- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20005 CRL.P No. 8503 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8503 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. MAMATHA .Y D/O YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.4, “M” BLOCK, CAR POLICE QUARTER, SHANTHI NAGAR, ADUGODI PS, BENGALURU SOUTH-560 030. …PETITIONER (BY *SMT. YASHASHWINI S. FOR * SRI. AKASH V.T., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVESHWARA NAGAR P.S. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SUJATHA .D. D/O LATE DODDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, 1ST F CROSS, SARASWATHI PURAM, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 008. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IN CRIME NO.260/2024 OF RESPONDENT NO.1 BASAVESHWARA NAGAR P.S., REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 4TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU. * Corrected vide Chamber order dated: 11.07.2025. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20005 CRL.P No. 8503 of 2024 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: - “WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to quash the FIR against the petitioner/Accused No.2 in Crime No.260/2024 of Respondent No.1 Basaveshwara Nagar PS registered for offences punishable under Section 406, 420 R/w 34 of IPC, which is pending on the file of the 4th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate court at Bengaluru in the ends of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for 1st respondent – State and perused the material on record. Though the notice of this petition has been served on 2nd respondent, she has chosen to remain unrepresented. Hence, service of notice is held sufficient. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.2 invited my attention to the complaint dated 11/07/2024 in order to point out that and entire allegations are directed only against accused No.1 who is alleged to have borrowed amount multiple times from the Complainant and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20005 CRL.P No. 8503 of 2024 has not paid back any amount till date. There is no specific allegation against the petitioner, except with respect to an amount of 2 lakhs borrowed, which the petitioner-Accused No 2 has repaid the said loan fully post the registration of FIR. It is further pointed out that the petitioner-accused No.2 had no role whatsoever in the alleged borrowing or non repayment of the other amounts as committed by accused No.1 and in the absence of necessary ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Section 406, 420 r/w 34 IPC, the impugned proceedings qua petitioner - accused No.2 deserves to be quashed. 4. Before adverting to the contentions urged by the petitioner, it would be apposite to refer to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd., & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. -2024 INSC 626, while dealing with the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and Section 406, wherein it is held as under:- “Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: - 1) deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission; - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20005 CRL.P No. 8503 of 2024 2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or 3) the consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omt; 26. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception. 27. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC, punishable under Section 406 of IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 of the IPC, Punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. 28. Every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence of criminal breach of trust unless there is evidence of manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation. An act of breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the person may seek his remedy for damages in civil courts but, any breach of trust with a mens rea, gives rise to a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20005 CRL.P No. 8503 of 2024 criminal prosecution as well. It has been held in Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha & Ors., reported in (1973) 2 SCC 823 as under: “4. We have heard Mr. Maheshwari on behalf of the appellant and are of the opinion that no case has been made out against the respondents under Section 420 Penal Code, 1860. For the purpose of the present appeal, we would assume that the various allegations of fact which have been made in the complaint by the appellant are correct. Even after making that allowance, we find that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence on the part of the respondents under Section 420 Penal Code, 1860. There is nothing in the complaint to show that the respondents had dishonest or fraudulent intention at the time the appellant parted with Rs. 35.000/- There is also nothing to indicate that the respondents induced the appellant to pay them Rs. 35,000/- by deceiving him. It is further not the case of the appellant that a representation was made, the respondents knew the same to be false. The fact that the respondents subsequently did not abide by their commitment that they would show the appellant to be the proprietor of Drang Transport Corporation and would also render accounts to him in the month of December might create civil liability on the respondents for the offence of cheating.” 29. To put it in other words, the case of cheating and dishonest intention starts with the very inception of the transaction. But in the case of criminal breach of trust, a person who comes into possession of the movable property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to his own use against the terms of the contract, then the question is, in a case like this, whether the retention is with dishonest intention or not, whether the retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would depend upon the facts of each case. