Appellant vis-à-vis two complaints being filed on the same cause of action at different places but the impugned order overlooks the said aspect and there was no finding on that issue. At the same time, in order to attract the ingredients of Section of 406 and 420 IPC it is imperative on the part of the complainant to prima facie establish that there was an intention on part of the petitioner and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from the inception. Furthermore it has to be prima facie established that due to such alleged act of cheating the complainant (Respondent No. 2 herein) had suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused(appellant herein). In absence of these elements, no proceeding is permissible in the eyes of law with regard to the commission of the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. It is apparent that the complaint was lodged at a very belated stage (as the entire transaction took place from January 2008 to August 2009, yet the complaint has been filed in March 2013 i.e., after a delay of almost 4 years) with the objective of causing harassment to the petitioner and is bereft of any truth whatsoever.

6. In the case of Santhosh Chinnappa Reddy Tulasiram, s/o Mr.Tulasiram Chinn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top