Karnataka High Court
Shri Jagadish Devadas Anchan vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 11.07.2025
Pronounced on : 21.07.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4470 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8628 OF 2024
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.4470 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SHRI JAGADISH DEVADAS ANCHAN
S/O LATE DEVADAS CHANDRASHEKAR ANCHAN
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
OCC: HOTEL BUSINESS
RESIDING AT NO. 475-17/1
SRI SIDDI VINAYAKA SCHOOL
BHADARWDI KARLE
KINIYE VILLAGE AND POST
HUKKERI BELAGAVI, PIN - 590 014.
... PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANANYA PRANEETH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MULKY POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
2
PRINCIPAL BENCH
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2 . SHRI HARISH SHETTY B.,
S/O B.KRISHNAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT DOOR NO 25-21-1339/8
VIJAYALAKSHMI NILAYA, JEPU BAPPAL
1ST CROSS, KANKANADY
MANGALORE - 575 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI K.S.PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF
BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 07.06.2024 AS
AGAINST PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 CERTIFIED COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE FIR IN MULKI
P.S. IN CR.NO.62/2024 REGISTERED FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S
419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC DATED 07.06.2024
AS AGAINST PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.1 ON THE FILE OF THE
HONBLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MOODABIDRI D.K
CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.8628 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SHRI NITYANAND KUNDAR
S/O SHRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
OCC: HOTEL (BUSINESS)
RESIDING AT NO.133/2,NEW SHIVAJI COLONY
3NEAR GAJANAN ROAD, TILAKWADI BELAGAVI
PIN – 590 006.
… PETITIONER
(BY SMT. ANANYA PRANEETH, ADVOCATE)AND:
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH MULKY POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
PRINCIPAL BENCH
BENGALURU PIN – 560 001.
2 . SHRI HARISH SHETTY B.,
S/O B.KRISHNAPPA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.25-21-1339/8
VIJAYLAXMI NILAYA, JEPU BAPPAL
1ST CROSS, KANKANADY
MANGALORE PIN – 575 001.
… RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI K.S.PONNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 07.06.2024
AS AGAINST PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 CERTIFIED COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE FIR IN MULKY
P.S. CR.NO.62/2024 REGISTERED FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S
419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC DATED 07.06.2024
AS AGAINST PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.2 ON THE FILE OF
4
HON’BLE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT MOODBIDRI D.K
CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 11.07.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
These petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime
No.62 of 2024 registered for offence punishable under Sections
419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC calling in question
the FIR registered against them. Therefore, they are taken up
together and considered by this common order. For the sake of
convenience, facts obtaining in Criminal Petition No.4470 of 2025,
which are also common in the other petition, are narrated.
2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: –
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to
be registered by the 2nd respondent stating that he is the power of
attorney holder of five persons viz., (i) Mr. Vijaya Adappa; (ii) Mrs.
5Yamini Sridevi Mali; (iii) Smt. Manjula Adappa; (iv) Mr. Roshan
Adappa and (v) Dipti Adappa. Mr. Vijaya Adappa is said to be the
son of one Bhavani Adappa, Mrs. Yamini Sridevi Mali is the daughter
of Bhavani Adappa and Manjula Adappa is said to be the
daughter-in-law of Bhavani Adappa and Roshan Adappa and Dipti
Adappa are the children of Manjula Adappa. Bhavani Adappa is said
to have died on 08-11-1990 and the children as mentioned
hereinabove are the sole surviving heirs of late Bhavani Adappa.
During her lifetime, late Bhavani Adappa had purchased land
measuring one acre in Sy.No.186/2 situated at Surathkal Village
through a registered sale deed dated 26-02-1964. As observed
hereinabove, the legal heir of late Bhavani Adappa who was
residing in Mangalore was her daughter-in-law Manjula Adappa,
wife of late Dilip Adappa who was, at the relevant point in time, 66
years. One acre of land that was purchased in 1964 ostensibly grew
up in Mangalore. The complaint is that it got the eye of land mafia
in Mangalore.
