1. Petition to quash FIR and complaint for offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 arising from an alleged breach of property development agreement. (Para 1 , 8 )
Back
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
MR C GOPALAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 13519/2024
1. Petition to quash FIR and complaint for offences under IPC Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471 arising from an alleged breach of property development agreement. (Para 1 , 8 )
2. Petitioner argues necessary ingredients missing and civil dispute; respondent contends complaint discloses criminal offences. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Complaint contains vague, omnibus allegations lacking specific ingredients; essentially a civil dispute given criminal colour. (Para 8 , 11 , 15 , 20 , 21 )
4. For cheating, dishonest intention must exist at inception of transaction; mere breach of contract does not attract criminal prosecution. (Para 10 , 12 , 13 )
5. Petition allowed; impugned complaint and FIR quashed as abuse of process. (Para 23 )
The court can quash if allegations taken at face value do not disclose any offence or are absurd, or if proceedings are manifestly mala fide. (Para 10 , 16 )
No, unless there is fraudulent or dishonest intention shown at the inception of the transaction. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
Yes, inordinate and unexplained delay is a crucial factor for quashing criminal proceedings. (Para 9 , 10 )
No, they are distinct and mutually exclusive; they cannot co-exist simultaneously. (Para 18 , 19 )
It constitutes abuse of process when allegations are essentially civil and criminal machinery is used to exert pressure. (Para 15 , 17 , 21 )
CAV ORDER
In this petition, petitioner - sole accused seeks quashing of the impugned complaint and FIR dated 29.04.2024 registered in Crime No.366/2024 by the 1st respondent - Police, pursuant to a complaint dated 29.04.2024 lodged by the 2nd respondent - de facto complainant for alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC and for other reliefs.
2. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for 1st respondent-State and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and perused the material on record.
3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the impugned complaint and FIR in order to contend that necessary ingredients constituting the alleged offences have not been made out by the 2nd respondent. It was submitted that the petitioner and 2nd respondent and his brothers Sri.N.M.Tulasi Ram and Sri.N.M.Ravi had entered into agreements in relation to immovable property from 2003 onwards and the 2nd respondent is illegally attempting to convert an alleged civil dispute into a criminal action by filing the impugned complaint, which deserves to be quashed. In support of his contentions, learned Senior counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Binod Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and Another - (2014)10 SCC 663;
(ii) R.Nagender Yadav vs. State of Telengana and Another - (2023) 2 SCC 195.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent would reiterate the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel placed reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Another vs. Monica - (2009) 10 SCC 604;
(ii) Lallan Chaudhary & others vs. State of Bihar & Anr. - (2006) 12 SCC 229;
(iii) Santosh B.Reddy & others vs. The State - Crl.P.No.8448/2023 Dated 19.07.2024;
(iv) Supertech Limited vs. Emerald Court Owner Resident Welfare Association & others - (2021) 10 SCC 1;
(v) Sri.Kirti K.Mehta & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & others - Crl.P.No.6658/2024 & connected matters Dated 21.10.2024;
(vi) Ram Lal Yadav. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - Crl.Misc.5939/1978 Dated 02.01.1989;
(vii) Pramod Kumar Gadia vs. State of West Bengal - C.R.R.No.1450/2005 dated 02.10.2006;
(viii) Aniruddh Singh vs. State of Rajasthan - S.B.Crl.Mis.(P) No.5116/2017 Dated 09.02.2018;
(ix) Sanjay Pandey & Anr. vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. - C.R.R.No.2342/2018 Dated 02.12.2019.
5. Both sides have filed their written synopsis in support of their contentions and the same are taken on record.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be apposite to extract the impugned complaint dated 29.04.2024 (translated version) which reads as under:-
To,
The Police Inspector,
HAL Police Station,
Bengaluru – 560037.
Subject: Complaint against C. Gopalan, M/s Gopalan Enterprises, No.5, Richmond Road, for cheating, fraud, creating documents, and constructing buildings illegally-reg.
Respected Sir,
I, the complainant, N.M. Narendra Reddy, son of N.C. Munireddy, aged about 57 years, residing at No.103/6, 6th Main Road, Kote N.C. Munireddy Nilaya, Doddanekkundi, Bangalore – 560037, hereby submit the following complaint:
Mobile : 9880127208 on 07/03/03 to on 29/04/2024
2. My brothers 1) N.M. Ravi and 2) N.M. Tulasi Ram and I are the owners of land in Chinnappanahalli village, Survey No.16, area 5 acres 6 guntas, and Survey No.45, area 2 acres 39 guntas, totalling 8 acres 5 guntas. The accused, C. Gopalan, operates a partnership firm under the name M/s Gopalan Enterprises and has been engaged in building construction business in Bengaluru city. In this context, C. Gopalan approached us and proposed that if we give him the above- me
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