- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22698 CRL.P No. 7465 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7465 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SHIVAKUMAR N., S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT NO.11/132, MUTTON STALL STREET, NEAR HOTEL HALLIMANE, ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE – 562 106 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SREEDHARA G. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA ANEKAL POLICE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. DINESH M., S/O M.J. SHIVARAMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT NOT KNOWN, R/AT NO. 190 SHANKARNAG ROAD, ANEKAL TOWN, ANEKAL TOWN ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE DIST. – 562 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NAGESHWARAPPA K., HCGP FOR R1 R2 IS SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22698 CRL.P No. 7465 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AS PER ANNENXURE-A IN CR.NO.121/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 420, 506 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE ANEKAL POLICE, ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED HON’BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT ANEKAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs: “a) The petitioner most humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to Quash the FIR registered against the petitioner as per Annexure-A in Crime No.121/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 of IPC registered by the Anekal Police on the file of the learned Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC at Anekal. b) Call for the records, peruse the same, allow the above petition or in the alternative pass such other order/s as this Hon’ble Court deem fit to pass on the facts and in the circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. ” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22698 CRL.P No. 7465 of 2025 3. Though respondent No.2 is served with notice, he has remained unrepresented and has not chosen to contest this petition. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent – Police registered a case on 03.05.2025 against the accused in FIR in Crime No.121/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) and JMFC at Anekal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. A perusal of the material on record comprising of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material, statement of witness, documents and etc., will clearly indicate that the same do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences. It is also relevant to state that the dispute between the parties is purely civil/commercial in nature in respect of the immovable property. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club and ors Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., - (2024) SCC OnLine SC 2248, the two offences cannot coexist - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22698 CRL.P No. 7465 of 2025 simultaneously in the same set of facts, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. 6. In Delhi Race Club’s case supra, the Apex Court has held as under: “36. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. [See: Lalit Chaturvedi And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another - 2024 SCC Online SC 171 and M/s Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. (MESCO Steel Ltd.) & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr -. 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301] xxxx 42. When dealing with a private complaint, the law enjoins upon the magistrate a duty to meticulously examine the contents of the complaint so as to determine whether - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22698 CRL.P No. 7465 of 2025 the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust as the case may be is made out from the averments made in the complaint. The magistrate must carefully apply its mind to ascertain whether the allegations, as stated, genuinely constitute these specific offences. In contrast, when a case arises from a FIR, this responsibility is of the police – to thoroughly ascertain whether the allegations levelled by the informant indeed falls under the category of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Unfortunately, it has become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind. 43. It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. The two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each other. The two provisions of the IPC (now BNS, 2023) are not twins that they cannot survive without each other.” 7. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered view that continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22698 CRL.P No. 7465 of 2025 to abuse of process of law warranting interference of this Court in the present petition. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.194/2023 arising out of Crime No.61/2019 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, insofar as the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 3 Sl No.: 48