- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 29255 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. PRAVEEN R., AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS SON OF MR RAMACHANDRA K.C. RESIDING AT 3, 1ST CROSS 22ND MAIN BEHIND BTS GARAGE DVK GARDEN, VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 040 KARNATAKA, INDIA 2. BASAVARAJAPPA P AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RESIDING AT KANNADA KUTEERA APARTMENTS NO.511/9, 3RD FLOOR 11TH CROSS, NAGAPURA MAIN ROAD WEST OF CHORD ROAD, II STAGE MAHALAKSHMIPURAM LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 086 KARNATAKA -INDIA WRONGLY SHOWN IN FIR AS BASAVARAJ 3. MANISH KUMAR BANSAL AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS SON OF MR. RAMESH KUMAR BANSAL RESIDING AT B 1703 RUSTOMJEE ORIANA KALANAGAR BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI - 400 051 MAHARASHTRA, INDIA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHRAVANTH ARYA TANDRA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 AND: 1. STATE BY DEVARAJEEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION 3, SURVEY NO.4, MUNIMARAPPA BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR DEVARA JEEVANAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 045 REPRESENTED THROUGH SPP 2. MR. BASAVALINGSWAMY SON OF MR.CHANDRASHEKARAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT VILLA NO.181, ADARSH VISTA, BASAVANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 037 KARNATAKA, INDIA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1 R-2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT BEARING NO.0062/2023 DATED 18.03.2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 409, 420, 506 AND 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 OF THE R1 ANNEXURE-A AND ALL CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARISING THEREFROM THAT HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT DATED 18.03.2023 ANNEXURE-B PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONERS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners seeks the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of certiorari and/or a direction and/or an order or any other appropriate writ to Quash the First Information Report bearing No.0062/2023 dated 18.03.2023 for the offences punishable under Section 409, section 420, Section 506 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 of the Respondent No.1 (Annexure-A) and all consequent proceeding arising therefrom that have been initiated on the basis of a complainant dated 18.03.2023 (Annexure- B) pending on the files of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City in favour of the petitioner; and ii. Pass any other order as this Hon'ble Court deem fit in the interest of justice. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. Respondent No.2/complainant having been served with notice has chosen to unrepresented before this Court and not contested the petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the impugned complaint does not contained necessary ingredients so as to constitute offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 & 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the petitioners, who have been illegally arraigned as accused Nos.2, 3 & 4 in the impugned complaint. It is submitted that the dispute, if any, between the petitioners and respondent No.2/complainant is purely civil in nature and the same cannot be given a criminal colour by resorting to filing the present false and frivolous complaint, continuation of proceedings against the petitioners would tantamount to abuse of process of law warranting interference in the present petition. In support of the submission, leaned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following judgments. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 i) Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of West Bengal.1 ii) Santhosh Chinnappa Reddy Tulasiram, s/o Mr.Tulasiram Chinnappa Reddy, Bengaluru vs. State of Karnataka.2 iii) Deepak Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Chhattisgarh.3 4. As stated supra, respondent No.2 having been served in this matter and has chosen to unrepresented before this Court and does not contested the petition. 5. In the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai vs. State of West Bengal, as stated supra the Hon'ble Apex Court held in para No.42 as under: 42. The order of the High Court is seriously flawed due to the fact that in its interim order dated 24.03.2017, it was observed that the contentions put forth by the Appellant vis-à-vis two complaints being filed on the same cause of action at different places but the impugned order overlooks the said aspect and there was no finding on that issue. At the same time, in order to attract the ingredients of Section of 406 and 420 IPC it is imperative on the part of the complainant to prima facie establish that there was an intention on part of the petitioner and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from the inception. Furthermore it has to be prima facie 1 AIRONLINE 2022 SC 380 2 AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 3377 3 AIRONLINE 2024 SC 88 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 established that due to such alleged act of cheating the complainant (Respondent No. 2 herein) had suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused(appellant herein). In absence of these elements, no proceeding is permissible in the eyes of law with regard to the commission of the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. It is apparent that the complaint was lodged at a very belated stage (as the entire transaction took place from January 2008 to August 2009, yet the complaint has been filed in March 2013 i.e., after a delay of almost 4 years) with the objective of causing harassment to the petitioner and is bereft of any truth whatsoever. 