- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2658 CRL.P No. 1067 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1067 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. MRS. M NANDA W/O LATE MR PUTTASWAMY, AGE 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.1167/C VIJAYANAGAR 1ST STAGE, MYSURU-570 017. 2. MR.ADARSH N P S/O LATE MR PUTTASWAMY, AGE 32 YEARS R/AT NO.1167/C VIJAYANAGAR 1ST STAGE, MYSURU-570 017. 3. MRS.ARPITHA N P D/O LATE MR PUTTASWAMY, AGE 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.1167/C VIJAYANAGAR 1ST STAGE, MYSURU-570 017. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2658 CRL.P No. 1067 of 2018 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU THROUGH VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION MYSURU-570 017. 2. MR.CHANDREGOWDA H S S/O LATE MR.HANUMANTHEGOWDA, AGE 51 YEARS, R/AT SRI LAKSHMIRANGANATHA NILAYA NEAR SANGAMMA TEMPLE MAIN ROAD, 17TH WARD, HOLLENARSIPURA HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. VEERANA G TIGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO. 7/2018, VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, MYSURU CITY, BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DIV.) AND CJM COURT, MYSURU CITY (AT ANNEXURE 'A') AND ALL PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2658 CRL.P No. 1067 of 2018 ORAL ORDER Petitioners, being accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.7/2018 of Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysuru, pending on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and CJM, Mysuru, registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 420 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed the first information with Vijayangar Police against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406,465,420 read with Section 34 of IPC. Crime No.7/2018 came to be registered and investigation was undertaken. In the meantime, the petitioners approached this Court for an interim order of stay and the same was granted. Therefore no investigation worth mentioning was undertaken. 3. Heard Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2658 CRL.P No. 1067 of 2018 Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri Veeranna G Tigadi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew my attention to the Letter of Undertaking issued by accused No.1 on 05.12.2017 where there is reference to the agreement between accused No.1 and the wife of respondent No.2 to sell/purchase the house for Rs.1.70 crore. Both the parties have undertaken to enter into an agreement of sale. It was agreed to keep the agreement of sale ready by 16.12.2017 and the sale agreement to be executed on 26.12.2017 tentatively. The Letter of Undertaking also acknowledges receipt of the Demand Draft bearing No.046395 dated 05.12.2017 for Rs.10,00,000/- issued by respondent No.2 on behalf of his wife to accused No.1, being the prospective seller. It further discloses that the cheque bearing No.015139 drawn on Bank of Maharashtra, issued by accused No.1 in favour of respondent No.2 as security, was required to be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2658 CRL.P No. 1067 of 2018 returned to accused No.1 at the time of execution of the agreement. It further makes it clear that the Letter of Undertaking ceases to exist with effect from 31.12.2017. s 5. My attention was also drawn to Annexure-E, Legal Notice dated 06.01.2018 issued by accused No.1 to the wife of respondent No.2, reiterating the terms of the undertaking, payment of advance amount and calling upon her to enter into Agreement of sale within ten days by paying further advance of Rs.40,00,000/-. It is stated that such notice is served on the wife of respondent No.2. In the meantime, the cheque referred to in the Letter of Undertaking was presented for encashment by respondent No.2 which came to be dishonoured as there were insufficient funds in the account. A Legal Notice dated 16.01.2018 vide Annexure-J came to be issued to accused No.1 calling upon her to pay the cheque amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. Annexure-K is said to be the reply by accused No.1 offering to return the cheque for Rs.10,00,000/-. The said reply is dated 29.01.2018, but - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2658 CRL.P No. 1067 of 2018 in the meantime on 13.01.2018, the present complaint came to be filed alleging commission of the offences punishable under sections 406, 465, 420 IPC read with section 34 IPC. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that even as per the contention of the petitioners, petitioner No.1 entered into a similar agreement with one P.Sathisha to sell the house property in question in his favour. The said P.Satisha had filed O.S No.892/2017 before the trial Court. Suppressing these facts, accused No.1 received the advance amount, which amounts to criminal breach of trust and also cheating. But as per the averments made in the petition, even though accused No.1 admits entering into agreement with said P.Sathisha, agreeing to sell the house property in question, it is his defence that the said P.Sathisha had agreed to purchase the property within three months from the date of purported agreement dated 21.07.2017, which stood terminated as on 20.10.2017 and it was well before the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2658 CRL.P No. 1067 of 2018 Letter of Undertaking given by accused No.1. Even if there was such misrepresentation by accused No.1 and respondent No.2 had paid the advance amount without knowing about the earlier agreement, the offer given by accused No.1 to return the Demand Draft for Rs.10,00,000/- could have been accepted by respondent No.2. Even if respondent No.2 has suffered any loss, he could have demanded something more but, inspite of that, respondent No.2 has chosen to file the criminal complaint invoking the provisions under IPC. 7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2658 CRL.P No. 1067 of 2018 My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S Respondent No.2 informant has filed the first information with Vijayanagar Police against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging that accused No.1 is the owner of house bearing No.1167/C, situated at 7th Main Road, I Stage, Vijayanagar, Mysuru and she has agreed to sell the house to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.1.70 crores. An agreement was said to have been entered into between the parties on 10.09.2017 and the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- as advance. Later, accused No.1 refused to execute the agreement for sale, but however, he received further advance of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of demand draft. Inspite of that, accused have not executed the sale deed and thereby committed criminal breach of trust and cheating. 8. The materials on record discloses that respondent No.2 paid an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2658 CRL.P No. 1067 of 2018 demand draft to accused No.1. Hence, the complainant requested the Police to register a case and to initiate action. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered and investigation was undertaken. The petitioners are before this court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. 9. In view of the narration of the stand taken by both the learned counsels, prima facie, I am of the opinion that filing of the criminal complaint is only to pressurize the petitioners to agree for the terms and it is an abuse of process of law. Hence, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.7/2018 of Vijayanagar Police Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under sections 406, 465, 420 read with - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2658 CRL.P No. 1067 of 2018 section 34 of IPC, on the file of I Additional Civil Judge & CJM, Mysuru against the petitioners is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE NV