Karnataka High Court
Ashok Kulal M K vs The Station House Officer on 10 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:7957
CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2411 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
ASHOK KULAL M.K
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
S/O LAE KANTHAPPA KULAL,
R/AT 2-93/8, VISHWESH
NEAR GOVT. JUNIOR COLLEGE
KAVOORU,
GANDHINAGAR,
MANGALURU-575 015
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARAVIND REDDY H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by 1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SANJEEVINI J BAJPE POLICE STATION,
KARISHETTY
Location: BAJPE, MANGALURU-574 142
High Court of REPRESENTED BY THE
Karnataka
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
DR AMBEDKAR STREET,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. MR PURUSHOTHAMA MALLI
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE GANAPA MALLI,
R/A MARANKARIYA HOUSE,
MULUR VILLAGE,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:7957
CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024
HC-KAR
MANGALURU TALUK,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST,
PIN-574 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, LEARNED ADDL. SPP FOR R1,
SMT. DEEPTHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.14/2024 OF
BAJPE POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 418, 420,
468 AND 506 OF IPC, PURSUANT TO ORDER DATED
08.01.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL
JUDGE AND CJM, DAKSHINA KANNADA, U/S 156(3) OF THE
CR.P.C. IN PCR NO.36/2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the crime in Crime No.14/2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420, 468 and 506 of the IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel Mr.Aravind Reddy H., appearing for the petitioner, learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor, Mr.B.N.Jagadeesha, representing the State and learned counsel Smt.Deepthi Shetty, representing respondent No.2.
-3-NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The petitioner-accused and respondent No.2-complainant have a transaction for the distribution of buffalo carcass, and enter into an agreement on 22.03.2022 for the purpose of supply of buffalo carcass meat within the jurisdiction of Dakshina Kannada. The 2nd respondent-complainant runs a slaughter house. The supply of buffalo meat is to be made to the hands of the petitioner, as per the said agreement. A dispute arises with regard to certain payments to be made in furtherance of the said agreement or breach of agreement.
What results is a complaint being filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate invoking the provisions under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C for the afore-quoted offences. The Magistrate refers the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, which becomes a crime in Crime No.14/2024. Registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, taking this Court through the documents appended to the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR petition, would seek to demonstrate that a pure and simple financial transaction or a breach of agreement is now said to become a crime. The learned counsel submits that the agreement was unequivocal that the deposit made by respondent No.2 for the said supply of buffalo carcass was non-
refundable and in case of any breach of agreement, the deposit cannot be refunded, apart from other liabilities. The learned counsel, therefore, seeks quashment of the crime so registered against the petitioner.
5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would, however, vehemently refute the submission to contend that the deposit was made and when the breach of agreement happened, an amount of Rs. 40 lakhs had to be returned to the 2nd respondent, but nothing has been returned and therefore, left with no choice for the refund of the amount, the crime comes to be registered.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and would submit that the matter is still at the -5- NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR stage of investigation, and the allegation is that a forged agreement is placed for the purpose of distributorship and therefore, the matter requires investigation.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The transaction between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent is for supply of buffalo carcass under the distributorship agreement which was entered into on 22.03.2022. Certain clauses of the agreement become germane to be noticed. The same reads as follows:
"WHEREAS, FIRST PARTY is M/s Hasan Ashok Trading Private Limited which is operating slaughter house and Meat processing center fully having all legal license and State and Central Government approved project hereinafter called as "System";
WHEREAS, DISTRIBUTORS (SECOND PARTY) approached to get business benefit and opportunity to have a good life and requested FIRST PARTY to appoint them as DISTRIBUTOR of buffalo carcass Meat in jurisdiction of Dakshina Kannada, District of Karnataka state and the right of such distributorship is sold for Rs.40,00,000/- (Forty Lakhs only) which is non refundable amount by FIRST PARTY (Slaughter house), -6- NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR DUTIES OF SECOND PARTY: second party has to achieve minimum sales of 4000 KG of buffalo carcass supplied/ stored at appropriate place of First party. If sales go further than that of 4000 kg the value of distributor ship price will be increased and demanded by the FIRST PARTY then SECOND PARTY has to purchase further right from FIRST PARTY at a rate which first party decides. (for every thousand Kg increased sales 10 Lakhs)). The SECOND PARTY should not sell meat beyond the respected territory as spelled out in this agreement and the territory boundary will be considered according revenue map of Karnataka if disputed. Second party has to maintain customer list and should be produced to First Party at per their demand and will not sell meat/carcass to unlicensed customer. However Second party can grant Distributor Rights to third party for higher price with prior written consent. First Party will arrange a cold storage for Second party to store the carcass in Mangalore.