2.1. The petitioners in these cases, accused Nos. 1 and 2, are
said to have conspired to usurp the property which belonged to late
6Bhavani Adappa. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, several acts
are done by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with public
servants i.e., the Sub-Registrar and officers of the Corporation. This
is noticed by Smt. Manjula Adappa when the land was put to
auction by YES Bank. Then the respondents come to know that the
accused have raised a loan mortgaging the aforementioned
property and have defaulted in payment and, therefore, the Bank
put up the property for auction. It is then they dig into the matter
and got to know the modus operandi of the accused in connivance
with public servants.
2.2. Two steps are taken by the complainant; one,
immediately registering suits in O.S.Nos.41 and 42 of 2024 seeking
injunction against the purchasers of the property and the Bank and
further direction from encumbering the property, the said suits are
pending consideration. The other step taken is, the registration of
a complaint before the jurisdictional police at Mulky against these
petitioners, Sub-Registrar and a Second Division Assistant working
in the office of the Sub-Registrar. This becomes a crime in Crime
No.62 of 2024 and the crime would draw four accused. Two of the
7accused/public servants were at the doors of this Court in Criminal
Petition No.7435 of 2024 and 6522 of 2024 and after arguing the
matter at length, they withdrew the petitions to avail of appropriate
remedy. The other two i.e., accused Nos. 1 and 2 have now
approached this Court in these petitions.
3. Heard Smt. Ananya Praneeth, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners; Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional State
Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and
Sri K.S. Ponnappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and
2 would vehemently contend that the issue in the lis is purely civil
in nature. The power of attorney holder of the owner of the
property has instituted civil suits in O.S.Nos. 41 and 42 of 2024,
which are pending adjudication before the competent civil Court.
Public servants might have involved in the present case. The
petitioners are private parties and have nothing to do with the sale
that has taken place of the suit property. They got the property
through registered documents. She would contend that if further
8
investigation is permitted to be continued in such cases, it would be
permitting a case which is predominantly civil in nature to be tried
as a crime. She would seek to place reliance upon few judgments of
the Apex Court on the issue which would bear consideration in case
of need.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 2nd
respondent/complainant Sri K.S.Ponnappa would vehemently refute
the submissions contending that if the modus operandi of accused
Nos. 1 and 2 is seen, no vacant land is safe. They are the land
mafia in Mangalore; identify abandoned vacant lands, create
documents, generate sale deeds, sell them to naïve purchasers and
wash off their hands. The daughter-in-law of Bhavani Adappa
comes to know of this only when YES Bank notifies the land for
auction. Being shocked, they dub into the issue and got to know
the manner in which crime is sought to be committed. He would
submit that these cases though have a flavour of civil law, but have
complete ingredients of the offences that are alleged. He would
submit that since the matter is at the stage of investigation, this
Court should not interfere at this stage.
9
6. The learned Additional State Public prosecutor
Sri B.N. Jagadeesh would also submit that the material available on
record is itself enough to show that the petitioners have indulged in
forgery and cheating in connivance with public servants. Therefore,
the investigation must be permitted in the case on hand.
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
complainant is the power of attorney holder of five people as
aforementioned. A complaint comes to be registered by the power
of attorney holder of the aforesaid family members. Since the
complaint triggers the entire issue in great detail, I deem it
appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as
follows:
“Between:
Harish Shetty B,, aged 45 years,
S/o. B. Krishnappa Shetty B.,
Residing at Door NO.25-21-1339/8,
10Vijayalaxmi Nilaya,
Jeppu Bappal 1st Cross,
Kankanady, Mangalore. ……. Complainantand
1.Jagadish Devadas Anchan, aged 48 years,
S/o. late Devadas Chandrashekar Anchan,
residing at No.475-17/1,
Sri Siddi Vinayana Schoool,
Bhadarwdi, Karle, Kiniye Village and Post,
Hukkeri, Belagavi – 590 014.
