IMPORTANT POINT
Where ingredients required to constitute criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of complaint, continuation of criminal proceeding will constitute abuse of process of court.

JUDGMENT

Dr Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud. J

Delay condoned.

2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and final order dated 1 January 2016 of the High Court of Karnataka, rejecting the prayer of the appellants to quash the criminal proceedings instituted by the first respondent against them. The High Court stayed the criminal proceedings till the disposal of a pending civil suit instituted by the son of the appellants against the first respondent.

3. The facts relevant to the present dispute are thus:

Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam, (the son of the appellants) and Savitha Seetharam (the daughter of the first respondent) were married on 24 May 2002. They moved to the United States of America and a child was born to them in 2009. Savitha was involved in a car accident on 5 February 2010 and proceedings were initiated against her abroad. It is alleged by the appellants that fearing the attachment of their son's property in the proceedings, an amount of Rs 20 lakhs was transferred by Rajiv to the bank account of the first respondent on 17 February 2010. Following a breakdown in marital relations, Savitha and Rajiv have been living separately since October 2010. Multiple rounds of litigation ensued in various courts.

4. Savitha filed a private complaint [PCR No. 3418 of 2012; FIR No. 18 of 2012 registered on 23 February 2012] against her husband Rajiv and the appellants alleging the commission of various offences, including criminal intimidation and a demand for dowry. The High Court of Karnataka quashed the proceeding against appellant No. 2. On 14 February 2013, Rajiv filed a civil suit for recovery of money [O. S. No. 1305 of 2013] against the first respondent for the return of the money allegedly transferred by him into her bank account. The suit is pending. Two divorce petitions instituted by Savita have been dismissed by the family court.

5. On 25 February 2016, the first respondent filed a private complaint [PCR 2116 of 2016] against the appellants which forms the subject matter of the present appeal. The first respondent alleges that the amount of Rs 20 Lakhs which was transferred by the son of the appellants was returned in cash to the appellants with interest of Rs 24,000 on 1 July 2010. No receipt was allegedly received by the first respondent. It is alleged that the appellants and their son have colluded to siphon the money and that the civil suit filed by the son of the appellants is without merit.

On 11 May 2016, the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. On 19 May 2016, a First Information Report [FIR] was registered under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Aggrieved by the judgment and final order of the High Court rejecting their petition to quash the FIR, the appellants have filed the present appeal.

6. Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the appellants urged the following submissions:

(i) No offence is made out from the averments in the complaint as they stand;

(ii) The first respondent has admitted that the amount which forms the subject matter of the present dispute was received from the son of the appellants;

(iii) The subject matter of the present dispute is of a civil nature and the criminal complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of the court; and

(iv) The allegations in the present complaint are similar to the previous complaint filed by the daughter of the first respondent.

7. On the other hand, Ms Pritha Srikumar, learned counsel for the respondents urged the following submissions:

(i) The criminal proceeding is not liable to be quashed as the allegations in the complaint disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 of the Penal Code;

(ii) The appellants have colluded with their son to siphon the money as no receipt was given to the first respondent when the amount of Rs 20,24,000 was transferred; and

(iii) The law