Karnataka High Court
Mr Pruthvi Honnegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 13 August, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 26.06.2025
Pronounced on : 13.08.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.11231 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
MR. PRUTHVI HONNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O SRI M.HONNEGOWDA
R/AT NO.85, MAYURI
1ST MAIN ROAD
GURU RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR
OPP. RBI LAYOUT
J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE
BENGALURU - 560 078.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BAGALUR POLICE STATION
BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR
BENGALURU - 562 149
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
2
BENGALURU.
2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 092
BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU.
3 . SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE SRI B.LAKSHMANA GUPTA
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NO.1188, 13TH FLOOR
FLAT NO.002, 35TH 'C' CROSS
JAYANAGAR 'T' BLOCK
BENGALURU - 560 041.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRASANNA B. R., ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R.NO. 210/2021 DTD 03/11/2021
REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT POLICE AND COMPLAINT DATED
03/11/2021 GIVEN BY R-3 WHICH IS ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A
AND B PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND
JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 34, 120B, 323, 380, 406, 420, 447, 465, 468 AND 471 OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860.
3
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 26.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Petitioner/accused No. 3 is before this Court calling in
question registration of a crime in Crime No. 210 of 2021 registered
for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447, 380, 323,
465, 468, 471, 120-B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ashok Haranahalli,
learned senior counsel appearing for respondent 3.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
3.1. A particular land in Sy.No.35 of Sathnuru Village, Jala
Hobli, measuring 19 acres 10 guntas was purchased by a
4
partnership firm, M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates represented by its
partner Sri Lakshman Gupta. On 01-12-1970, six persons constitute
a partnership firm and continued M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates which
is said to have commenced from 26-11-1970, the date on which
Sri Lakshman Gupta purchased the aforesaid property. The record
of rights of the land stood in the name of the partner of M/s
Hindustan Ideal Estates, Sri Lakshman Gupta. The RTCs from year
to year stood in the said name. On 04-07-1992 Sri Lakshman Gupta
dies. After his death the revenue entries were changed in the name
of his wife Smt. B.L.Rathnamma and Smt. B.L. Rathnamma was
inducted as a partner in the aforesaid firm. On 08-09-1994 all the
partners of the firm enter into an dissolution deed, relinquishing all
their rights in the said firm in favour of P.G. Nataraj.
3.2. An application was then made by P.G. Nataraj to mutate
his name to the land bearing Sy.No.35/2. Accordingly, in terms of
dissolution deed, revenue entries show the name of P.G. Nataraj.
Certain RTC proceedings were instituted later in which Smt. B.L.
Rathnamma, wife of late Lakshman Gupta filed an affidavit
admitting that she has no claim over the land in Sy.No.35/2. All
5
the surviving legal heirs of late Lakshman Gupta thereafter on
31-08-2017 enter into a registered sale agreement in favour of one
Smt. Ramya over the land measuring 19 acres and 10 guntas with
P.G.Nataraj signing as a confirming party on receiving ₹7/- crores,
whereunder possession of the property was allegedly handed over
to Smt. Ramya. On the same day, a registered General Power
Attorney (GPA) is executed by the legal heirs of late Lakshman
Gupta in favour of Smt. Ramya in connection with the aforesaid
Sy.No.35/2 measuring 19 acres and 10 guntas.
3.3. By another transaction one Shyam Raju enters into a
memorandum of understanding with Smt. Ramya acting as a GPA
holder of all the legal heirs of late Lakshman Gupta for purchase of
the land for a total consideration of ₹51/- crores. The total extent of
the land was 19 acres and 10 guntas and a sum of ₹4.80 crores
was paid on the date of execution of memorandum of
understanding in favour of Smt. Ramya. To this memorandum of
understanding, the petitioner signs as a witness. It is here the
petitioner, for the first time, comes into the picture of the
transaction. Sri P.G.Nataraj along with one Venkatram Settappa
6
executes a deed of declaration admitting to have received the
amount said to have been paid in terms of the agreement of sale
entered into on 31-08-2017. On 30-12-2020, out of 19 acres and
10 guntas, 9 acres at the request of Shyam Raju who had placed a
request to the petitioner to act as an aggregator or facilitator, the
petitioner enters into a sale agreement with possession in favour of
one Birendra Kumar Bajoria who was the owner of land in
Sy.No.35/5 for a consideration of ₹2.08 crores. On the same day,
the Birendra Kumar Bajoria executes a registered irrevocable GPA
in favour of the petitioner.