2.Nithyananda Kunder, aged 37 years,
S/o. Srinivas,
residing at No.133/2, New Shivaji Colony,
near Gajanan Road, Thilakwadi,
Belgavai – 590 006.
3. Rajeshwari Hegade,
Sub Registrar, Mulky, Mangalore.
4.Bindu Mani, Second Division Assistant,
Sub Registrar, Mulky, Mangalore. ….. Accused.
The complainant named above begs to submit as
follows:
1.That the complainant is the power of attorney holder of 1)
Mr. Vijaya Adappa, 2) Yamini Sridevi Malli, 3) Manjula
Adappa, 4) Roshan Adappa and 5) Deepthi Adappa, Mr.
Vijaya Adappa is the son of Bhavani Adappa, Yamini Sridevi
Malli is the daughter of Bhavani Adappa, Manjula Adappa is
the daughter in law of Bhavani Adappa, she being the wife of
late Dr.Dilip Adappa who was the son of Bhavani Adappa.
Roshan Adappa and Deepthi Adappa are the son and
daughter of Manjula Adappa and late Dilip Adappa and they
are the grand children of Bhavani Adappa. That the above 5
are the only surviving legal heirs of Smt. Bhavani Adappa
who expired on 08/11/1990.
2. That Smt. Bhavani Adappa on 26/2/1964 had purchased
one (1) acre of land comprised in S.No.186/2 situated at
Surathkal Village vide registered sale deed as per Document
11
No.117 of 1964 in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Mulky.
That ever since the said Bhavani Adappa was in actual and
exclusive possession of the property during her life time and
the R.T.C. of the said property also stood in the name of
Smt. Bhavani Adappa from 1964 onwards. The present
market value of the land is in crores.
3. That the legal heirs of Bhavani Adappa appointed the
complainant as their power of attorney in the month of
December 2022 to look after and manage the said property
and also to negotiate the sale of said property with
interested buyers. That after being so appointed in order to
ensure proper documentation of the said property the
complainant applied to the various revenue officials for the
documents pertaining to the property and he was shocked to
find that the R.T.C. of the said property stood in the name of
one Bhavani Anchan instead of Bhavani Adappa.
4. That enquiries made revealed that one Bhavani Anchan by
using forged and fraudulent document had managed to get
her name included in the R.T.C. of the above property in
place of Bhavani Adappa and by using forged and fabricated
documents she was successful in including her name in the
Revenue records of the above property and on the basis of
the same she got the land converted from the Mangalore City
Corporation.
5. That after getting the land converted as aforesaid Smt.
Bhavani Anchan executed two sale deeds in favour of one
Sampath A. Shetty to the extent of 90 cents and one
Niranjan to the extent of 10 cents. The said sale deeds were
dated 21/11/2017. The address of Bhavani Anchan furnished
in the said sale deed is Bhavani Anchan, W/o.late Devadas
Anchan, aged about 80 years, residing at Durga Nivas, 5th
Cross, Attavara Cross, Attavara Village, Mangalore where as
in the application to the A.C. the address furnished is
Surathkal Village, Surathkal, Mangalore. It is also pertinent
to note that the husband’ name of Smt. Bhavani Anchan is
Devadas Anchan and the husband name of Bhavani Adappa
is Devadas Adappa.
6. That Sampath Shetty who allegedly entered into the
fraudulent sale deed executed in his favour by Bhavani
12
Anchan had mortgaged the said property with the YES Bank,
Mangalore and the encumbrance certificate has also reveals
the same.
7.That the complainant on coming to know of the above
fraudulent acts had lodged complaint before the Station
House Officer of the CEN Police Station, Mangalore against
Bhavani Anchan, Sampath A. Shetty and Mr.Niranjan and the
same was registered as Cr.No.206/2023 of CEN Police
Station, under sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34
I.P.C.