BENEFITS TO SECOND PARTY: SECOND PARTY will sell the meat at Rs.260/- (two hundred and sixty only) and FIRST PARTY will deliver the meat to Mangalore at Rs.240/- (two hundred and forty only) inclusive of GST as applicable. Any increase in the price of sales of meat more than Rs.260/-should be permitted by the FIRST PARTY. Second Party has to deposit the purchased maternal price by 11.30 A M. every day without fail or otherwise next day material supply will be blocked by First party. In non banking day the party has to deposit such money immediate next banking day. First party understands and accept that second party approaches financial Institutions for smooth running of this business.
PROTECTED TERRITORY:
Subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement provided herein Second Party is permitted to take monetary benefit of sale of buffalo meat in Mangalore District jurisdiction only during the period of this agreement for a period of three years from the date of first sales. The said agreement will be renewed with mutual consent. FIRST PARTY reserve the right to extend/ terminate the agreement provided such right should be purchased freshly by paying distributor price as fixed by the first party.-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR
3. TERM:
Except or otherwise provided in this agreement, the initial term of this agreement shall expire on the third (3rd anniversary from the date of first sales under this a agreement. First Party agrees and shall be obligated to operate the slaughter house and produce buffalo meat within 30 (Thirty) days of signing and receipt of distributor ship price from the date of this agreement and perform hereunder for the full term of this agreement on receipt of distributor ship money from Second Party through his system. (Reasonable extension of such performance of And party may extended further if there is delay in getting cold storage facilities wall expiry date of thus agreement will be extended accordingly) Second Party has to settle or otherwise satisfy all monetary obligations owed to First Party before 7 days of every anniversary of this agreement. And First party have the right to collect any dues from market owed by second party in the market. First party has to arrange a cold storage and Establishment charges in Mangalore for the benefit of the Second party with its expense. All expenses to deliver the meat to customers from cold storage will be to the account of Second Party. Second party has to arrange a butcher at its cost to separate the meat to deliver its customer and salary will be paid by the Second party. First party can appoint a Manager at its cost to supervise the smooth operation.
