Karnataka High Court
Praveen R vs State By Devarajeevanahalli Police … on 8 January, 2025
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 29255 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. PRAVEEN R.,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
SON OF MR RAMACHANDRA K.C.
RESIDING AT 3, 1ST CROSS 22ND MAIN
BEHIND BTS GARAGE
DVK GARDEN, VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 040
KARNATAKA, INDIA
2. BASAVARAJAPPA P
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT KANNADA KUTEERA
APARTMENTS NO.511/9, 3RD FLOOR
11TH CROSS, NAGAPURA MAIN ROAD
WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II STAGE
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 086
Digitally signed by
REKHA R KARNATAKA -INDIA
Location: High
Court of Karnataka WRONGLY SHOWN IN FIR AS BASAVARAJ
3. MANISH KUMAR BANSAL
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
SON OF MR. RAMESH KUMAR BANSAL
RESIDING AT B 1703 RUSTOMJEE ORIANA
KALANAGAR BANDRA (EAST)
MUMBAI - 400 051
MAHARASHTRA, INDIA
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
AND:
1. STATE BY DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION
3, SURVEY NO.4, MUNIMARAPPA
BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR
DEVARA JEEVANAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 045
REPRESENTED THROUGH SPP
2. MR. BASAVALINGSWAMY
SON OF MR.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
RESIDING AT VILLA NO.181,
ADARSH VISTA, BASAVANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 037
KARNATAKA, INDIA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1
R-2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH
SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST
INFORMATION REPORT BEARING NO.0062/2023 DATED
18.03.2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 409, 420, 506 AND 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
1860 OF THE R1 ANNEXURE-A AND ALL CONSEQUENT
PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM THAT HAVE BEEN
INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT DATED 18.03.2023
ANNEXURE-B PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE IV ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, NRUPATUNGA
ROAD, BANGALORE CITY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
ORAL ORDER
In this petition, the petitioners seeks the following reliefs:
i. Issue a writ of certiorari and/or a direction
and/or an order or any other appropriate writ
to Quash the First Information Report
bearing No.0062/2023 dated 18.03.2023 for
the offences punishable under Section 409,
section 420, Section 506 and Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of the
Respondent No.1 (Annexure-A) and all
consequent proceeding arising therefrom
that have been initiated on the basis of a
complainant dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure-
B) pending on the files of the IV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City in favour of
the petitioner; and
ii. Pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court
deem fit in the interest of justice.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the
material on record. Respondent No.2/complainant having
been served with notice has chosen to unrepresented
before this Court and not contested the petition.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
3. In addition to reiterating the various
contentions urged in the petition and referring to the
material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner
pointed out that the impugned complaint does not
contained necessary ingredients so as to constitute
offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 & 506 r/w
Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners, who have been
illegally arraigned as accused Nos.2, 3 & 4 in the
impugned complaint. It is submitted that the dispute, if
any, between the petitioners and respondent
No.2/complainant is purely civil in nature and the same
cannot be given a criminal colour by resorting to filing the
present false and frivolous complaint, continuation of
proceedings against the petitioners would tantamount to
abuse of process of law warranting interference in the
present petition. In support of the submission, leaned
counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the
following judgments.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
i) Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of West Bengal.1
ii) Santhosh Chinnappa Reddy Tulasiram, s/o
Mr.Tulasiram Chinnappa Reddy, Bengaluru vs.
State of Karnataka.2
iii) Deepak Kumar Shrivas vs. State of
Chhattisgarh.3
4. As stated supra, respondent No.2 having been
served in this matter and has chosen to unrepresented
before this Court and does not contested the petition.