8. That the original owners of the property namely Vijaya
Adappa and his family members filed a suit for injunction in
the Court of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangalore
against Bhavani Anchan, Sampath Shetty, Mr.Niranjan and
others in O.S.No.41/2024 and 42/2024 and as per orders
dated 11/3/2024 the Hon’ble Court was pleased to grant
temporary injunction in favour of the owners of the property
and also restrained the defendants from alienating or
encumbering the above property to any third parties pending
disposal of the suit.
9.That the order of injunction granted in favour of Vijaya
Adappa and his family members was communicated to all the
revenue officials including Tashildar, Mangalore, Deputy
Tashildar, Surathkal, Revenue Inspector, Surathkal, the
District Registrar, Mangalore and the Sub Registrar, Mulky
and the officials of the Sub Registrar, Mulky and other
revenue officials were aware of the injunction order issued by
the Hon’ble Court prohibiting the alienation of the above
property.
10. That recently the complainant has learnt that one
Jagadish Devadas Anchan the 1st accused claiming to
be the son of the late Bhavani Anchan and late
Devadas Chandrashekar Anchan has entered into a
sale deed and sold the property compromised in
S.No.186/2c to the extent of one acre in favour of one
Mr. Nithyananda Kunder the 2nd accused as per sale
deed executed before the Sub Registrar, Mulky on
08/04/2024. The said property was sold as
agricultural immovable property.
13
11. That on coming to know of the execution of above
sale deed in violation of the order of injunction
granted by the Hon’ble Court further enquires made by
the complaianant reveal that the 1st accused was
issued with an Aadhar card on 2/9/2021 and on the
basis of the said Aadhar card he had applied for the
death certificate of one Bhavani Devadas Anchan
where her death has been shown as 25/10/1998 at
Belagavi. He also obtained the death certificate of one
Devadas Chandrashekar Anchan whose date of death
is mentioned as 16/2/1992. The place of death is
mentioned as Belagavi. The said death certificates was
issued by the Registrar of births and deaths, Belagavi.
The said death certificates were issued on 28/2/2022.
12. That on the basis of the above death certificates
the Deputy Tashildar, Uchagaon Hobli, Belagavi Taluk
had issued a surviving member ship certificate in
favour of the 1st accused on 14/03/2022. That after
receipt of above surviving family member certificate
the 1st accused filed an application for change of R.T.C.
of the above mentioned property comprised in
S.No.186/2C of Surathkal Village in his favour and on
the basis of the said application the R.T.C. was
mutated in the name of the 1st accused.
13. That after getting the R.T.C. in his name the 1st
accused entered into the sale deed as mentioned
above wherein he sought to convey the right, title and
interest in favour of the 2nd accused. It is submitted
that the above sale deed is a sham document without
consideration and the same has been executed in
collusion with accused No. 3 and 4 who are the
officials of the sub registrar office at Mulky and who
were awe reo the injunction order passed by the
Hon’ble Court. The 1st accused has absolutely no right
or title to the said property.
14. That at the time of registering the sale deed an
encumbrance certificate has to be produced at the
time of execution of the sale deed and the said
encumbrance certificate would have reveal the said
property is a converted property 90 cents of which
14
stand in the name of Sampath Shetty and 10 cents
stands in the name of Mr. Niranjan. Further the
encumbrance certificate would have reveal that the
said property has been mortgaged to the YES bank and
as such the sale deed could not have been executed by
the 1st accused in favour of the 2nd accused. Though
the accused NO. 3 and 4 were aware of the true state
of affair they have also colluded and assisted the
accused No.1 and 2 in executing the above fraudulent
sale deed.
15. That it is submitted that the accused No.1 has used
fraudulent document such as Aadhar card, death
certificate of Bhavani and Devadas Anchan false
surviving family member certificate and by using the
fraudulent documents he has managed to change the
R.T.C. to his name and after doing so by entering into a
criminal conspiracy with he other accused NO. 2 to 4
he has bought up a fraudulent sale deed in order to
make an illegal ad unlawful gain for himself and other
accused at the expense of Vijaya Adappa and his
family members who are the actual owners of the
above mentioned property.