3.4. When things stood thus, Smt. Ramya who was the GPA
holder of the legal heirs of late Lakshman Gupta gets a sale deed
executed to herself of the entire land of 19 acres and 10 guntas and
by another transaction Shyam Raju enters into a registered sale
deed of entire extent of 19 acres and 10 guntas executed by his
partner P.G. Nataraj, wherein an amount of ₹22.80 crores has been
transferred, which is said to be to the account of the petitioner. It is
said to be the amount paid towards other projects in which the
petitioner had assisted the two viz., Shyam Raju and Umesh Shyam
7
Raju to acquire various lands including acquisition of land of
Bijendra Kumar Bajoria. When things stood thus, Smt. Ramya
registers a crime against the petitioner alleging several offences on
02-10-2021, pursuant to which, a FIR is registered. This is not the
issue in the subject petition.
3.5. Smt. B.L. Rathnamma who had relinquished her rights
way back in 1997 swings into action. On 03-11-2021 she registers a
complaint before the jurisdictional Police against P.G. Nataraj and
Heriyanna Shetty which becomes a crime in Crime No.210 of 2021
for the afore-quoted offences. The petitioner was not named in the
FIR. It is for the first time he comes into the picture when the said
P.G. Nataraj and Heriyanna Shetty also dragged the name of the
petitioner in the remand application. Therefore, the petitioner
becomes accused No.3. Certain amounts are said to have been
transferred after the registration of crime from the petitioner to
Umesh Shyam Raju on three occasions totalling to ₹4/- crores.
3.6. The dragging of the name of the petitioner is called in
question before this Court in the subject petition filed on
8
31-05-2023, while the name of the petitioner was dragged in on
21-01-2023. Certain analogous proceedings are instituted against
the petitioner invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, which are unnecessary to be noticed. The petitioner, pursuant
to the orders passed by this Court, has deposited ₹1.5 crores
before the Registry. During the subsistence of the subject petition,
a crime in Crime No.215 of 2021, that had been registered in
connection with a complaint lodged by Smt. Ramya, ends up in a 'B'
report. The 'B' report is said to have become final. Therefore, the
case projected by Smt Ramya directly against the petitioner end up
in a 'B' report and the subject case indirectly registered against the
petitioner is now being considered.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.Prasanna
Kumar would vehemently contend that Smt. B.L.Rathnamma had
nothing to do with the petitioner. Smt. B.L. Rathnamma had in fact
relinquished all her rights and by an affidavit before the authorities
had indicated that she has no claim over Sy.No.35/2. The
transaction is between Umesh Shyam Raju and Smt. Ramya, to
which the petitioner is land aggregator/facilitator. Umesh Shyam
9
Raju and Shyam Raju had several transactions not with the
petitioner, but with Smt. B.L. Rathnamma long before registration
of the crime or by Smt. Ramya. He would contend that when there
is no transaction between the complainant and the petitioner, it is
ununderstandable as to why the complainant has registered the
crime against the petitioner in particular, who is dragged as
accused No.3. Therefore, the complaint is a masquerade of Shyam
Raju and Umesh Shyam Raju who ought to have been accused in
the case at hand and who are shown as witnesses. He would submit
that even otherwise qua the role of the petitioner none of the
offences can spring.
5. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli
appearing for the complainant had initially submitted that the
transaction was between the accused and the complainant
particularly with accused No.3, the petitioner. Therefore, this Court
had directed deposit of certain amounts from the petitioner. The
learned senior counsel would now contend that there is no
transaction between Smt. B.L. Rathnamma and the petitioner. All
that the complainant wants to do is to secure some money and
10
hand it over to Shyam Raju and Umesh Shyam Raju. He would
contend that the petitioner is also one of them who is benefited
from the transaction, not with Smt. B.L.Rathnamma but with
others. Therefore, these are matters which require investigation
and the Police have conducted investigation and if the Court would
permit, final report would be filed against them. He would seek
dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
7. The history of the transaction and the link in the chain of
events are all narrated hereinabove. They would not require any
reiteration. Sri B.L. Rathnamma was the wife of late Lakshman
Gupta who was a partner of M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates and had
acquired 19 acres and 10 guntas as afore mentioned. On the death
of Lakshman Gupta on 04-07-1992 the partnership is dissolved.
Smt. B.L. Rathnamma in proceedings concerning mutation, files an
11
affidavit before the Special Deputy Commissioner. The affidavit
reads as follows:
"BEFORE THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN; BANGALORE
Revision Petition No.5/96-97
BETWEEN:
SRI N.BYRA REDDY. ..PETITIONER.
AND:
TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS. .. RESPONDENTS
AFFFIDAVIT
I, B.L. Rathnamma W/o late B.Lakshman Gupta 49
years, residing at 6-6-37/10, Kavadiguda, Secundrabad,
Andhra Pradesh, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as
follows:
1. I state that my Husband Late B.Lakshmana Gupta and
Sri P.G.Nataraja, fourth respondent in the above case along with
four others have formed a Partnership firm under the name and
style of "HINDUSTAN IDEAL ESTATE" and which was reduced
into writing on 1-12-1970 and the property in question i.e.,
Sy.No.35 has been purchased by the firm under a Sale Deed
dated 16-11-1970 for valuable consideration. My husband late
B.L.Lakshmana Gupta has purchased the property as partner of
Hindustan Ideal Estate.
