- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1580 CRL.P No. 100590 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100590 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHRI. MANJUNATH CHOURAGUDDA S/O. LATE HUCHHAPPA, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE WITH SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE COMPANY, R/O. TAMBUR VILLAGE, TAL. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD, KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHREEVATSA HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY HCGP. 2. SHRI. NARAYANSWAMI S/O. SOMAPPA AGE. 53 YEARS, R/O. GOLEMMANGUDI VILLAGE, TAL. HOSPET, DIST. BELLARY-583201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.836/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HOSAPET, TALUK HOSPET, DISTRICT BELLARY, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.30 11:52:45 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1580 CRL.P No. 100590 of 2022 ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who is facing prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has filed this petition before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2 – complainant had borrowed a loan for the purchase of a Jeep. Upon defaulting on the repayment of the loan amount, he decided to sell the vehicle to accused No.2. Accordingly, he entered into an understanding with accused Nos.1 and 2 to park the vehicle in the yard of the petitioner. 3. On 25.02.2013, the petitioner (accused No.1), without the complainant’s consent, allegedly released the vehicle to accused No.2. Subsequently, the vehicle met with an accident on 07.03.2013 and was seized by the jurisdictional police. A claim petition was filed for just and proper compensation in MVC No.1211/2013 and other connected claims. In the said petition, the Respondent no.2 has been made liable to pay compensation of Rs.33 lakhs. 4. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2 (the complainant) has neither appeared in person nor through counsel and is therefore placed ex parte. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 – State. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1580 CRL.P No. 100590 of 2022 6. Admittedly, the subject vehicle was hypothecated to the petitioner. Since respondent No.2 was unable to repay the loan, he sought the petitioner’s consent to sell the vehicle to accused No.2. Subsequently, accused No.2 applied for a loan to purchase the vehicle, and the complainant’s loan account was closed. The vehicle was released in favor of accused No.2 based on an undertaking executed by accused No.1 and the complainant, as evidenced by documents at Annexures-D and D1. The undertaking was executed on 25.02.2013, while the accident occurred on 07.03.2013. 7. Following the accident, respondent No.2 filed a complaint along with an application seeking the release of the vehicle, claiming to be its owner. Based on his application, the vehicle was released to the complainant. Even if the vehicle was released to accused No.2 without the complainant’s consent, it would amount to a breach of the terms of the undertaking executed between the parties. Such a breach does not constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of IPC. 8. To constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, it is essential to establish a specific overt act indicating that, at the time of entering into the undertaking, the petitioner had the intention to deceive the complainant. In the present case, the dispute between the parties arises out of a breach of the terms of the undertaking and has been given a criminal texture to exert undue pressure on the petitioner for a settlement. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1580 CRL.P No. 100590 of 2022 9. In light of the above, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.836/2018 pending on the file of the learned II Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapet, Tal: Hospet, District Bellary insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused No.1 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49