16. Thas the accused has committed an offence
punishable under section 420, 465, 467, 468, 471
I.P.C. and Section 120 B I.P.C. All the accused have
conspired with each other to create false and forged
documents in order to defraud and cheat the original
owners of the said property and to cause wrongful loss
to them.
It is therefore prayed, that the benign S.H.O may be
pleased to register a case against the accused, investigate
the matter and deal with the accused in accordance with law,
in the interest of justice.
MANGALORE sd/-
DT. 07/06/2024. COMPLAINANT."
(Emphasis added)
15
The narration in the complaint is in great detail. The genesis of the
issue is traced and observes that one Jagadish Devadas Anchan,
accused No.1, claiming to be the son of late Bhavani Anchan, the
owner of the property, enters into a sale deed and sold the property
to the extent of one acre in favour of accused No.2, pursuant to a
sale deed dated 08-04-2024. The history to the execution was
traced. Accused No.1 holds an Aadhar card having generated the
change of his name from Jagadish Kulal to Jagadish Devadas
Anchan and on the basis of the Aadhar card, applies for a death
certificate of the owner of the property Bhavani Devadas Anchan,
where the death of the owner of the property is shown as
25-10-1998 at Belagavi. He also obtains a death certificate of
Devadas Chandershekar Anchan, whose date of death is shown as
16-02-1992. Both these death certificates were issued by the
Registrar of Birth and Deaths, Belagavi.
9. On the basis of the death certificates and Aadhar card,
accused No.1 secures a surviving membership certificate from the
hands of the Tahsildar in Belgavi Taluk on 14-03-2022. On the said
surviving certificate, he files an application for change of RTC of the
16
subject property in Sy.No.186/2C of Surathkal Village in his favour
and the RTC now comes to be mutated in favour of accused No.1.
Accused No.1 then enters into a sale deed with accused No.2. The
sale deed is registered before the office of the Sub-Registrar at
Mulki. All the aforesaid is based upon a document of entry of his
name as the son of Devadas Chandershekar Anchan and Bhavani
Devadas Anchan filed before the concerned Court under Section
13(3) of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act. The death
certificates are issued pursuant the order of the concerned Court,
which was on the basis of an alleged fake Aadhar card. The order of
the concerned Court reads as follows:
“ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioners U/Section 13(3) of
the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, is hereby allowed.
The respondent is hereby directed to enter the date of
death of deceased Shri Devdasha S/o Chandershekar
Anchan, died on 16-02-1992 at # 475-17/1, Shree Siddi
Vinayak School, Bhadarwadi Karle, Kiniye, Tal and
Dist: Belagavi in the concerned death register maintained
by the respondent.
The respondent is hereby directed to issue death
certificate to the said Shri Devdasha S/o Chandershekar
Anchan, after collecting necessary fees from the petitioners.
The said entry shall not be a conclusive proof of death
and if in case of any dispute there exists on the death, the
entries shall be subject to proof.”
17
... ... ...
Sd/-
09.02.2022
(Smt. Lathashree B.V.)
JMFC-II, Belagavi."
Thus, comes in the names of Devasha and Bhavani Anchan
attached to the name of accused No.1. He thus becomes
Jagadish Devadasha Anchan from Jagadish Kulal.
10. Later the allegation is, in connivance with the office of the
Sub-Registrar, the name in the sale deed dated 26-02-1964 is
changed to Devdasha and Bhavani Anchan in the records of the
Sub-Registrar’s office to show that the father and mother of
accused No.1 were the purchasers of the land in Sy.No.186/2C in
terms of the sale deed dated 26-02-1964. Immediately thereafter
accused No.1 enters into a sale with accused No.2 which is
appended as Annexure-C to the petition. Accused No.1 is the
vendor and accused No.2 is the purchaser and the consideration is
₹46,98,000/-. Who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 shocks the Court, as
it is an admitted fact that accused No.2 runs a hotel and accused
No.1 is a kitchen steward in the hotel. It is on discovery of all these
facts, the crime comes to be registered against the accused.
