- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:433 CRL.P No. 2503 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2503 OF 2018 BETWEEN: DR. ASHOK KUMAR JAIN S/O. CHHATTARMAL JAIN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT F201, ADARSH RESIDENCY, 47TH CROSS ROAD, 8TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 081. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR POLICE, JAYANAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. RAVI SANCHETI S/O. LALCHAND SANCHETI, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT NO.A4, 1802, ELITA PROMENADE, JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR, Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:433 CRL.P No. 2503 of 2018 7TH PHASE, PUTTANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 078. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHISHIRA AMARNATH AND SRI. VISHWANATH VENKATESH, ADVOCATES FOR R2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING CRIME NO.193/2016 REGISTERED BY THE JAYAPRAKASH NAGAR POLICE STATION, JAYANAGAR SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY VIDE ANNEXURE 'A'. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being the sole accused in crime No.193/2016 of J.P.Nagar Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2 filed the First Information against the petitioner with J.P.Nagar police alleging commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:433 CRL.P No. 2503 of 2018 It is alleged that the petitioner is the owner of two apartments in Elita Promenade Apartment situated at 7th stage, J.P.Nagar, Bangalore. He agreed to sell both these apartments in favour of respondent No.2 for a total consideration of Rs.3,03,50,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.66,00,000/- on 28.03.2016. Accordingly, the sale agreement came to be entered into between the two. It is alleged that the petitioner has not paid the income tax nor he got registered the sale deed in favour of respondent No.2, but flew to America on 25.04.2016. Thus he cheated the informant. Therefore, respondent No.2 sought for registration of the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, the FIR came to be registered. Now the petitioner is before this Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him. 3. Heard Mr.Nishanth A.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Shishira Amarnath learned HCGP appearing for the respondent and Mr.Vishwanath Venkatesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 remained absent and has not addressed the argument inspite of granting sufficient opportunity. Hence, his submission is taken as Nil. Perused the materials on record. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:433 CRL.P No. 2503 of 2018 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the allegations made in the first information is purely of civil nature. Even according to the informant, there was an agreement for sale and the advance amount was received. The only allegation is that the sale deed was not executed and the income tax was not paid. The complaint came to be filed on 25.04.2016. Subsequent to registration of FIR, two different registered sale deeds as per Annexure -D and E dated 01.06.2016 came to be registered in respect of two apartments referred to by respondent No.2 in the first information. Thus, the grievance of respondent No.2 is already addressed. Regarding payment of income tax the dispute is still pending, but it has nothing to do with the criminal proceedings, and hence the FIR registered against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition. 5. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 submits that the allegations made in the first information is purely of civil dispute and further submits that she is not aware of registration of the sale deed. In view of the interim order - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:433 CRL.P No. 2503 of 2018 granted, no investigation was undertaken. Under such circumstances, she prays for passing appropriate orders. 6. In view of these contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 7. Respondent No.2 filed the first information with J.P.Nagar Police Station against the petitioner alleging that the petitioner is the owner of two apartments and he agreed to sell both the apartments in favour of respondent No.2 for a total consideration of Rs.3,03,50,000/-. Petitioner received an amount of Rs.66,00,000/- on 23.08.2016 as advance. Accordingly, the sale agreement came to be entered into. The only allegation made against the petitioner is that even after executing the agreement for sale, he had not executed the sale - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:433 CRL.P No. 2503 of 2018 deed. Further, he had not paid the income tax in respect of the sale transaction entered into. 8. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after registration of the criminal complaint, two registered sale deeds were executed on 01.06.2017. The copies of the sale deed are produced as per Annexures D & E. In the light of these materials on record, I have considered the allegations made by respondent No.2 against the petitioner. When it is the contention of respondent No.2 that the petitioner had executed an agreement for sale agreeing to sell the apartments and has accepted the advance amount, even if the petitioner has failed to execute the same, the remedy lies before the civil court for seeking specific performance of the contract. The same will not give rise to invoke Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. But here, Annexures- D & E prima facie discloses that the sale deed is already executed in favour of respondent No.2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute regarding payment of income tax in respect of the sale transaction is pending before the Income Tax Officer. Even that will not give rise to invoking Section 420 of IPC. Therefore, prima facie I am satisfied that - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:433 CRL.P No. 2503 of 2018 none of the ingredients are formed to invoke Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner. Continuation of the criminal proceeding is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, the criminal proceeding is liable to be quashed. 9. 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.193/2016 of J.P.Nagar Police Station, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short IPC), on the file of 44th Additional CMM Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE JY/SS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26