5. In the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of
West Bengal, as stated supra the Hon’ble Apex Court
held in para No.42 as under:
42. The order of the High Court is seriously flawed
due to the fact that in its interim order dated
24.03.2017, it was observed that the contentions put
forth by the Appellant vis-à-vis two complaints being
filed on the same cause of action at different places
but the impugned order overlooks the said aspect and
there was no finding on that issue. At the same time,
in order to attract the ingredients of Section of 406
and 420 IPC it is imperative on the part of the
complainant to prima facie establish that there was
an intention on part of the petitioner and/or others to
cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from
the inception. Furthermore it has to be prima facie1
AIRONLINE 2022 SC 380
2
AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 3377
3
AIRONLINE 2024 SC 88
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023established that due to such alleged act of cheating
the complainant (Respondent No. 2 herein) had
suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in
wrongful gain for the accused(appellant herein). In
absence of these elements, no proceeding is
permissible in the eyes of law with regard to the
commission of the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. It
is apparent that the complaint was lodged at a very
belated stage (as the entire transaction took place
from January 2008 to August 2009, yet the complaint
has been filed in March 2013 i.e., after a delay of
almost 4 years) with the objective of causing
harassment to the petitioner and is bereft of any truth
whatsoever.
6. In the case of Santhosh Chinnappa Reddy
Tulasiram, s/o Mr.Tulasiram Chinnappa Reddy,
Bengaluru vs. State of Karnataka, as stated supra, the
Co-ordinate of Bench of this Court held in para Nos. 17, 18
& 19 as under:
17. It is not that the relationship of the petitioners
turned sore immediately. The petitioners and the
complainant have been in the business for close to 5
years. If it was a case of inducement or cheating, the
business could not have gone on between the
petitioners and the complainant for such a long time.
There are plethora of correspondences between the
complainant and the petitioners and vice-versa with
regard to payment of certain amount and its dispute.
Nowhere in the complaint the complainant has alleged
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
that he was lured into the business or cheated by way
of inducement by the petitioners for investment, if
any, in the firm of the petitioners. Therefore, it is a
clear case where the dispute with regard to money
transaction between the complainant and the
petitioners is given a colour of crime. Nowhere the
complaint drives home the allegations for offences
punishable under Sections 324, 341, 384 or 420 of the
IPC.
18. Criminal law cannot be used to settle the alleged
dues between the parties, as setting a criminal law in
motion is a serious matter and it cannot be used by
the complainant to settle his personal scores.
Therefore, in the light of the facts obtaining, as
narrated hereinabove, in the case at hand, and in the
light of the complaint not linking any event that forms
part of FIR, the proceedings are rendered
unsustainable, as it is purely a matter of contract
between the parties, where offences as alleged cannot
even be linked to the transaction between the parties
to attract criminal law.
19. The view of mine, in this regard, is in tune
with the judgments of the Apex Court right from the
case of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHRES v.
BHAJANLAL AND OTHERS to the latest judgment in
the case of JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
& ANOTHER. The Apex Court in the case of
4
BHAJANLAL has held 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.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023evidence 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)
and in the latest judgment in the case of JASWANT SINGH Vs
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER , wherein the Apex Court holds
as follows:
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023“15. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be
exercised to prevent the abuse of process of any Court
and also to secure the ends of justice. This
Court, time and again, has laid emphasis that
inherent powers should be exercised in a given and
deserving case where the Court is satisfied that exercise of
such power would either prevent abuse of such power or
such exercise would result in securing the ends of justice.
In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others. v. State of
Bihar and another ((2002) 1 SCC 241), Shivraj V
Patil, J., in paragraph 27 of the report, has laid similar
emphasis. The same is reproduced below:
“Para 27:
…….whereas while exercising power under
Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to look at
the object and purpose for which such power is
conferred on it under the said provision.
Exercise of inherent power is available to
the High Court to give effect to any order
under CrPC, or to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. This being the
position, exercise of power under Section 482
CrPC should be consistent with the scope and
ambit of the same in the light of the decisions
aforementioned. In appropriate cases, to
prevent judicial process from being an
instrument of oppression or harassment in
the hands of frustrated or vindictive litigants,
exercise of inherent power is not only
desirable but necessary also, so that the
judicial forum of court may not be allowed to
be utilized for any oblique motive. When a
person approaches the High Court under
Section 482 CrPC to quash the very issue of
process, the High Court on the facts and
circumstances of a case has to exercise the
powers with circumspection as stated above to
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023really serve the purpose and object for which
they are conferred.”