2. It is stated that in the firm i.e., Hindustan Ideal Estates
altogether there were six partners namely (1) Seetharama
Gupta (2) Lakshman Gupta (3) P.Chadrasekaran (4) P.Papaiah
Setty (5) P.G. Nataraj and (6) Venkatasubbaiah, on 8-09-1994
the partners of the firm i.e., Seetharama Gupta, Myself,
Chandrashekaran, Papaiah Setty, P.G. Nataraj and
C.Venkatasubbaiah have reached an understanding to dissolve
the firm and the said document Sy.No.35 was allotted to the
share of P.G. Nataraj. The outgoing partners i.e., Seetharama
Gupta, Myself, Chandrashekaran and G.Venkatasubbaiah have
received monetary consideration from Sri P.G. Nataraj and left
12
the property to the share of P.G. Nataraj. Though the property
has been purchased by my husband in the name of Hindustan
Ideal Estates, actually the property is now in the hands of Sri
P.G. Nataraj and which is belonging to Sri P.G. Nataraj only,
who is also one of the partners of Hindustan Ideal Estate and
later on it was dissolved.
3. In view of the fact, absolutely I have no claim
over the property and the property is one belonging to Sri
P.G. Nataraj only and the khata of the property be
ordered to be continued in the name of Sri P.G. Nataraj. I
have no objection of whatsoever in doing so.
I declare that this is my name and signature and
the contents made in this affidavit are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge.
Sd/- (B.L. RATHAMMA)
DEPONENT."
(Emphasis supplied)
The history of the land is traced and confirmed that the property
had been purchased by her husband in the name of Hindustan Ideal
Estates. Actually, the property is in the hands of P.G. Nataraj
and the complainant clearly deposes before the Special
Deputy Commissioner that she has no claim over the
property and the property is the one belonging to P.G.
Nataraj and the khatha of the property is ordered to be
continued in the name of P.G.Nataraj. This was in the
proceedings instituted by one Byra Reddy challenging the revenue
entries made in favour of P.G. Nataraj. Who is Byra Reddy? Byra
13
Reddy is one of the legal heirs of the partners that constituted the
firm in the year 1970. Thus, Smt. B.L. Rathnamma relinquishes all
her claims even with regard to revenue entries. Therefore, Smt.
B.L. Rathnamma could not be aggrieved of any action after
relinquishment of her claims.
8. The land continued in the name of P.G.Nataraj. After about
20 years of relinquishment of claim by Smt. B.L.Rathnamma, GPA is
said to have been executed in favour of Smt. Ramya. On the same
day an agreement of sale is entered into between the legal heirs
and Smt. Ramya to which P.G. Nataraj was a confirming party.
Being the GPA holder of Smt. B.L. Rathnamma and other legal heirs
of late Lakshman Gupta, she executes a sale deed to herself
purchasing the property in Sy.No.35/2. Certain consideration is also
mentioned in the sale deed. M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates
represented by P.G. Nataraj now executes a sale deed in favour of
Umesh Shyam Raju and accused No.2 Heriyanna Shetty and to this,
the petitioner acts as a confirming party. The mention of the name
of the petitioner in the sale deed is as follows:
14
"2. MR. PRUTHVI HONNEGOWDA, S/o Mr. Honnegowda
Manche Gowda, Aged bout 36 years, residing at No.85,
'MAYURI', 1st Main Road, Guru Raghavendra Nagar,
Opposite RBI Lay-out, JP Nagar 7th Phase, Bangalore 560
078, bearing Aadhar No.6272-4308-5788 and PAN
No.ADNPH7836F (the "Aggregator/Agreement Holder
No.2").
(Hereinafter collectively referred to as the
"CONFIRMING/CONSENTING PARTY" which expression shall,
wherever the context so requires or admits, shall man and
include, his/her/their respective heirs, successors,
administrators, legal representatives, executors and assigns) of
the OTHER PART:
(The Executor/Owners/Vendors, Purchaser and Confirming/
Consenting Party, hereinafter referred to as the "Parties' and
individually as a 'Party')"
Confirming party is the aggregator. Certain amounts are transferred
to the account of the petitioner. The transfer is as follows:
".... .... ....
(d) An amount of INR 22,80,000/- (Indian National Rupees
Twenty-Two Crores Eighty Lakhs only) paid to Confirming
Party No.2 in the following manner:
(i) An amount of INR 4,81,75,000/- (Indian National Rupees
Four Crores Eighty-One Lakhs Seventy-Five Thousand
only) vide Cheque bearing No.19625 dated 23rd July 2021
drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited.