18
11. No doubt, civil suit is also filed on the same cause of
action. It would not mean that the aforesaid modus operandi of
accused Nos.1 and 2 in wanting to knock off the property can be
brushed aside, so as to contend that there is no criminal acts
performed by the accused at all. The family of the GPA holder of the
complainant, are all naïve people who have been hoodwinked by
the perpetrators of forgery, like accused Nos.1 and 2.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently
contended that civil suits are instituted on the same cause of action
and, therefore, the facts would depict that they are entirely civil in
nature. The submission that these are civil proceedings in
disguise, hence undeserving of criminal investigation is
rejected and the law is too well settled, that the same set of
facts, may give rise to both civil liability and criminal
culpability. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgments of the
Apex Court, which hold that a given set of fact may have a color of
civil proceedings, that would not mean that it would not attract
19
ingredients of crime at all. The Apex Court in the case of PRITI
SARAF v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)1 has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
30. Be it noted that in the matter of exercise of
inherent power by the High Court, the only requirement is to
see whether continuance of the proceedings would be a total
abuse of the process of the Court. The Criminal Procedure
Code contains a detailed procedure for investigation, framing
of charge and trial, and in the event when the High Court is
desirous of putting a halt to the known procedure of law, it
must use proper circumspection with great care and caution
to interfere in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet in exercise of
its inherent jurisdiction.
31. In the instant case, on a careful reading of the
complaint/FIR/charge-sheet, in our view, it cannot be said
that the complaint does not disclose the commission of an
offence. The ingredients of the offences under Sections 406
and 420IPC cannot be said to be absent on the basis of the
allegations in the complaint/FIR/charge-sheet. We would
like to add that whether the allegations in the
complaint are otherwise correct or not, has to be
decided on the basis of the evidence to be led during
the course of trial. Simply because there is a remedy
provided for breach of contract or arbitral proceedings
initiated at the instance of the appellants, that does
not by itself clothe the court to come to a conclusion
that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the initiation
of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will be an
abuse of the process of the court for exercising
inherent powers of the High Court under Section
482CrPC for quashing such proceedings.
32. We have perused the pleadings of the parties, the
complaint/FIR/charge-sheet and orders of the courts below
and have taken into consideration the material on record.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are
1
(2021) 16 SCC 142
20
satisfied that the issue involved in the matter under
consideration is not a case in which the criminal trial should
have been short-circuited. The High Court was not justified in
quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction. The High Court has primarily adverted on two
circumstances,
(i) that it was a case of termination of agreement
to sell on account of an alleged breach of the contract and;
(ii) the fact that the arbitral proceedings have been
initiated at the instance of the appellants.
Both the alleged circumstances noticed by the High
Court, in our view, are unsustainable in law. The facts
narrated in the present complaint/FIR/charge-sheet
indeed reveal the commercial transaction but that is
hardly a reason for holding that the offence of cheating
would elude from such transaction. In fact, many a
times, offence of cheating is committed in the course
of commercial transactions and the illustrations have
been set out under Sections 415, 418 and 420 IPC.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, subsequently, in the case of PUNIT BERIWALA v.
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI2 has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
MERE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL PROCEEDINGS CANNOT
ACT AS A BAR TO INVESTIGATION OF COGNIZABLE
OFFENCES
28. It is trite law that mere institution of civil
proceedings is not a ground for quashing the FIR or to
2
2025 SCC Online SC 983
21
hold that the dispute is merely a civil dispute. This
Court in various judgments, has held that simply
because there is a remedy provided for breach of
contract, that does not by itself clothe the Court to
conclude that civil remedy is the only remedy, and the
initiation of criminal proceedings, in any manner, will
be an abuse of the process of the court. This Court is
of the view that because the offence was committed
during a commercial transaction, it would not be
sufficient to hold that the complaint did not warrant a
further investigation and if necessary, a trial. [See :
Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi
Admin.), (2009) 5 SCC 528, Lee Kun Hee v. State of
UP, (2012) 3 SCC 132 and Trisuns Chemicals v. Rajesh
Aggarwal, (1999) 8 SCC 686]”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court in the case of KATHYAYINI v. SIDHARTH P.S.
