Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated for civil disputes related to money recovery, highlighting the distinction between civil and criminal liability under IPC.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners, two in number, stand at the doors of this Court in the subject petition, calling in question proceedings in CC.No.7414/2023 registered for offences punishable under Section 406 , 420, 120B, 504 and 506 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 ('the IPC ' for short).

2. Heard Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, learned Senior counsel for Sri. K.B.K. Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Venkatesh Prasad R., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts adumbrated are as follows:

The entire issue springs from an agreement of sale entered into between the petitioners and the complainant. The agreement of sale takes place on 16.02.2019. The date on which the sale deed was to be executed was also indicated. There were two conditions in the agreement of sale, one that the tenants should be evicted and the other that the loan on the property has to be cleared. Both of which are said to have not taken place. This leads the petitioners to cause a legal notice upon the complainant seeking termination of the agreement. The termination of the agreement ought to have resulted in getting the agreement executed by way of a suit for specific performance. What the complainant would do instead is seek to register a complaint before the jurisdictional Police for the afore-quoted offences, which becomes a crime in Crime No.89/2021. The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet in CC.No.7414/2023. The day prior to the filing of the charge sheet, the complainant rushes to the Civil Court and registers a suit for specific performance. The said suit for specific performance is pending adjudication before the concerned Court. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.7414/2023 on the score that a matter which is purely civil in nature arising out of an agreement is sought to be given a colour of crime.

4. Sri. Sandesh J. Chouta, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, taking this Court through the charge sheet material, would seek to contend that the suit instituted against the petitioners seeking specific performance also seeks refund of the entire money that has been transacted between the parties. He would submit that it is by now a well settled principal of law that criminal law cannot be set into motion for the purpose of recovery of money. He would further submit that cognizance could not have been taken by the concerned Court for both the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC since the two offences cannot go hand in hand. He would seek to place reliance upon certain judgments of the Apex Court, which would bear consideration and during the course of the order qua their relevance.

5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant submits that the money has been transacted six years ago. He is now left with no money as his hard earned money is transacted with the petitioners. Therefore, the complainant has set the criminal law into motion for an immediate relief. The learned counsel submits that the suit is instituted on 06.01.2023, prior to filing of the charge sheet, and would further submit that the case clearly attracts the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC . Since the charge sheet is filed, it is for the petitioners to come out clean is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would toe the lines of the learned counsel representing respondent No.2 in contending that the