(ii) An amount of INR 4,50,45,000/- (Indian National Rupees
Four Crores Fifty Lakhs Forty-Five Thousand only) vide
Cheque bearing No.19623 dated 23rd July 2021 drawn on
Karnataka Bank Limited.
(iii) An amount of INR 2,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees
Two crores only) paid through NEFT/RTGS transaction
15
bearing UTR No.KARBN17348146734 dated 14 December
2017.
(iv) An amount of INR 2,00,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees
Two Crore only) paid through NEFT/RTGS transaction
bearing UTR No.KARBN18113293056 dated 23 April 2018.
(v) An amount of INR 2,00,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees
Two Crore only) paid through NEFT/RTGHS transaction
bearing UTR No.KARBNH20336340424 dated 1st
December 2020.
(vi) An amount of INR 3,00,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees
Three Crores only) paid through NEFT/RTGS transaction
bearing UTR No.KARBH20358238941 dated 23 December
2020.
(vii) An amount of INR 3,00,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees
Three Crores only) paid through NEFT/RTGS transaction
bearing UTR No.KARBH20363502749 dated 28 December
2020.
(viii) An amount of INR 2,25,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees
Two Crores Twenty-Five Lakhs only) paid through
NEFT/RTGS transaction bearing UTR No.
KARBH21015150763 dated 15 January 2021.
(ix) An amount of INR 22,80,000/- (Indian National Rupees
Twenty-Two Lakhs Eighty Thousand only) vide SBI
Ref.No.CKQ9547007, Challan No.01407 dated 23 July
2021."
The transaction runs into dispute not with Smt. B.L.Rathnamma,
but with Umesh Shyam Raju or the petitioner and other accused.
This results in registration of a complaint by Smt. Ramya before the
jurisdictional Police on 02-10-2021. This becomes a crime in Crime
16
No.215 of 2021. The Police after investigation in the said crime
have filed a 'B' report in favour of the petitioner.
9. After Smt. Ramya registering the crime, Umesh Shyam
Raju has registered two proceedings against the petitioner for
dishonour of a cheque. During the pendency of those proceedings
Umesh Shyam Raju demands certain money from the hands of the
petitioner and about ₹4/- crores is transferred.
10. What is shocking is Smt. B.L. Rathnamma who had
nothing to do with the petitioner, now registers the crime on
03-11-2021, not against the petitioner, but two others. The
complaint so registered reads as follows:
"Date:03-11-2021
To
Station House Officer,
Bagalur Police Station,
Bengaluru.
Sir,
Sub: Threatening to kill, assault on my housemaid and
security guard, cheating with dishonest intention
coupled with fraudulent motive, breach of trust,
tampering of revenue records and submitted the
same before the revenue Court with dishonest
intention to cheat, fraudulently with dishonest
intention got the katha and RTC transfer of the
17
agricultural property in Sy.No.35/2 of Sathnur
Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru
North, theft of household articles, Bank documents
and property papers from the premises of my
house by committing criminal trespass, life threats
to me, Sandeepa, Sanjay my care taker Ms.Ramya
H.M. by outraging the modesty, by P.G. Nataraj,
Heriyanna Shetty and their associates.
Ref: Written complaint dated 25-10-2021.
--
I the undersigned B.L. Rathnamma, W/o late Lakshmana
Gupta, aged about 74 years, a senior citizen is the absolute
owner of the agricultural property bearing No.Sy.No.35/2 (Old
Sy.No.35) of Sathanur Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk,
Bengaluru North (Property, the same was inherited from my
husband after his demise in the year 1992. On 31-08-2017, I
have executed a registered Agreement of Sale with possession
of the property in favour of Ms. Ramya H.M. before The Sub-
Registrar, Jala (Gandhinagar) the above stated person P.G.
Nataraj was confirming party in the Sale Agreement and have
received a sum of ₹93,00,000/-. On the very same day an
Irrevocable General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of
Ramya H.M. before The Sub-Registrar, Jala (Gandhinagar). On
18-03-2018, P. G. Nataraj have executed a registered Deed of
Declaration in favour of the Ramya, H.M. declaring that he has
not right and title on the subject property, all documents were
registered before The Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura and the
above stated Heriyanna Shetty was witness to all the above
registered documents.
I had constructed a house in the property consisting of
two bedrooms, a living area and bathrooms, the electricity bill of
the property is annexed. I and Ramya H.M. had engaged one
named Sandeepa a resident of Sanjaynagar to take care of the
housework and Sanjay as security guard. Ramya H.M. would
use to take care of me and whenever I was visiting Bangalore I
used to live in the house, Ramya H.M. would frequently visit my
house and would enquire about my health and my welfare. Due
to deterioration in my health condition in the month of March-
April, 2021 and also due to Covid-19 second wave, I was
advised by my doctors to be shifted to hospital and ultimately, I
was living in my daughter's house at Telangana.