16. A seven-Judge Bench in the case of
P. Ramachandra Rao vs State of Karnataka ((2002) 4
SCC 578), also laid down the same principles for use of the
power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case where the Court
was convinced that such exercise was necessary for
whatever reason in order to prevent abuse of the process of
any Court or to secure the ends of justice. Lahoti,J.,
speaking for him- self and Bharucha, Quadri, Santosh
Hegde, Ruma Pal and Arijit Pasayat,JJ., observed as
follows in paragraph 21:
“Para 21. “… In appropriate cases, inherent
power of the High Court, under Section 482
can be invoked to make such orders, as may
be necessary, to give effect to any
order under the Code of Criminal
Procedure or to prevent abuse of the process
of any court, or otherwise, to secure the ends
of justice. The power is wide and, if judiciously
and consciously exercised, can take care of
almost all the situations where interference by
the High Court becomes necessary on account
of delay in proceedings or for any other
reason amounting to oppression or
harassment in any trial, inquiry or
proceedings. In appropriate cases, the High
Courts have exercised their jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first
information report and investigation, and
terminating criminal proceedings if the case of
abuse of process of law was clearly made out.
Such power can certainly be exercised on a
case being made out of breach of
fundamental right conferred by Article
21 of the Constitution. The Constitution
Bench in A.R. Antulay case referred to such
power, vesting in the High Court (vide paras
62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023was clear that even apart from Article 21, the
courts can take care of undue or inordinate
delays in criminal matters or proceedings if
they remain pending for too long and
putting an end, by making appropriate
orders, to further proceedings when they are
found to be oppressive and unwarranted.””
17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gian
Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 again
summarized the legal position which emerged regarding
powers of the High Court in quashing criminal proceedings
in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
R.M. Lodha, J., (as he then was) speaking for the
Bench, clearly observed in paragraph 61 of the report that
criminal cases having overwhelmingly and
predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different
footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the
offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile,
civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences
arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the
family disputes where the wrong is basically private or
personal in nature and the parties have resolved their
entire dispute. The relevant extract from paragraph
61 is reproduced below:
“61. The position that emerges from
the above discussion can be summarised
thus: the power of the High Court in quashing
a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct
and different from the power given to
a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code.
Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no
statutory limitation but it has to be exercised
in accord with the guideline engrafted in such
power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or
(in) to prevent abuse of the process of any
court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
be exercised where the offender and the victim
have settled their dispute would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before
exercise of such power, the High Court must
have due regard to the nature and gravity of
the crime. Heinous and serious offences of
mental depravity or offences like murder,
rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed
even though the victim or victim’s family and
the offender have settled the dispute. Such
offences are not private in nature and have a
serious impact on society. Similarly, any
compromise between the victim and the
offender in relation to the offences under
special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed
by public servants while working in
that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for
any basis for quashing criminal
proceedings involving such offences. But
the criminal cases having overwhelmingly
and predominatingly civil flavour stand
on a different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from
commercial, financial, mercantile, civil,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony relating to
dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the
wrong is basically private or personal in
nature and the parties have resolved
their entire dispute. In this category of
cases, the High Court may quash the criminal
proceedings if in its View, because of the
compromise between the offender and the
victim, the possibility of conviction is remote
and bleak and continuation of the criminal
case would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice and extreme
injustice would be caused to him by not
– 14 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
quashing the criminal case despite full and
complete settlement and compromise with the
victim. In other words, the High Court must
consider whether it would be unfair or contrary
to the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of
the criminal proceeding would tantamount
to abuse of process of law despite
settlement and compromise between the
victim and the wrongdoer and whether to
secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate
that the criminal case is put to an end and if
the answer to the above question(s) is in the
affirmative, the High Court shall be well within
its jurisdiction to quash the criminal
proceeding.”
18. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in
Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai
Karmur and others v. State Gujarat and others
((2017) 9 SCC 641) laid down the broad principles for
exercising the inherent powers of the High Court
under section 482 Cr.P.C. Dr. D.Y.
