Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR, J
DR.K.S. MUKUNDA RAO – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3983 OF 2025 | 482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)
Based on the provided legal document, the court emphasized that criminal proceedings should not be initiated or continued for matters that are fundamentally civil disputes. The court highlighted that giving a criminal colour to civil disputes constitutes an abuse of the legal process and undermines the principles of justice. The court noted that the allegations of cheating and criminal breach of trust were not substantiated with the necessary criminal ingredients and appeared to be a misuse of criminal law to address civil or commercial disagreements.
The court exercised its inherent powers to quash the FIR and related proceedings, citing that the civil nature of the dispute was dominant and that the criminal allegations were merely a cloak for civil issues. It underscored that criminal proceedings should be invoked only when there is a clear, genuine criminal element, including fraudulent or dishonest intent from the outset. The court also pointed out procedural lapses by the trial court, such as failure to follow statutory requirements before referring the matter for investigation, further justifying the quashing.
In conclusion, the court held that continued criminal proceedings in this context would amount to an abuse of process and ordered the quashing of the FIR and related complaint. This reinforces the legal principle that criminal law should not be misused to settle civil disputes, and proceedings should only be pursued when criminal ingredients are clearly established.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual context of the complaint and petitioners. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's observations on the nature of the dispute. (Para 3 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. arguments for quashing the fir. (Para 4 , 5 , 11) |
| 4. background of the civil and criminal disputes. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 5. ratio decidendi focusing on the distinction between civil and criminal nature. (Para 15 , 17) |
| 6. court analysis of the nature of offences alleged. (Para 16 , 18 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. policy considerations about misuse of criminal law for civil disputes. (Para 20 , 22 , 27 , 29 , 30) |
| 8. final order quashing fir and complaint. (Para 33) |
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:-
“ (A) Quash the First Information Report in Crime No.0040/2025 dated: 01.03.2025 registered by Chitradurga Town Police Station under Sections 3 16 (2), 318(4) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Annexure-‘A’);
(B) Quash the Complaint in PCR No.57/2025 on the file of the Ld. Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC Court, Chitradurga (Annexure-‘B’);
(c) Quash and set aside the order dated: 30.01.20225 passed by the Ld. Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Chitradurga in PCR No.57/2025 (Annexure-‘C’) ; and
(d) Pass any other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and interests of justice.”
2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 15.01.2025, 2nd respondent – complainant filed a private complaint in PCR No. 57/2025 against the petitioners – accused Nos.1 to 3 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 3 16 and 303 of BNS , 2023. On 30.01.2025, the trial court passed the impugned order referring the matter to the 1st respondent – police for investigation under Section 175 (3) of BNS S,2023 and called for a report and posted the matter to 28.03.2025. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the 1st respondent -police registered the impugned FIR in Crime No.40/2025 dated 01.03.2025 against the petitioners for alleged offences punishable under Sections 3 16 (2), 318(4) and 3(5) of BNS , 2023. Aggrieved by the impugned complaint in PCR No.57/2025 and the impugned order passed by the trial court 30.01.2025 and impugned FIR, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for 1st respondent – Police and and perused the material on record. The 2nd respondent – complainant having been served with the notice of this petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition.
4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the impugned order dated 30.01.2025 passed by the trial court referring the mater for investigation in order to point out that the said order was contrary to the provisions contained in Section 175 (3) of BNSS, 2023, apart from being a non-speaking and unreasoned order, without application of mind and the same deserves to be quashed. It was submitted that along with the private complaint, necessary affidavit had not been filed by the 2nd respondent as required in law. It was further submitted that in addition to the fact that the impugned complaint did not make out the alleged offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust qua the petitioners, both the offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust cannot co-exist simultaneously and the impugned complaint seeking to give a criminal colour to the existing civil dispute between the parties was an abuse of process of law and the same deserve to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Om Prakash Ambadkar vs. State of Maharashtra - 2025 SCC OnLine SC 238 ;
(ii) Swarnalata Jena vs. State of Odisha - 2025 SCC OnLine Ori 278;
(iii) Naresh Kumar vs. State of Karnataka - 2024 SCC OnLine SC 268;
(iv) Usha Chakra
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