18
On 1st July 2021, Ramya informed me that with P.G.
Nataraj and representing him to be a partner of Hindustan Ideal
Estates, have fraudulently with dishonest intention submitted
fabricated documents before Assistant Commissioner, North
Bengaluru and have got the Katha and RTC transfer into the
name of Hindustan Ideal Estates, based on that fabricated
documents, P.G. Nataraj in collusion with Heriyanna Shetty have
transferred the property in favour of Umesh Shyama Raju a
resident of Sadashivanagar on 26-07-2021. Thereafter the order
of Assistant Commissioner was challenged and is set aside and
the Assistant Commissioner made all the relevant observations
and passed the order in my favour and restored back the RTC in
my name.
On 27-09-2021, I received a notice from your police
station concerning to a false complaint lodged by P.G. Nataraj, I
sought some permission to appear through my advocate and on
the very same day, I sent a speed post to your police station
requesting to protect my civil property rights as there was
threat of dispossession from my property at the hands of P.G.
Nataraj. Thereafter taking advantage of the fact that I was not
residing in the house, on 28-09-2021 and 29-09-2021, the P.G.
Nataraj, Heriyanna Shetty and other 25 members who are their
associates, have assaulted and threatened Sandeepa and
Sanjay who were present in the property, they have threatened
to kill me and Ramya H.M. if they involved in the property, they
have made them to leave the premises or to be killed, fearing
for life the above persons has locked the doors of the house and
have left the premises. Since they have caused damage to the
property, I have submitted a written complaint on 25-10-2021
and requested to provide protection to my property, but even to
this date there is no action taken on any of them.
On 27-10-2021 at around 7.30 p.m. I along with the
security guard Sanjay and Ramya H.M. went to my house and
saw the locks installed on the doors were broken, further, went
inside and saw that the household articles like fridge, washing
machine, gas stove, cylinder, sofa sets, TV Air conditioner and
other articles were missing. A blue color steel almirah which
was inside the house was not to be found. The said almirah
contained the property papers, my bank passbook, cash of
₹1,80,000/- all physical items are valued at around 10 lakhs
was found missing and have been stolen by P.G.Nataraj,
19
Heriyanna Shetty and his associates, as such P.G. Nataraj,
Heriyanna Shetty and their associates have criminally conspired
with common intention, tampered with revenue records with
dishonest and fraudulent intention to cheat and accumulate
huge wealth illegally, fabricated my property documents and
have sold the property on 26-07-2021 in favour of Umesh
Shyama Raju, gave life threats and assaulted my house
caretaker and security guard and criminally trespassed to my
property, forcibly broke opened the locks of my house and
committed theft and robbery of valuable things like household
articles, property papers and bank pass book, kindly register a
criminal complaint against P.G. Nataraj, Heriyanna Shetty and
their associates for the above acts and investigate and provide
justice and protection to our lives and property and also cancel
the illegally registered sale deed and punish them in accordance
with law. I have orally instructed my son to write this complaint
and after that I have gone through the contents of this
complaint. I can identify the missing household articles if I see it
again.
I was critically ill and was since I was under life threat,
there is delay of lodging complaint, there is no ill-intention
behind it.
All the documents are annexed to this complaint, a pen
drive is also submitted along with this complaint which contains
the videos and photos.
Thanking you,
Sd/- B.L.Ratnamma."
This now becomes a crime in Crime No.210 of 2021 for the afore-
quoted offences. In the entire complaint there is no mention of the
name of the petitioner. It is only against P.G. Nataraj and
Heriyanna Shetty. A remand application is filed before the
concerned Magistrate. In the remand application, on the statement
20
of P.G. Nataraj and Heriyanna Shetty, the petitioner is brought into
the web of crime and is arrayed as accused No.3. This is an
admitted fact. The issue now would be the meeting of the offences
as alleged.
11. As observed hereinabove, the complaint springs
from Smt. B.L. Rathnamma who had absolutely no claim over
the property. According to her affidavit in the year 1997
itself, the transaction was between Smt. Rathnamma and Sri
P.G.Natraj. The complaint ought to have been, at best,
against Umesh Shyam Raju. But, the complaint is by Smt.
B.L.Rathnamma who admittedly had no transaction with the
petitioner. In that light, whether the offences so alleged
would be met, is necessary to be noticed. The offences are the
ones punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. They read
as follows:
"406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.--
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
... ... ...