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20005 CRL.P No. 8503 of 2024 5. In the instant case, the impugned complaint given by the 2nd respondent who is the complainant reads as under:- “F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è vÀAzÉ-zÉÆqÀØAiÀÄå, vÁ¬Ä-aPÀ̧¸ÀªÀÄä gÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 02 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝPÉÆAqÀÄ fêÀ£ÀPÁÌV UÀAUÁ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ C¤¯ï dÄåªÉ®gïì ¥ÁågÉqÉʸï JA§ MqÀªÉ CAUÀrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉïïìªÀŪÉÄ£ï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ¸ÀéAvÀ vÀªÀÄä£ÁzÀ ²æà £ÁUÀgÁdÄgÀªÀgÀ ¸ÉßûvÀgÁzÀ ¢£Éñï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä£ÉÆA¢UÉ DUÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, FUÉÎ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À »AzÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĪÁV, vÁ£ÀÄ ¥Éưøï PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 2020£Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ CPÉÆÖçgï wAUÀ½£À°è ¢£ÉñÀ£ÀÄ vÀ£Àß PÁ®Ä ªÀÄÄj¢zÀÄÝ, vÀ£Àß aQvÉìUÉ ºÀt ¨ÉÃPÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä PÀªÀįÁ£ÀUÀgÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¢£Éñï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV 2 ®PÀë gÀÆ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ 2020£Éà E¸À« £ÀªÉA§gï wAUÀ½£À°è ¢£Éñï gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ¸ÉÊmï «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ E£ÀßµÀÄÖ ºÀt ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÝjAzÀ, £À£Àß MqÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß CqÀªÀiÁ£À ElÄÖ, ¥ÀÅ£ÀB 4 ®PÀë gÀÆ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ 2023£Éà E¸À« ªÀiÁZïð wAUÀ½£À°è ¢£ÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀw ªÀĪÀÄvÁgÀªÀgÉà RÄzÁÝV £ÀªÀÄä ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ §AzÀÄ, vÀ£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ¤UÉ C£ÁgÉÆÃUÀå GAmÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸Á®¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £À¤ßAzÀ 02 ®PÀë gÀÆ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. C®èzÉà 2018 gÀ°èAiÉÄà £À£Àß vÀAzɬÄAzÀ 3 ®PÀë £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ 2021£Éà E¸À«AiÀÄ°è £À£Àß vÁ¬Ä¬ÄAzÀ 01 ®PÀë £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸Á®ªÁV ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÁªÀÅ ¤ÃrzÀ ¸Á®PÉÌ ¢£Éñï gÀªÀgÀÄ 1 ®PÀëzÀ 50 ¸Á«gÀzÀ gÀÆ £À - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20005 CRL.P No. 8503 of 2024 ¸ÉÖÃmï ¨ÁåAPï D¥üï EArAiÀiÁzÀ MAzÀÄ ZÉPï C£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, CzÀÄ ¨Ë£ïì DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¢£ÉÃ±ï ºÁUÀÆ ªÀĪÀÄvÁ gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ CAzÀgÉ 2018 jAzÀ 2023 £Éà E¸À«AiÀĪÀgÉUÉ MmÁÖgÉAiÀiÁV 12 ®PÀë gÀÆ £ÀUÀzÀÄ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£Éñï gÀªÀgÀ ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£É ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä ªÁ¸ÀzÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°èAiÀÄÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¢£ÉÃ±ï ºÁUÀÆ ªÀĪÀÄvÁ gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÀµÉÖà C®èzÉà £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀÜgÁzÀ, ¸ÉÆêÀıÉÃRgï, ªÉAPÀmÉñï, UÉÆæ, ªÀĺÁAvÉñï, ²ªÀ¥Àæ¸Ázï, ªÉÆúÀ£ï PÀĪÀiÁgï ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæ«Ãuï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ£ÀÆß ¸ÀºÀ £ÀA©¹ ¸Á®ªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆqÀzÉà ªÉÆøÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ E°èAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ £ÁªÀÅ ¤ÃrzÀ ºÀtzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. £ÀªÀÄä ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýzÀgÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¼ÀÄîvÁÛ £ÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß ¸ÀvÁ¬Ä¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¢£Éñï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ, zÁ¸À£À¥ÀÅgÀ ºÉÆç½, ªÀÄ®è¸ÀAzÀæ UÁæªÀÄzÀ C¸À¸ïªÉÄAmï-30/1 J ºÁUÀÆ 30/1 © F £ÀA§gï ¥ÉÊQ 58£Éà £ÀA§j£À GvÀÛgÁzsÀð ¨sÁUÀzÀ vÀ£Àß SÁ° ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß 08 ®PÀë gÀÆ UÀ½UÉ ±ÀÄzÀÝPÀæAiÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV PÀæAiÀÄ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ªÀĪÀÄvÁ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁV ¸À»AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, EzÉà ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ²æà ¸ÉÆêÀıÉÃRgï JA§ÄªÀªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ PÀæAiÀÄ PÀgÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀªÀÄUÉ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀA© EµÀÄÖ ¢£À zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉà F ¢£À vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀÄvÀÛzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÉ, £À£Àß vÀAzÉ- vÁ¬ÄAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ºÁUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄä¥ÀjZÀAiÀĸÀÜgÁzÀ ¸ÉÆêÀıÉÃRgï, ªÉAPÀmÉÃ±ï ªÀÄÆwð, UÉÆæ, ªÀĺÁAvÉñï, ²ªÀ¥Àæ¸Ázï, ªÉÆúÀ£ï, PÀĪÀiÁgï, ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï PÉ.Dgï. fUÉßÃ±ï ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæ«Ãuï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÀA©¹, £À«ÄäAzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆqÀzÉà ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20005 CRL.P No. 8503 of 2024 ¢£ÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀĪÀÄvÁ gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ.” 6. A plain reading of the allegations made in the complaint, even taken at its face value is sufficient to come to the conclusion to indicate the ingredients of constituting the offence of cheating under Sections 406, 420 r/w 34 of IPC are conspicuously absent in the complaint, which are attributed and directed only against accused No.1 who is beneficiary of the alleged fraud said to have been committed by him. It is also pertinent to note that during the course of alleged multiple borrowings which allegedly resulted in accused No.1 receiving huge sums of money from the Complainant, the petitioner had no role or control over the said borrowings, nor is there anything else to show that the petitioner conspired or acted in connivance or collusion with accused No.1 for cheating the complainant by borrowing huge sums of money multiple times and non-repayment of the said amounts by him. Under these circumstances, in the absence of any valid, legal or acceptable material to incriminate the petitioner for the alleged offences, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of proceedings against petitioner - accused No.2 would amount to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20005 CRL.P No. 8503 of 2024 abuse of process of law warranting interference in the present petition. 7. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings pursuant to the FIR in Crime No. 260/2024 pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, insofar as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19