- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15369 CRL.P No. 5456 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5456 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. MANSOOR ALI KHAN, S/O ALEEM ULLA KHAN, AGED 28 YEARS, OFFICE AT: 1ST CROSS, ERAPPA REDDY LAYOUT, CHIKKA BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 43, R/AT NO.56, NEXT TO SPECTRA RAYWOODS MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 046, ALSO RESIDING AT 61, MUNISWAMAPPA ROAD, MUNISWAMAPPA BLOCK, J.C.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RUPESH R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIMAVU POLICE, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 560 001. 2. SRI. ANKUR ARUN, S/O LATE ARUN KUMAR SINHA, AGED 37 YEARS, R/AT NO.310, ARJUN AURA, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BILEKAHALLI, KODICHIKKANAHALLI, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15369 CRL.P No. 5456 of 2023 BENGALURU - 560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. CHANDAN SANJAY BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 09.06.2023 (ANNEXURE-A) AND FIR IN CR.NO.136/2023 DATED 09.06.2023 REGISTERED BY THE HULIMAVU POLICE STATION (ANNEXURE-B) PENDING ON THE FILE OF V ADDL.C.M.M., NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner is seeking to quash the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 alleging an offence Punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2. On the basis of a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 herein, a case in Crime No.136/2023 was registered at Hulimavu Police Station, Bengaluru City, against the petitioner for the offence Punishable under Section 420 of IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15369 CRL.P No. 5456 of 2023 3. It is alleged that complainant gave contract to the petitioner to construct a house at No.51, VIP layout, Akshay Nagar, on 13th March, 2020 and a contract agreement was also signed to construct the house and hand over to the petitioner within 180 days. Initial contract was signed for Rs.36.00 Lakhs on 13.03.2020, which the petitioner later changed to Rs.55.1 Lakhs on 28.09.2022. Further, out of the said amount, he received Rs.52.75 Lakhs and even after 3 years 2 months, neither completed the construction nor returned the amount and cheated the complainant. It is also alleged in the complaint that when the petitioner was requested to complete the work of construction, he went on dragging the matter and thereby cheated the complainant. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the complainant has filed a consumer case before the Karnataka State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Bengaluru, in consumer complaint No.80/2024. He would contend that the matter is purely civil in nature and a breach of contract does not give rise to criminal conspiracy for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction and merely on the allegation of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15369 CRL.P No. 5456 of 2023 failure to keep up promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. 5. It is true that the matter arise out of an agreement entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.2 in connection with construction of a house. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the petitioner had fraudulent intention to cheat the complainant at the beginning and therefore, the ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of IPC are made out. From the complaint averments, it can be seen that as per the agreement, petitioner had agreed to complete the construction within a period of 180 days from the date of construction i.e., from 13.03.2020, but enhanced the amount mentioned in the contract from Rs.36.00 Lakhs to Rs.55.1 Lakhs and further agreement was executed. According to the complainant even after receipt of Rs.52.75 Lakhs from him and even after 3 years 2 months the construction was not completed. 6. An affidavit was filed by the petitioner before this Court on 26.07.2023 and as per paragraph No.7 of the said affidavit, he undertook to complete the construction within 9 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15369 CRL.P No. 5456 of 2023 months subject to the pending payment of Rs.2,35,000/- and additional amount of Rs.5,50,000/- totally Rs.7,85,000/-. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 that when the complainant offered to pay the said amount, the petitioner did not receive the same. The fact remains that the construction was not completed even as per the undertaking given in the affidavit. 7. From the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Section 420 are not made out. Pendency of the case before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission itself is not a ground to quash the proceedings. However, if the parties arrive at an amicable settlement, it is always open for the petitioner to file a fresh petition before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings. With the above observation, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23 CT: BHK