Chandrachud,J., speaking for the bench, enumerated the
principles in paragraph 16 and in sub paragraphs. The
same are reproduced below:
“16. The broad principles which emerge from
the precedents on the subject, may be
summarised in the following propositions:
16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent
powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse
of the process of any court or to secure the
ends of justice. The provision does not confer
new powers. It only recognises and preserves
powers which inhere in the High Court.
16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the
High Court to quash a first information report
or a criminal proceeding on the
– 15 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
ground that a settlement has been arrived
at between the offender and the victim is not
the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for
the purpose of compounding an offence. While
compounding an offence, the power of the
court is governed by the provisions of
Section 320 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under
Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is
non-compoundable.
16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal
proceeding or complaint should be quashed in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482,
the High Court must evaluate whether the
ends of justice would justify the exercise of the
inherent power.
16.4. While the inherent power of the High
Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to
be exercised (0) to secure the ends of justice,
or ) to prevent an abuse of the process of any
court.
16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint
or first information report should be quashed
on the ground that the offender and victim
have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately
on the facts and circumstances of each case
and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can
be formulated.
16.6. In the exercise of the power under
Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that
the dispute has been settled, the High Court
must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious
offences involving mental depravity or offences
such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot
appropriately be quashed though the victim or
the family of the victim have settled the
– 16 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not
private in nature but have a serious impact
upon society. The decision to continue with the
trial in such cases is founded on the overriding
element of public interest in punishing persons
for serious offences.
16.7. distinguished from serious offences,
there may be criminal cases which have an
overwhelming or predominant element of a
civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing
insofar as the exercise of the inherent power
to quash is concerned.
16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which
arise from commercial, financial, mercantile,
partnership or similar transactions with an
essentially civil flavour may in appropriate
situations fall for quashing where parties have
settled the dispute.
16.9. In such a case, the High Court may
quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the
compromise between the disputants, the
possibility of a conviction is remote and the
continuation of a criminal proceeding would
cause oppression and prejudice; and
16.10. There is yet an exception to the
principle set out in propositions 16.8, and
16.9. above. Economic offences involving the
financial and economic well-being of the State
have implications which lie beyond the domain
of a mere dispute between private disputants.
The High Court would be justified in declining
to quash where the offender is involved in an
activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or
misdemeanour. The consequences of the act
complained of upon the financial or economic
system will weigh in the balance.”
– 17 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
19. From the above discussion on the settled legal
principles, it is clear from the facts of the present case that
there was a clear abuse of the process of the Court and
further that the Court had a duty to secure the ends of
justice. We say so for the following reasons:
a) The allegations made in the FIR had
an overwhelmingly and predominatingly a
civil flavour inasmuch as the complainant
alleged that he had paid money to Gurmeet
Singh, the main accused to get
employment for his son abroad. If
Gurmeet Singh failed the complainant
could have filed a suit for recovery of the
amount paid for not fulfilling the promise.
b) Initially, the investigating officer and
two superior officers of the economic
wing has found that there is no substance in
the complaint making out even a prima facie
triable case and had therefore,
recommended for closure. However, on
the orders of the Senior Superintendent
of Police, the FIR was registered and
the matter was investigated. No criminal
breach of trust was found and the charge
sheet was submitted only against Gurmeet
Singh under section 420 I.P.C.
c) The complainant Nasib Singh had clearly
deposed that he had paid Rs 4 lacs cash to
Gurmeet Singh and had also given a
cheque of Rs 2 lacs favouring Gurmeet
Singh which he had encashed.
d) During trial the present appellant as
also the other co-accused Gurpreet
Singh were summoned in April 2014 invoking
powers of Section 319 Cr.P.C., for being tried
under Section 420 I.P.C. It may be
noted that no specific allegations of
– 18 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
cheating are made against these two
accused as they were both settled abroad in
Italy.
e) The complainant Nasib Singh entered
into a compromise with the main
accused Gurmeet Singh which was filed
before the learned Magistrate and the
same was accepted vide order dated
26.09.2014 and the alleged offence
being of financial transaction stood
compounded. Proceedings against Gurmeet
Singh were closed.
