- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10264 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3133 OF 2024 BETWEEN: ANAND RAJ S/O MAHADEVA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.42, E AND F BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNA NAGARA, MYSURU - 570 022. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABUBACKER SHAFI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANYAPURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. MR. RAGHAVENDRA M S/O MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.15/1, 17TH CROSS, 6TH MAIN, K.P. AGRAHARA, MAGADI ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.36/2022 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 506 AND 34 OF IPC AND THE SAME WAS REGISTERED ON THE FILE OF 1ST ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM AT MYSURU AND ETC. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10264 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner–accused No. 3, who is facing investigation for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The 2nd respondent lodged the First Information Report, stating that the accused Nos. 1 to 3, in conspiracy with one another, conveyed a residential property situated in Mysuru through a registered sale deed dated 05.02.2020, without disclosing that the property was mortgaged with Canfin Home Finance Ltd. It is further stated that the accused induced the 2nd respondent to obtain a loan from the Co-operative Bank for a sum of ₹60 lakh and facilitated the loan transaction. Out of the ₹60 lakh, ₹35 lakh was paid toward closing the earlier loan account, and a sum of ₹15 lakh was fraudulently transferred to the account of accused No. 3. Despite having paid the entire sale consideration, accused Nos. 1 and 2 have not handed over vacant possession of the subject property. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10264 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2024 3. Respondent No. 2, though served with notice, did not choose to appear in person or through counsel and is therefore placed ex parte. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the State. 5. A review of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent–informant reveals that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly induced the complainant to purchase a property in Mysuru for a sum of ₹60 lakh. In connection with this transaction, the 2nd respondent also obtained a loan of ₹60 lakh from the Co-operative Bank, out of which ₹35 lakh was used to close an earlier loan account. This portion of the complaint implies that the complainant was fully aware of the existing encumbrance on the property. Thus, the allegation that the complainant was misled into purchasing the property without disclosure of the earlier loan account appears to lack merit, as the evidence suggests the encumbrance was known and addressed through the repayment. 6. The complaint further alleges that ₹15 lakh was transferred to the account of petitioner–accused No. 3. This sum was purportedly intended for the renovation of the residential property purchased by the 2nd respondent. The sole allegation against the petitioner is that, by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10264 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2024 fabricating documents, an additional loan amount of ₹12 lakh was sanctioned toward the renovation of the house, and transferred to the account of the Petitioner. It is important to note that the issue of non-delivery of vacant possession is specifically directed against accused Nos. 1 and 2, not against accused No. 3. In fact, petitioner– accused No. 3 is implicated only in relation to receiving a sum of ₹12 lakh for renovation purposes. 7. Furthermore, there is no allegation or evidence suggesting that petitioner–accused No. 3 induced the 2nd respondent to part with the sum of ₹12 lakh with any intention to deceive. The essential element of fraudulent inducement—specifically, that petitioner–accused No. 3 intentionally deceived the 2nd respondent into transferring the additional loan amount—is absent. 8. In light of these observations, there is a clear absence of a crucial element necessary to constitute the offense against petitioner–accused No. 3. Without evidence of intentional deception or fraudulent inducement on his part, continuing the investigation against him would not only be unwarranted but would also constitute an abuse of the process of law. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10264 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2024 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed, and the impugned First Information Report in Crime No.36/2022 registered by Respondent No. 1, Vidyaranyapuram Police Station, Mysuru, insofar as it relates to accused No. 3, is quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 111