4. Obligation of Second party: Second party has to buy buffalo carcass from First Party only. The First Party can hold responsibility of the quality of the meat till cold storage. Once carcass meat delivered in cold storage the responsibility of First party will be over. If deferent meat like cow, ox or any other animal which is not permitted to sell in the market as per law found in delivery and proved by a lab testing report that the carcass or meat is of deferent rather than buffalo all proceedings of law will be against to the Second Party only. First party will not sell carcass meat of buffalo to any other party other than Second Party in the said jurisdiction or Second Party will not buy or sell other suppliers meat/carcass."-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR The clauses of the agreement are unequivocal. The amount of deposit that the 2nd respondent has to place before the petitioner for the distributorship agreement to be executed is Rs.40 lakhs. The said amount is non-refundable. The other obligation of the second party, i.e., the 2nd respondent is also found with regard to the supply of meat at intermittent or regular intervals. There is breach of agreement or breach of the terms of agreement by the 2nd respondent - complainant. The breach goes sour and the crime comes to be registered on the said breach. Since the issue has now sprung from the complaint, the complaint is necessary to be noticed. It reads as follows:
"F jÃwAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀjAzÀ MlÄÖ Rs.31,00,000/- ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
2] ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÀgÀgÀÄ ºÉ¼ÀĪÀAvÉ, CgÉÆæ ¤ÃrzÀ §gÀªÀ¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀA©, ºÀ¹ ªÀiÁA¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV gÀÆ.25,00,000/-[E¥ÀàvÉÛöÊzÀÄ ®PÀë] ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀÆrPÉ ªÀiÁr ºÀ¹ªÀiÁA¸À ªÀiÁgÁl PÉAzÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À eÉÆÃPÀmÉÖ JA§°è ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀgÀÄ ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀ ªÀiÁr CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÉ®¸ÀUÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ £ÉêÀÄPÀªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀgÉ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀgÀÄ M¥ÀàAzÀ PÀgÁj£À ±ÀvÀðUÀ¼ÀAvÉ ºÀ¹ ªÀiÁA¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀªÁ¤¸ÀĪÀAvÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ°è PÉýPÉÆAqÁUÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ªÀiÁA¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀªÁ¤¸ÀzÉ ¥Àæwà ¨ÁjAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á¼É¬ÄAzÀ gÀªÁ¤¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁV ºÉüÀÄvÁÛ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹ ªÉÆøÀªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É.-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀgÀÄ, DgÉÆæAiÀÄ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«gÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀzÁ£ÀAzÀ UÁA©üÃgï CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÉÃnAiÀiÁV DgÉÆæAiÀÄ §UÉÎ «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ, DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ vÁ£ÀÄ ºÉýPÉÆAqÀAvÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀ¹ ªÀiÁA¸ÀzÀ ªÀzÁs UÀȺÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢®è JAzÀÄ w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. CµÉÖà C®èzÉ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ PÀgÁgÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ¸ÀAzÀ¨sÀðzÀ°è ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀjUÉ vÉÆÃj¹gÀĪÀAvÀºÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÆ PÀÆqÀ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.
3] DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀjUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ºÁUÀÄ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶֹ, ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀjUÉ CªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ C¸À° zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÉAzÀÄ £ÀA©¹ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀAa¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É. DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀgÀ£À£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹ «±Áé¸ÀzÉÆæúÀ UÉÊzÀÄ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝ£É JAzÀÄ w½zÀÄPÉÆAqÀ §½PÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ°è ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀgÀÄ "»ÃUÉ AiÀiÁPÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃj?" JAzÀÄ ¥Àæ²ß¹zÀPÉÌ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß GzÉÝò¹ "¨ÉêÀ¹ð, ¤Ã¤ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀÄ?"
JAzÀÄ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¤A¢¹, "£À£ÀUÉ C£ÉÃPÀ gËrUÀ¼À ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ«zÉ. DzÀµÀÄÖ ¨ÉÃUÀ ¤£Àß PÀxÉ ªÀÄÄV¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üzÁgÀjUÉ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ MrØgÀÄvÁÛ£É.
4] DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï vÀQëÃj£À «gÀÄzÀÞ £Á£ÀÄ §d¥É ¥ÉÆðøÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 15/11/2023 gÀAzÀÄ °TvÀ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ ¹éÃPÀÈw ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀîzÉ EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÉÆðøÀÄ DAiÀÄÄPÀÛjUÉ ºÉÆÃV 24/11/2023 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£À: ¦üAiÀiÁð¢ü ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ¥ÉÆðøÀgÀÄ FªÀgÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀĪÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ dgÀÄV¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¥ÉÆðøÀgÀÄ PÀÆqÀ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ MzÀV¸ÀzÉ EzÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¥ÀjºÁgÀ«®èzÉ F ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄPÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ F ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ zÀAiÀĪÀżÀî vÁªÀÅ F ¦üAiÀiÁð¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹ £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄPÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ £ÁåAiÀÄ MzÀV¹PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV «£ÀAw¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ."