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces
21
the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
The ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are found in
Sections 405 and 415 of the IPC respectively. They read as follows:
"405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being in
any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly
uses or disposes of that property in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust
is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or
implied, which he has made touching the discharge of
such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do,
commits "criminal breach of trust".
Explanation [1].--A person, being an employer of an
establishment whether exempted under Section 17 of
the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not] who deducts the employee's
contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit
to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any
law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been
entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by
him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution
to the said fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to
have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in
violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Explanation 2.--A person, being an employer, who
deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to
the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund
held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance
Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance
22
Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted
with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if
he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said
Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have
dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation
of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Illustrations
(a) A, being executor to the will of a deceased person,
dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide the
effects according to the will, and appropriates them to his own
use. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
(b) A is a warehouse-keeper. Z, going on a journey,
entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be
returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse
room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed criminal
breach of trust.
(c) A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at
Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z,
that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A,
according to Z's direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with
directions to A to invest the same in Company's
paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the
money in his own business. A has committed criminal breach of
trust.
(d) But if A, in the last illustration, not dishonestly but in
good faith, believing that it will be more for Z's advantage to
hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys Z's directions, and
buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying
Company's paper, here, though Z should suffer loss, and should
be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of that
loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not committed
criminal breach of trust.
(e) A, a revenue officer, is entrusted with public money
and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or
implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all
the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the
money. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
23
(f) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be
carried by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the
property. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
... .... ...
415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit
to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were
not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is
likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body,
mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a
deception within the meaning of this section.
Illustrations
(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service,
intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let
him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to
pay. A cheats.
(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article,
intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made
by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly
induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
(c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article,
intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article
corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly
induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
(d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a
house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects
that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and
thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending
not to pay for it. A cheats.
24
(e) A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows
are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby
dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.
(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to
repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby
dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to
repay it. A cheats.
(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means
to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does
not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to
advance money upon the faith of such delivery, A cheats; but
if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the
indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not
deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action
for breach of contract.
(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has
performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he has not
performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay
money. A cheats.
(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in
consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells
or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the
previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase
or mortgage money from Z. A cheats."
(Emphasis supplied)
Section 406 requires entrustment of a property by the complainant
to the hands of the accused and its misappropriation with dishonest
intention by the accused. The complainant and the petitioner have
admittedly no transaction with each other. The complaint also does
not name the petitioner as having any transaction with the
complainant. If the petitioner has no transaction with the
25
complainant, what entrustment of property has taken place
and what has been misappropriated of the complainant is a
mystery. Therefore, the offence under Section 406 of the IPC
has been laid so loosely that it does not satisfy an iota of
ingredient of Section 405 IPC.
12. The other offence is under Section 420 IPC. Section
415 mandates that the accused, with a dishonest intention,
from the outset of a transaction, should lure the complainant
to enter into a transaction and thereafter cheat the
complainant. The two ingredients require that it should be a
transaction between the complainant and the accused; the
accused should have lured the complainant to enter into a
transaction which from the outset was with a dishonest
intention. Both these ingredients are not met even to their
semblance, as the petitioner and the complainant have no
transaction at all between them. Therefore, there can be no
question of the petitioner luring the complainant to enter into a
transaction. In the aforesaid circumstance, it becomes apposite to
refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
26
S.N.VIJAYALAKSHMI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, wherein the
Apex Court considers the entire spectrum of the law, on what could
become the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The
Apex Court holds as follows:
".... .... ....
35. In this background, the Court needs to consider as to
whether the accusations of criminal nature levelled in the FIR
are sustainable to permit the continuance of the criminal
proceedings or not. Cognizance has finally been taken under
Sections 120B, 406 and 420 of the IPC. For convenience, the
said provisions are reproduced hereinbelow:
'120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.- (1)
Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or
rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards,
shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for
the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the
same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other
than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable
as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine
or with both.
xxx
406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.-
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.
xxx
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575
27
any property to any person, or to make, alter or
destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security,
or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.'
36. It would be useful, in addition, to set out the relevant
definitional Sections from the IPC:
'120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.--When
two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,--
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such
an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy
unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or
more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.--It is immaterial whether the illegal act
is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely
incidental to that object.
xxx
405. Criminal breach of trust.--Whoever, being
in any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates
or converts to his own use that property, or
dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in
violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode
in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal
contract, express or implied, which he has made
touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully
suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal
breach of trust".