f) Right from 2014, the present appellant and
other co-accused Gurpreet Singh who were in
Italy were being summoned by the
Court. The appellant was declared
proclaimed offender. The appellant applied
before the High Court challenging the
order declaring him proclaimed offender
and also filed a 482 Cr.P.C. petition
for quashing of the proceedings wherein,
he also filed the compounding order of
26.09.2014.
g) The High Court merely perused the
FIR and noting the fact that the
name of the appellant was mentioned in
the FIR, declined to exercise the
inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
20. In our considered view, the High Court
erred in firstly not considering the entire material on
record and further in not appreciating the fact that
the dispute, if any, was civil in nature and that the
complainant had already settled his score with
the main accused Gurmeet Singh against whom
the proceedings have been closed as far back as
– 19 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
26.09.2014. In this scenario, there remains no
justification to continue with the proceedings against
the appellant.”
(Emphasis supplied)
7. In the case of Deepak Kumar Shrivas vs. State of
Chhattisgarh, the Hon’ble Apex Court, as held in para
Nos.12, 13, 14 15 & 16 is held as under:
12. According to the allegations made in the FIR, the job
was to be provided by the appellant within three months of
April, 2019 i.e. by July, 2019. However, the respondent no.6
did not take any action for a period of three years till July,
2022 when the FIR in question was lodged. Thus, the FIR
suffers from a serious delay of three years which is totally
unexplained.
13. A reading of the entire material on record clearly reflects
that it was totally an unlawful contract between the parties
where money was being paid for securing a job in the
government department(s) or private sector. Apparently, a
suit for recovery could not have been filed for the said
purpose and even if it could be filed, it could be difficult to
establish the same where the payment was entirely in cash.
Therefore, the respondent no.6 found out a better medium
to recover the said amount by building pressure on the
appellant and his brother by lodging the FIR. Under the
threat of criminal prosecution, maybe the appellant would
– 20 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
have tried to sort out and settle the dispute by shelving out
some money.
14. In conclusion, certain key observations from the factual
matrix warrant a closer reflection. Prima facie, the conduct
exhibited by the parties involved appears tainted with
suspicion, casting a shadow over the veracity of their claims.
The report from the previous inquiry reflects a convoluted
landscape and unveils a trail of unethical, maybe even
criminal, behaviour from both parties. The unexplained
inordinate delay in bringing these allegations to the police’s
attention despite knowledge of previous inquiry, raises even
more doubts and adds a layer of scepticism to the
authenticity of the claims. The facts stated, as well as the
prior inquiry, reveal a shared culpability between the parties,
indicative of a complex web of deceit, and unethical
transactions where even civil remedies may not be
sustainable. Thus, the object of this dispute, manifestly rife
with mala fide intentions of only recovering the tainted
money by coercion and threat of criminal proceedings,
cannot be allowed to proceed further and exploit the time
and resources of the law enforcement agency.
15. As parting suggestions, it becomes imperative to state
that the police should exercise heightened caution when
drawn into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions
between private parties which appear to be prima facie
contentious in light of previous inquiries or investigations.
The need for vigilance on the part of the police is
paramount, and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases
where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse the pursuit
– 21 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
of justice. This case exemplifies the need for a circumspect
approach in discerning the genuine from the spurious and
thus ensuring that the resources of the state are utilised for
matters of true societal import.
16. For all the reasons recorded above, we are of the view
that such criminal prosecution should not be allowed to
continue where the object to lodge the FIR is not for criminal
prosecution and for punishing the offender for the offence
committed but for recovery of money under coercion and
pressure and also for all the other reasons stipulated above.
8. In the instant case, as rightly contended by the
learned counsel for the petitioners, impugned complaint
does not make out any cognizable offences committed by
the petitioners and purely civil disputes have been sought
to be given a criminal colour and as such, continuation of
the proceedings against the petitioner would tantamount
to abuse of process of law warranting interference in the
present petition.
9. Accordingly, I pass following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
– 22 –
NC: 2025:KHC:615
WP No. 29255 of 2023
(ii) Proceedings in Crime No.62/2023 pending
before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road,
Bangalore City stand quashed qua the
petitioners.
SD/-
(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)
JUDGE
ASN
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 12
[ad_1]
Source link