REDDY3, has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
19. We now come to the issue of bar against prosecution
during the pendency of a civil suit. We hereby hold that no such
bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under
criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit.
Learned senior counsel Dr. Menaka Guruswamy has rightly
placed the relevant judicial precedents to support the above
submission. In the case of K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S.3,
this Court has reviewed its precedents which clarify the position.
The relevant paragraph from the above judgment is extracted
below:
“8. It is thus well settled that in certain
cases the very same set of facts may give rise to
remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428
22and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he
is not precluded from setting in motion the
proceedings in criminal law.”
20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar4, this Court summed
up the distinction between the two remedies as under:
“21. … There are a large number of cases where
criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two
remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly
coextensive and essentially differ in their content and
consequence. The object of the criminal law is to
punish an offender who commits an offence
against a person, property or the State for which
the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of
his liberty and in some cases even his life. This
does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all
for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson,
accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that
when a civil remedy is available, a criminal
prosecution is completely barred. The two types of
actions are quite different in content, scope and
import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the
stand that if the husband dishonestly
misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife,
though kept in his custody, that would bar
prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the
ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or
abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a
married woman is kept in the custody of her
husband, no action against him can be taken as no
offence is committed is to override and distort the
real intent of the law.”
21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in
Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B.5,
“17. In view of the preponderance of
authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that
the High Court was not justified in quashing the
proceedings initiated by the appellant against the
respondents. We are also not impressed by the
argument that as the civil suit was pending in the
High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to
proceed with the criminal case either in law or on
the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be
23
proceeded with in accordance with the procedure
as prescribed under the Code of Criminal
Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a
different court even though higher in status and
authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of
the proceedings.”
22. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this Court
in K. Jagadish (supra) set aside the holding of High Court to
quash the criminal proceedings and held that criminal
proceedings shall continue to its logical end.
23. The above precedents set by this Court make it
crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the
same subject matter, involving the same parties is no
justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima
facie case exists against the accused persons. In present
case certainly such prima facie case exists against the
respondents. Considering the long chain of events from creation
of family tree excluding the daughters of K.G. Yellappa Reddy,
partition deed among only the sons and grandsons of K.G.
Yellappa Reddy, distribution of compensation award among the
respondents is sufficient to conclude that there was active effort
by respondents to reap off the benefits from the land in
question. Further, the alleged threat to appellant and her sisters
on revelation of the above chain of events further affirms the
motive of respondents. All the above factors suggest that a
criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the appellant.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court, in the afore-quoted judgments, reiterates that a
given fact may stem two proceedings, both crime and a remedy
that is civil in nature, which would by no means, mean the criminal
proceedings must be quashed, they are to be considered qua facts
of each case.
24
13. Diving back to the facts of this case, this Court is
aghast at the audacity of the attempt. The connivance of
public servants in facilitating the crime, if proven, renders
the matter one not of private grievance, but of public
concern. The civil suit, pending though it may be, cannot
eclipse the penal consequences, of what appears to be a
serious offence, as the narrative in the case at hand unfolds
not merely a tale of civil discord, but a systematic and
deliberate fraud having all hues of a crime. Therefore, I
deem it appropriate to observe that there cannot be
foreclosure of investigation, in a case where a criminal
enterprise is disguised as land transaction. The machinery
of law must not be paralyzed in the face of carefully
orchestrated deception. It, in fact, has all the hues and
shades of a thrilling potboiler. These are matters which
would require an investigation, in the least.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in these
petitions, the petitions stand dismissed. Interim order, if any
operating, shall stand dissolved.
25
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
petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind
or influence the proceedings that are pending against these accused
or other accused on the same subject matter.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Bkp
CT:SS