Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 17633
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
J.M.KHAZI, J
PURAVANKARA LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11008 OF 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY
For the Respondents: SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.PRABHAKAR NAIK, PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R2
Filing of false complaints in civil disputes leading to criminal accusations can be quashed if they fail to disclose a prima facie case under relevant offenses.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 420 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner contends that complaint is false and an abuse of process of court, arising from a civil dispute concerning sale agreement and construction — Court finds that the petition succeeds, as the complaint does not disclose sufficient allegation attracting Section 420, and that the dispute is predominantly civil in nature. (Paras 2, 8, 9)
(B) Abuse of Process - Criminal proceedings cannot continue if the allegations do not disclose any cognizable offense. Court holds that continuation of proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process due to the civil nature of the dispute. (Paras 8, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a construction company, faced allegations of cheating from the respondent regarding the non-delivery of purchased property and incomplete construction, despite prior legal determinations favoring the petitioner.
Findings of Court:
The Karnataka RERA dismissed the complaint against the petitioner, confirming compliance with contractual obligations, rendering the criminal complaint an abuse of the court process.
Issues: Whether the FIR discloses a valid accusation under Section 420 IPC and the nature of the underlying dispute.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that a complaint lacking specificity with respect to criminal allegations does not warrant criminal prosecution and further noted that the nature of the dispute is civil, thereby quashing the FIR.
Result: Petition allowed; FIR quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of dispute is civil regarding non-delivery of constructed property. (Para 2 , 4 , 7) |
| 2. false complaints cannot lead to criminal proceedings. (Para 3 , 8) |
| 3. court affirms abuse of process if allegations lack basis. (Para 5) |
| 4. fir quashed based on absence of criminal allegations. (Para 9) |
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner who is sole accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the FIR in Cr.No.306/2023 of Halasur PS, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC .
2. In support of the petition, petitioner has contended that the respondent No.2 exerting influence and high handedly got filed a false complaint to arm twist the petitioner to get his residential unit delivered without paying balance sale consideration. Without making proper enquiry, the concerned police have registered the case. Initially, respondent No.2 approached Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority ('Karnataka RERA' for short), seeking similar relief and subsequently initiated criminal proceedings with malafide intention. The dispute relates to breach of contractual obligation arising out of agreement of sale and construction agreement dated 25.06.2013. He is still due to pay part of the sale consideration. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature. As a counterblast to the complaint filed by petitioner in PCR.55953/2023, for defamation, he has filed this complaint. The complaint does not disclose any accusation that would attract Section 420 IPC . Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition.
3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Rekha Jain Vs. State of Karnataka (Rekha Jain)
(ii) Mohd.Wajid Vs. State of U.P (Mohd.Wajid)
(iii) Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. Vs. State of U.P (Delhi Race Club)
(iv) A.M.Mohan Vs. State Rep. by SHO and Anr.
(A.M.Mohan)
(v) Vinod Bihari Lal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (Vinod Bihari Lal)
4. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State and
1 (2022) 18 SCC 174
3 (2024) 10 SCC 690
4 (2024) SCC Online SC 339 2025 SCC Online SC 1216 respondent No.2 who is party-in-person would submit that respondent No.2 is the Managing Director of Base Vasthu and Engineering Services Company, Dubai. He applied for purchasing Flat No.FFB.603, 6th Floor of Purva Sunflower Apartment situated near metro station, Magadi Road, constructed by the accused and entered into a sale agreement. He has paid a total sum of Rs.83 lakhs transferred from account of himself and his wife. No amount is due from them. Though the Flat was supposed to be given at the end of December 2017, so far it is not handed over and thereby he has been cheated and hence, the complaint.
5. Based on the complaint, the concerned police have registered a case in Cr.No.306/2023 and taken up investigation. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner and pray to dismiss the petition.
6. Heard arguments and perused the record.
7. Thus, at the instance of respondent No.2, the petitioner is being prosecuted on the allegations that respondent No.2 has been cheated by the petitioner in not putting up construction and providing amenities in accordance with the specifications and therefore, he wanted refund of the amount already paid. On the other hand the petitioner has specifically pleaded that the construction is made in accordance with the specification and occupancy certificate was secured even prior to the stipulated time and respondent No.2 was called upon to pay the balance and get the sale deed executed. Instead of so doing, he is dragging on and claiming refund.
8. The petitioner has approached Karnataka RERA in complaint No.CMP/00022/2023 and after considering the objections filed by the petitioner herein who is respondent therein, the complaint is dismissed. During the course of the order, the Karnataka RERA has cle