Explanation 1.--A person, being an employer of an
establishment whether exempted under Section 17 of
the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not] who deducts the
employee's contribution from the wages payable to the
28
employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension
Fund established by any law for the time being in force,
shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of
the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default
in the payment of such contribution to the said fund in
violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have
dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in
violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Explanation 2.--A person, being an employer, who
deducts the employees' contribution from the wages
payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State
Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees'
State Insurance Corporation established under
the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948),
shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of
the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default
in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in
violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have
dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in
violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Illustrations
(a) A, being executor to the will of a deceased
person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to
divide the effects according to the will, and appropriates
them to his own use. A has committed criminal breach of
trust.
(b) A is a warehouse-keeper. Z, going on a journey,
entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be
returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse
room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed
criminal breach of trust.
(c) A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at
Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A
and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by
A, according to Z's direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A,
with directions to A to invest the same in Company's paper.
A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the
money in his own business. A has committed criminal
breach of trust.
(d) But if A, in the last illustration, not dishonestly
but in good faith, believing that it will be more for Z's
advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys
29
Z's directions, and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z,
instead of buying Company's paper, here, though Z should
suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action
against A, on account of that loss, yet A, not having acted
dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust.
(e) A, a revenue officer, is entrusted with public
money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract,
express or implied, with the Government, to pay into a
certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A
dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed
criminal breach of trust.
(f) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be
carried by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates
the property. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
xxx
415. Cheating.--Whoever, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived
to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that
any person shall retain any property, or intentionally
induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived,
and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or
property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a
deception within the meaning of this section.
Illustrations
(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service,
intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to
let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to
pay. A cheats.
(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article,
intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was
made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus
dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A
cheats.
(c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article,
intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article
corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly
induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
30
(d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on
a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A
expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally
deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the
article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.
(e) A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he
knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and
thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.
(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A
means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and
thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not
intending to repay it. A cheats.
(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A
means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant
which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly
induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery,
A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money,
intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks
his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but
is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.
(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has
performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he has
not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay
money. A cheats.
(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing
that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the
property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without
disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B,
and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A
cheats.'
37. Purely from a legal lens, it is now settled that
the same person cannot be simultaneously charged for
offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of
the IPC with regard to one particular transaction, as per
the decision rendered in Delhi Race Club (1940)
Limited (supra). In this regard, reference may also be
made to a subsequent decision by us in V D
Raveesha v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 1060 (penned
by Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.), which noticed the
exposition in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited (supra).
In V D Raveesha (supra), the distinction between
Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC was duly taken note of,
but charges under Sections 406 and 420 of
31
the IPC against the same person were upheld, not being
part of a single transaction and committed against
different persons. The relevant passage from V D
Raveesha (supra) reads thus:
'21. Though, having regard to the afore-enumerated
position of law, on an overall conspectus of the factual
aspects juxtaposed with the evidence on record, as regards
fulfilment of the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of
the IPC, at first sight, it may appear that the petitioner
cannot be convicted both under Sections 406 and 420 of
the IPC, but, in the present case, on a proper consideration
of the issue in its entirety, there is a fine distinction
inasmuch as, there are two different persons against whom
the petitioner has committed the respective offences under
the Sections supra : first, the Company and second,
Mallikarjuna (PW4 and husband of purchaser Savithramma).
Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case,
evidently the petitioner is guilty of offence committed
against the Company punishable under Section 406 of
the IPC and also, of offence committed against Mallikarjuna
(PW4 and husband of purchaser Savithramma) punishable
under Section 420 of the IPC.'
(emphasis supplied)
38. Section 406 deals with punishment for criminal
breach of trust, which itself has been defined under
Section 405 of the IPC. Section 420 of the IPC deals with
cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, the
substantive offence of cheating has been defined in
Section 415 of the IPC. We now apply the ingredients to the
factual position.
39. From a bare reading of Section 405 of the IPC,
criminal breach of trust would arise only in a situation
where the accused in any manner has been entrusted
with property, or with any dominion over property and
dishonestly misappropriates or converts the same to his
own use, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property.
Here, it is not a case where the accused were entrusted with the
subject property. The subject property belongs to them and
they had rights over it as owners with title. Thus, the very
32
foundation for invoking Section 406 of the IPC falls to the
ground.
