Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 19837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8499 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

1. SMT SUMITHRAMMA

W/O LATE KRISHNAPPA

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.

2. SMT. MANJULA K

D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.

3. SRI. RAJESH K

S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3

ARE RESIDING AT 543,

3RD MAIN ROAD, 3RD CROSS,

GANGONDANAHALLI,

BENGALURU - 560 039.

4. SRI. SIDDAPPA @ CHIKKA SIDDAIAH

S/O LATE SIDDAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

RISIDING AT NO.29, 4TH CROSS,

2ND MAIN, HOSAHALLI,

VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.

5. SRI. MALLESH M

S/O LATE MARAPPA,

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

RESIDING AT NO.168,

8TH MAIN ROAD, WARD NO.124,

VIJAYNAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 040.

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. BABU T.C, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY KUMBALAGUDU

POLICE STATION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT

REP. BY ITS SPP,

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SRI. K.R. ARAVIND

S/O K.R. RAJAGOPAL

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,

RESIDING AT KAMBIPURA VILLAGE,

KUMBALAGUDU POST,

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,

BENGALURU - 560 074.

...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;

SRI. M. KRISHNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Babu T.C
For the Respondents: B.N. Jagadeesha, M. Krishnappa

Criminal proceedings are not barred by the existence of civil remedies where the allegations prima facie disclose the essential ingredients of criminal offences. Merely because a dispute arises from a commercial contract does not preclude investigation into cognizable offences if the factual matrix supports criminal culpability.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 190, 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 322 and 352 - Code of Criminal Procedure/BNSS - Quashing of FIR - Criminality in civil transaction - Principle that civil remedies do not preclude criminal prosecution where allegations disclose essential ingredients of an offence - Investigation not to be thwarted merely because a dispute has civil overtones or stems from a Memorandum of Understanding - Criminal and civil proceedings can contemporaneously co-exist if factual matrix supports both. (Paras 3, 10-11)

(B) Quashing of Proceedings - Power under inherent jurisdiction - Discretion to be exercised with caution - Court not to embark on an inquiry as to genuineness of allegations at initial stage - Investigation should be permitted to continue if cognizable offences are disclosed - Court should be slow in interfering with the process of investigation to avoid harassment of accused only in rare cases where no such offence is made out. (Paras 10.2)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners entered into an agreement regarding a land transaction, receiving a substantial advance amount from the complainant. Subsequently, the petitioners alleged that the amount was forfeited and the agreement was cancelled. The complainant alleged that the petitioners were not the owners of the property, despite representing it as such, and had induced them into the transaction knowing about rival ownership claims. A criminal case was registered for cheating and other related offences, which the petitioners sought to quash, contending the dispute was purely civil in nature.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations demonstrated that the petitioners, while not having valid title to the land, induced the complainant to part with a significant sum of money. The court observed that merely because a commercial transaction is involved, it does not bar the investigation of cognizable offences if the elements of cheating and misappropriation are prima facie met.

Issues: Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed when the dispute arises out of a commercial memorandum of understanding and whether civil and criminal remedies are mutually exclusive.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that criminal proceedings are not barred simply because a civil remedy is available or because the dispute originates from a breach of contract, provided the complaint discloses the essential ingredients of criminal offences like cheating and inducement. Judicial interference with investigation is limited and should only occur if no cognizable offence exists.

Result: Petition rejected, interim order dissolved.

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLIANT DATED 04.04.2025 LODGED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 BEFORE THE Ist RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, WHICH HAD BEEN REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.107/2025 DATED 04.04.2025 BEFORE THE Ist RESPONDENT KUMBALAGUDU POLICE STATION, AT BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/ 190, 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 322, 352 OF BNS 2023 PRESENTLY PENDING BEFORE THE 2nd ACJM BENGALURU RUAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 are now at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.107/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 190, 316(2), 318(4), 319(2), 322 and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 ('the BNS' for short).

2. Heard Sri. Babu T.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1. and Sri. M. Krishnappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The genesis of the issue relates to a transaction. The said transaction is a Memorandum of Understanding ('the MOU' for short) between petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and the complainant on 10.08.2023. Petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the witnesses to the said MOU. Pursuant to the execution of the MOU or drawing up of the MOU, certain financial transactions have taken place between the two, by the complainant transferring an amount of Rs.45,10,001/-. The complainant on coming to know that the land was not free from encumbrance seeks refund of the amount, at which point in time it transpires that the petitioners have indicated that the amount has been forfeited and the MOU has been cancelled. Immediately thereafter springs the crime in Crime No.107/2025 for the aforesaid offences.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the plea that is put up in the application seeking vacation of the interim order should not be considered for resolution of the subject lis, as the very proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner is a farce, instituted by the son of one Sanjeevappa, who also claims to be a grantee of the same land from the hands of the State. The learned counsel further submits that, a purely financial transaction between the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and the complainant or the breach of a MOU is projected to become a crime and therefore, the investigation must not be permitted to be continued.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri. M. Krishnappa appearing for respondent No.2/complainant takes this Court through the documents appended to the application seeking vacation of the interim order. The same land that forms the subject matter of the MOU is granted to one Sanjeevappa, whose children initiated proceedings before the Special Deputy Commissioner, who holds it in their favour and pursuant to the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, the corresponding entries were not made or rejected by the Tahsildar. Therefore, one Ramesha, who is the son of Sanjeevappa, had to approach this Court in WP.No.25210/2023, wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had allowed the claim and directed the Tahsildar to mutate the name of Ramesha in the RTC records. With all these facts, the learned counsel submits that investigation in the subject crime must be permitted to be continued, as on the day that the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 entered into the MOU, they were not the owners of the property. Knowing fully well of the same, they have entered into a transaction and have lured the complainant into such transaction for the transfer of a consideration of Rs.45,10,001/-.

6. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor also would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that there were rival claimants for the land that became the subjec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document