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR
9. This is referred to for investigation by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which then becomes a crime in Crime No.14/2024.
10. The issue now would be whether on the aforesaid facts, the investigation should be permitted to be continued or not. As observed, the transaction between the two is on an agreement. The agreement has certain clauses of liability upon the parties. One such liability upon the 2nd respondent is that the deposit that the 2nd respondent could make with the petitioner is non-refundable. If the amount is non-refundable, the entire fulcrum of the complaint that is placed before the learned Magistrate is refund of the amount of ₹31,00,000 or not paying the amount of ₹31,00,000/-. Feignedly the allegation of forgery is also projected for it to become an offence. Therefore, the issue which is purely a breach of agreement or that is civil in nature is sought to be dressed with a colour of crime.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR
11. The Apex Court, in the case of TUHIN KUMAR BISWAS @ BUMBA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL1, has held as follows:
".... .... ....
28. Before parting with this case, this Court would like to emphasise that where there is a pending civil dispute between the parties, the Police and the Criminal Courts must be circumspect in filing a chargesheet and framing charges respectively. In a society governed by rule of law, the decision to file a chargesheet should be based on the Investigating Officer's determination of whether the evidence collected provides a reasonable prospect of conviction. The Police at the stage of filing of Chargesheet and the Criminal Court at the stage of framing of Charge must act as initial filters ensuring that only cases with a strong suspicion should proceed to the formal trial stage to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system. The tendency of filing chargesheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system. It forces Judges, court staff, and prosecutors to spend time on trials that are likely to result in an acquittal. This diverts limited judicial resources from handling stronger, more serious cases, contributing to massive case backlogs. Undoubtedly, there can be no analysis at the charge framing stage as to whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal, but the fundamental principle is that the State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as it compromises the right to a fair process."
(Emphasis supplied) 1 2025 SCC Online SC 2604
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR
12. The Apex Court, a little earlier to the afore-quoted judgment, in the case of INDER CHAND BAGRI v. JAGADISH 2 PRASAD BAGRI , has held as follows:
".... .... ....
24. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to set aside the sale deed dated 20.06.2011 and claim damages for the alleged violation of his contractual rights which he is already pursuing vide Title Suit No. 160 of 2012 against the appellant-accused which is currently pending adjudication and hence the route through criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made out, cannot be permitted. Criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas. The appellant-accused therefore, in our view, could not be attributed any mens rea and therefore, the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant-accused are unsustainable.
25. Furthermore, in Inder Mohan Goswami, it was held by this Court that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. It was further held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion that to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused herein would cause undue harassment to him because as observed hereinabove, no prima facie case for the offence under Sections 406 or 420 of the IPC is made out.
22025 SCC Online SC 2529
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR
26. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 ("Bhajan Lal") with particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, where this Court observed:
"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 have given 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.
(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.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR (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 thereis 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."
27. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against the appellant-accused herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against the appellant-accused herein have been made with a mala-fide intent and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal extracted above, squarely applies to the facts of these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.
28. At this juncture, we find it apposite to mention the observations of this Court in Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 14 SCC 112 wherein it was observed that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud. We say so for the reason that while the complainant/respondent No. 1 has made grave allegations against the appellant herein, he has failed to justify the same before this Court. Such actions would create significant divisions and
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly criminal courts."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court as quoted hereinabove, the act of the 2nd respondent in setting the criminal law into motion for the purpose of recovery of money or on breach of agreement would run foul of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, apart from it becoming an abuse of the process of the law and resulting in the miscarriage of justice.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The crime in Crime No.14/2024 pending before the I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Mangalore City, stands quashed qua the petitioner.
(iii) The observations made in the course of the order for quashment of the proceedings will not come in
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:7957 CRL.P No. 2411 of 2024 HC-KAR the way of any other lis pending between the parties before any other forum.
SD/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8