40. Coming to Section 415 of the IPC, it is required
that the person charged, by deceiving any person,
fraudulently or dishonestly induces him to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any person
shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the
person so deceived to do or not to do anything which he
would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and
which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage
or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or
property. In the present case, we do not find that by deceiving
the complainant, the appellants had fraudulently or dishonestly
induced him to deliver the property to them or to any other
person or to consent that any person shall retain any property
or intentionally induced the person so deceived to do or omit to
do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived. From the case set up by the complainant himself, as
averred, the ATS was entered into between the appellants and
the complainant on 30.11.2015. However, the subject property
is said to have been handed over to Ravishankara Shetty on
06.09.1996. Thus, if the same was correct, then there is no
explanation as to why possession of the subject property, being
prime land, would be handed over to any other person without
any other agreement or safeguard, for if the version of the
complainant is to be taken as correct, then it appears that
Ravishankara Shetty got possession of the subject property way
back on 06.09.1996, but the ATS with the complainant, albeit as
a nominee of Ravishankara Shetty, was only executed much
later on 30.11.2015. However, on a reading of the recitals in the
ATS, it is seen that possession was with the appellants and in
fact, Clause 6 of the ATS concerning possession, it has been
postulated that possession of the subject property would be
handed over in ready condition upon execution of the Sale Deed
by the vendors. This version of events, put forth by the
complainant, falsifies the claim of Ravishankara Shetty to have
taken over possession of the subject property on 06.09.1996,
for the simple reason that he himself is a witness cited in the
FIR filed at the instance of the complainant. Thus, when from
the own pleadings of the complainant, it emerges that
possession of the subject property was never given to the
33
complainant and rather, stipulation was made for such
possession being handed over after execution of Sale Deed,
Section 420 of the IPC would not be attracted, regard being had
to the definition in Section 415 of the IPC.
41. Thus, we do not find any criminal aspect in the
allegations ex-facie. Moreover, be it noted, the complainant has
filed a civil suit for reliefs already enumerated above.
42. Coming to the second question i.e., whether
civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on
the very same set of allegations qua the same person(s),
the answer stricto sensu, is that there is no bar to
simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the
element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist
with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact that a
civil remedy has already been availed of by a
complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash
an FIR, as pointed out, inter alia, in P Swaroopa Rani v. M
Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi
Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC
528. The obvious caveat being that the allegations, even
if having a civil flavour to them, must prima facie disclose
an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence
of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal
cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to
abuse of the process of the Court, which the Courts have
always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such
criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already
been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the
element of criminality is absent. If such element is
absent, the prosecution in question would have to be
quashed. In this connection, Paramjeet Batra v. State of
Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 can be referred to:
'12. ... Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or
not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether
essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to
be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil
transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High
Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a
civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a
34
situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact,
adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should
not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of the court.'
(emphasis supplied)
43. In Usha Chakraborty v. State of West
Bengal, (2023) 15 SCC 135, while quashing the FIR
therein and further proceedings based thereon, it was
observed '...the factual position thus would reveal that
the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings
are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that
the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature.'
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that in a seemingly civil dispute which is
given a colour of crime, the Court exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must step in, to save the proceeding
from becoming an abuse of the process of the law. If the facts
obtaining in the case at hand qua the offences under Sections 406
and 420 of the IPC are considered on the bedrock of the principles
laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, what would
unmistakably emerge is, the loosely laid allegations against the
petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
13. The other offences are the ones punishable under
Sections 465, 468, 447, 380, 323 and 120B of the IPC. If there is
35
no transaction between the petitioner and the complainant, which is
an admitted fact even according to the learned senior counsel for
the complainant, how can the offences afore-mentioned spring, as
they are all an offshoot of a transaction or further proceedings to a
transaction, concerning the complainant and the accused. It
appears certain persons who had to become accused are shooting
from the shoulders of the complainant, as admittedly the
complainant has no transaction with the petitioner. At best, the
grievance may be against other accused. The petitioner being a
witness or a confirming party to the transaction on the strength of
him being a land facilitator or aggregator, is dragged into the web
of crime, in what is seemingly a civil dispute of certain land
transaction.
14. The complainant has lost nothing, and the complainant
has nothing to lose. There is no transaction of the complainant with
the petitioner. The petitioner and the complainant are unknown to
each other. Therefore, against the petitioner even if it is taken as
the offence alleged, it would not amount to an offence as the
transaction itself is absent between the two. In such circumstances,
36
the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, or even other
sections would not become investigatable even against the
petitioner. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL2,
wherein it is laid down as follows:
".... .... ....
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report
and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by
police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
2
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
37
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a
case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order
of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any
of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which
a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific
provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the aforesaid facts and the judgment of the Apex
Court in the cases of S.N.VIJAYALAKSHMI and BHAJAN LAL
supra, permitting further investigation, against the petitioner would
38
become an abuse of the process of law, and result in patent
injustice.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) FIR in Crime No.210 of 2021 dated 03-11-2021
registered by Bagalur Police Station and pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli stands quashed qua the petitioner/accused No.3.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the same would not influence or bind the investigation in any other proceedings against other accused before any fora.
(iv) In terms of the interim order, the petitioner has deposited Rs.1.5 crores before this Court. In the light of the proceedings being held to be an abuse of the process of law leading to the obliteration of the crime qua the petitioner, the amount that is in deposit before 39 this Court, is to be transmitted to the petitioner, within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, after due verification by the Registry.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:SS