Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 4189
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
SIDDEGOWDA S/O SHIVALINGAIAH C.N., SINDHU R., GANESH S/O SIDDEGOWDA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13623 OF 2024 | CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8024 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI MAHESH KUMAR H., SRI PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI
For the Respondents: SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, SRI H.MAHESH KUMAR
Criminal proceedings cannot be initiated solely for recovery of money without establishing essential ingredients of an offence under IPC.
Headnote:Statute Analysis: This judgment revolves around the interpretation of criminal law concerning Section 420 IPC, specifically its applicability in recovery of money claims. Facts of the Case: The petitioners, seeking to quash charges against them, contended that a 2024 FIR alleging cheating through non-payment of funds lacked merit as it was based on financial disputes from previous years.
Findings of Court:
The court determined that the allegations were insufficient to constitute an offence under the IPC and emphasized that criminal law cannot be wielded to recover money.
Issues: The court framed critical questions surrounding the nature of the actions constituting cheating under IPC and the adequacy of the allegations to establish criminality.
Ratio Decidendi: The reasoning highlighted the distinction between civil and criminal actions, asserting that without deception or fraudulent intent at the contract's inception, criminal proceedings could not be justified.
Result: Both Criminal Petitions are allowed, resulting in the quashing of the impugned crime and proceedings related to the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of allegations in criminal proceedings. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding relevance of fir. (Para 2 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. court's view on criminal law's role in recovery. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. distinction between civil and criminal liability. (Para 11) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners in Crl.P.No.13623 of 2024 are before this Court seeking to quash the complaint in Crime No.174 of 2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 , 504 and 149 of IPC and petitioners in Crl.P.No.8024 of 2024 are seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.3999 of 2023 registered for offence punishable under Section 420 of the . Petitions are either preferred by the petitioners/accused in a crime registered by the 2nd respondent in Crl.P.No.13623 of 2024 or in a crime registered by the 2nd petitioner/accused herself against the petitioners/accused in the companion petition.
2. Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar H, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.P.No.13623 of 2024 and 2nd respondent in Crl.P.No.8024 of 2024 and Sri Tumbigi Prabhugouda Basavantarayagouda, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Crl.P.No.8024 of 2024 and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, in both the petitions.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The 2nd respondent/complainant in Crl.P.No.13623 of 2024 is said to have submitted a representation before the Channapatna police station seeking permission to conduct procession and requests for road clearance. On 13-07-2022, the pooja ceremony on the Guru Poornima day happens which is celebrated by the 2nd respondent-complainant along with others. Thereafter, The 2nd petitioner registers a complaint against the Premsantosh @ Sachin Akaram Sargar Baba and his associates before the Channapatna police station alleging cheating which becomes a crime in Crime No.79 of 2022. The crime is registered on 01-09-2022. The Channapatna police file a charge sheet in C.C.No.3999 of 2023 against the Baba and his associates. After the filing of the charge sheet, one Dr. Sai Kumari Y.K. seeks to register a complaint against the petitioners and their family members who are accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 alleging that the petitioners have taken money from her towards construction of Sri Prema Sai Free Health Clinic without the knowledge of the said BABA on 15-07-2022. The crime sought to be registered has now become a crime in Crime No.174 of 2024. It is this that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition Crl.P.No.13623 of 2024. The companion petition relates to C.C.No.3999 of 2023 registered by the complainant one Smt Sindhu, who is the 2nd petitioner in Crl.P.No.13624 of 2024, against the said Baba and others.
4. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners would contend that crime in Crime No.174 of 2024 is hit by gross delay as, the money that has been paid in the year 2022, is complained of in the year 2024 and the criminal law is set into motion, admittedly for the purpose of recovery of money. He would submit that the proceedings be quashed.
6. Per-contra, the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent/complainant would submit that the complaint registered by them has ended in filing a charge sheet and the investigation should be permitted to be continued, as there are clear allegations against these petitioners in Crl.P.No.13623 of 2024. Therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, they are in fact a matter of record. The registration of the crime, at the outset, is by the 2nd petitioner in Crl.P.No.13623 of 2024. The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against these petitioners for offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC . The charge sheet so filed is as follows:
A perusal at the summary of the charge sheet so filed would indicate that it i
