ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question order dated 29-06-2018 passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.5368 of 2016 taking cognizance of the offence registered against the petitioner.

2. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K.Suman, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Sans details, facts in brief for resolution of the issue in the lis, are as follows:

On 29-03-2012 M/s Nandi Engineering Limited registers a complaint against the petitioner. The complainant is a Company engaged in the construction of Bengaluru-Mysore Infrastructure project at the relevant point in time. In this connection the complainant required lands for which land acquisition proceedings had to be initiated. At that point in time, the petitioner approaches the Managing Director of Nandi Engineering Limited in the year 2005 and assured him that he would transfer lands for the purpose of the project. In terms of negotiations, the complainant/Company issued a cheque on 20-01-2005 for a sum of `1/- crore and another cheque for a sum of `1/- crore on 27-01-2005. Even after the passage of two years, the petitioner neither acquired nor transferred lands as was assured in the name of the complainant/Company and did not even return the amount. It is then the complainant seeks to initiate proceedings by registering a crime in Crime No.17 of 2012 before the Vidhana Soudha Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.

4. The Police, after investigation, file a charge sheet against the petitioner and the concerned Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. The said order of taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate was called in question in Criminal Revision Petition No.496 of 2016 on one solitary ground that the order of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance did not bear application of mind. The revisional Court, sets the order of taking of cognizance aside and remitted the matter back to the hands of the learned Magistrate, to pass appropriate order afresh in accordance with law. Later the learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, takes cognizance of the offence on 29-06-2018 and directs re-registration of criminal case and issues summons to the accused. Immediately thereafter the present petition is preferred by the petitioner challenging the second order of taking of cognizance.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the entire issue is purely civil in nature. What the complainant seeks to achieve by registration of crime is recovery of `2/- crores, paid through two cheques that were handed over to the petitioner. He would further contend that a time barred debt, in which no civil proceeding can be instituted is sought to be given a colour of crime. He would seek to place reliance upon a judgment rendered by this Court in NAGULAVANCHA SRIDHAR RAO AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER1 to buttress his submission that setting criminal law in motion for the purpose of recovery of money is impermissible.

6. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel Sri K.Suman, representing the 2nd respondent would contend that what the petitioner calls in question is an order taking of cognizance. If this Court would find that the order taking of cognizance is erroneous, the matter has to be remitted to the learned Magistrate for re-consideration. Answering the issue on merit would be enlarging the scope of the petition itself, as there

1 Writ Petition No.22057 of 2021 decided on 02-06-2023

is no challenge to the entire proceedings before the learned Magistrate.

6(a). He would further contend that the petitioner being a political representative approaches the complainant with an offer that if he is paid money he will procure lands and hand over t