6. In the case of Santhosh Chinnappa Reddy Tulasiram, s/o Mr.Tulasiram Chinnappa Reddy, Bengaluru vs. State of Karnataka, as stated supra, the Co-ordinate of Bench of this Court held in para Nos. 17, 18 & 19 as under: 17. It is not that the relationship of the petitioners turned sore immediately. The petitioners and the complainant have been in the business for close to 5 years. If it was a case of inducement or cheating, the business could not have gone on between the petitioners and the complainant for such a long time. There are plethora of correspondences between the complainant and the petitioners and vice-versa with regard to payment of certain amount and its dispute. Nowhere in the complaint the complainant has alleged - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 that he was lured into the business or cheated by way of inducement by the petitioners for investment, if any, in the firm of the petitioners. Therefore, it is a clear case where the dispute with regard to money transaction between the complainant and the petitioners is given a colour of crime. Nowhere the complaint drives home the allegations for offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 384 or 420 of the IPC. 18. Criminal law cannot be used to settle the alleged dues between the parties, as setting a criminal law in motion is a serious matter and it cannot be used by the complainant to settle his personal scores. Therefore, in the light of the facts obtaining, as narrated hereinabove, in the case at hand, and in the light of the complaint not linking any event that forms part of FIR, the proceedings are rendered unsustainable, as it is purely a matter of contract between the parties, where offences as alleged cannot even be linked to the transaction between the parties to attract criminal law. 19. The view of mine, in this regard, is in tune with the judgments of the Apex Court right from the case of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHRES v. BHAJANLAL AND OTHERS to the latest judgment in the case of JASWANT SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 & ANOTHER. The Apex Court in the case of BHAJANLAL4 has held as follows: “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” (Emphasis supplied) and in the latest judgment in the case of JASWANT SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER , wherein the Apex Court holds as follows: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 "15. The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process of any Court and also to secure the ends of justice. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis that inherent powers should be exercised in a given and deserving case where the Court is satisfied that exercise of such power would either prevent abuse of such power or such exercise would result in securing the ends of justice. In the case of S.W. Palanitkar and others. v. State of Bihar and another ((2002) 1 SCC 241), Shivraj V Patil, J., in paragraph 27 of the report, has laid similar emphasis. The same is reproduced below: “Para 27: .......whereas while exercising power under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to look at the object and purpose for which such power is conferred on it under the said provision. Exercise of inherent power is available to the High Court to give effect to any order under CrPC, or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This being the position, exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC should be consistent with the scope and ambit of the same in the light of the decisions aforementioned. In appropriate cases, to prevent judicial process from being an instrument of oppression or harassment in the hands of frustrated or vindictive litigants, exercise of inherent power is not only desirable but necessary also, so that the judicial forum of court may not be allowed to be utilized for any oblique motive. When a person approaches the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the very issue of process, the High Court on the facts and circumstances of a case has to exercise the powers with circumspection as stated above to - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 really serve the purpose and object for which they are conferred.” 16. A seven-Judge Bench in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao vs State of Karnataka ((2002) 4 SCC 578), also laid down the same principles for use of the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in a case where the Court was convinced that such exercise was necessary for whatever reason in order to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice. Lahoti,J., speaking for him- self and Bharucha, Quadri, Santosh Hegde, Ruma Pal and Arijit Pasayat,JJ., observed as follows in paragraph 21: “Para 21. “... In appropriate cases, inherent power of the High Court, under Section 482 can be invoked to make such orders, as may be necessary, to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure or to prevent abuse of the process of any court, or otherwise, to secure the ends of justice. The power is wide and, if judiciously and consciously exercised, can take care of almost all the situations where interference by the High Court becomes necessary on account of delay in proceedings or for any other reason amounting to oppression or harassment in any trial, inquiry or proceedings. In appropriate cases, the High Courts have exercised their jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of first information report and investigation, and terminating criminal proceedings if the case of abuse of process of law was clearly made out. Such power can certainly be exercised on a case being made out of breach of fundamental right conferred by Article 21 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench in A.R. Antulay case referred to such power, vesting in the High Court (vide paras 62 and 65 of its judgment) and held that it - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 was clear that even apart from Article 21, the courts can take care of undue or inordinate delays in criminal matters or proceedings if they remain pending for too long and putting an end, by making appropriate orders, to further proceedings when they are found to be oppressive and unwarranted.”” 17. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gian Singh vs State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 again summarized the legal position which emerged regarding powers of the High Court in quashing criminal proceedings in exercise of power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. R.M. Lodha, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Bench, clearly observed in paragraph 61 of the report that criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. The relevant extract from paragraph 61 is reproduced below: “61. The position that emerges from the above discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power viz.: (i) to secure the ends of justice, or (in) to prevent abuse of the process of any court. In what cases power to quash the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 be exercised where the offender and the victim have settled their dispute would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim's family and the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not private in nature and have a serious impact on society. Similarly, any compromise between the victim and the offender in relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, etc.; cannot provide for any basis for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly civil flavour stand on a different footing for the purposes of quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, the High Court may quash the criminal proceedings if in its View, because of the compromise between the offender and the victim, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of the criminal case would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to him by not - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 quashing the criminal case despite full and complete settlement and compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise between the victim and the wrongdoer and whether to secure the ends of justice, it is appropriate that the criminal case is put to an end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in the affirmative, the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the criminal proceeding.” 18. A three-Judge Bench of this Court in Parbatbhai Aahir Alias Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others v. State Gujarat and others ((2017) 9 SCC 641) laid down the broad principles for exercising the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud,J., speaking for the bench, enumerated the principles in paragraph 16 and in sub paragraphs. The same are reproduced below: “16. The broad principles which emerge from the precedents on the subject, may be summarised in the following propositions: 16.1. Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent an abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice. The provision does not confer new powers. It only recognises and preserves powers which inhere in the High Court. 16.2. The invocation of the jurisdiction of the High Court to quash a first information report or a criminal proceeding on the - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 ground that a settlement has been arrived at between the offender and the victim is not the same as the invocation of jurisdiction for the purpose of compounding an offence. While compounding an offence, the power of the court is governed by the provisions of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The power to quash under Section 482 is attracted even if the offence is non-compoundable. 16.3. In forming an opinion whether a criminal proceeding or complaint should be quashed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482, the High Court must evaluate whether the ends of justice would justify the exercise of the inherent power. 16.4. While the inherent power of the High Court has a wide ambit and plenitude it has to be exercised (0) to secure the ends of justice, or ) to prevent an abuse of the process of any court. 16.5. The decision as to whether a complaint or first information report should be quashed on the ground that the offender and victim have settled the dispute, revolves ultimately on the facts and circumstances of each case and no exhaustive elaboration of principles can be formulated. 16.6. In the exercise of the power under Section 482 and while dealing with a plea that the dispute has been settled, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and gravity of the offence. Heinous and serious offences involving mental depravity or offences such as murder, rape and dacoity cannot appropriately be quashed though the victim or the family of the victim have settled the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 dispute. Such offences are, truly speaking, not private in nature but have a serious impact upon society. The decision to continue with the trial in such cases is founded on the overriding element of public interest in punishing persons for serious offences. 16.7. distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute. They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned. 16.8. Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute. 16.9. In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice; and 16.10. There is yet an exception to the principle set out in propositions 16.8, and 16.9. above. Economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between private disputants. The High Court would be justified in declining to quash where the offender is involved in an activity akin to a financial or economic fraud or misdemeanour. The consequences of the act complained of upon the financial or economic system will weigh in the balance.” - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 19. From the above discussion on the settled legal principles, it is clear from the facts of the present case that there was a clear abuse of the process of the Court and further that the Court had a duty to secure the ends of justice. We say so for the following reasons: a) The allegations made in the FIR had an overwhelmingly and predominatingly a civil flavour inasmuch as the complainant alleged that he had paid money to Gurmeet Singh, the main accused to get employment for his son abroad. If Gurmeet Singh failed the complainant could have filed a suit for recovery of the amount paid for not fulfilling the promise. b) Initially, the investigating officer and two superior officers of the economic wing has found that there is no substance in the complaint making out even a prima facie triable case and had therefore, recommended for closure. However, on the orders of the Senior Superintendent of Police, the FIR was registered and the matter was investigated. No criminal breach of trust was found and the charge sheet was submitted only against Gurmeet Singh under section 420 I.P.C. c) The complainant Nasib Singh had clearly deposed that he had paid Rs 4 lacs cash to Gurmeet Singh and had also given a cheque of Rs 2 lacs favouring Gurmeet Singh which he had encashed. d) During trial the present appellant as also the other co-accused Gurpreet Singh were summoned in April 2014 invoking powers of Section 319 Cr.P.C., for being tried under Section 420 I.P.C. It may be noted that no specific allegations of - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 cheating are made against these two accused as they were both settled abroad in Italy. e) The complainant Nasib Singh entered into a compromise with the main accused Gurmeet Singh which was filed before the learned Magistrate and the same was accepted vide order dated 26.09.2014 and the alleged offence being of financial transaction stood compounded. Proceedings against Gurmeet Singh were closed. f) Right from 2014, the present appellant and other co-accused Gurpreet Singh who were in Italy were being summoned by the Court. The appellant was declared proclaimed offender. The appellant applied before the High Court challenging the order declaring him proclaimed offender and also filed a 482 Cr.P.C. petition for quashing of the proceedings wherein, he also filed the compounding order of 26.09.2014. g) The High Court merely perused the FIR and noting the fact that the name of the appellant was mentioned in the FIR, declined to exercise the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 20. In our considered view, the High Court erred in firstly not considering the entire material on record and further in not appreciating the fact that the dispute, if any, was civil in nature and that the complainant had already settled his score with the main accused Gurmeet Singh against whom the proceedings have been closed as far back as - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 26.09.2014. In this scenario, there remains no justification to continue with the proceedings against the appellant." (Emphasis supplied) 7. In the case of Deepak Kumar Shrivas vs. State of Chhattisgarh, the Hon'ble Apex Court, as held in para Nos.12, 13, 14 15 & 16 is held as under: 12. According to the allegations made in the FIR, the job was to be provided by the appellant within three months of April, 2019 i.e. by July, 2019. However, the respondent no.6 did not take any action for a period of three years till July, 2022 when the FIR in question was lodged. Thus, the FIR suffers from a serious delay of three years which is totally unexplained. 13. A reading of the entire material on record clearly reflects that it was totally an unlawful contract between the parties where money was being paid for securing a job in the government department(s) or private sector. Apparently, a suit for recovery could not have been filed for the said purpose and even if it could be filed, it could be difficult to establish the same where the payment was entirely in cash. Therefore, the respondent no.6 found out a better medium to recover the said amount by building pressure on the appellant and his brother by lodging the FIR. Under the threat of criminal prosecution, maybe the appellant would - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 have tried to sort out and settle the dispute by shelving out some money. 14. In conclusion, certain key observations from the factual matrix warrant a closer reflection. Prima facie, the conduct exhibited by the parties involved appears tainted with suspicion, casting a shadow over the veracity of their claims. The report from the previous inquiry reflects a convoluted landscape and unveils a trail of unethical, maybe even criminal, behaviour from both parties. The unexplained inordinate delay in bringing these allegations to the police’s attention despite knowledge of previous inquiry, raises even more doubts and adds a layer of scepticism to the authenticity of the claims. The facts stated, as well as the prior inquiry, reveal a shared culpability between the parties, indicative of a complex web of deceit, and unethical transactions where even civil remedies may not be sustainable. Thus, the object of this dispute, manifestly rife with mala fide intentions of only recovering the tainted money by coercion and threat of criminal proceedings, cannot be allowed to proceed further and exploit the time and resources of the law enforcement agency. 15. As parting suggestions, it becomes imperative to state that the police should exercise heightened caution when drawn into dispute pertaining to such unethical transactions between private parties which appear to be prima facie contentious in light of previous inquiries or investigations. The need for vigilance on the part of the police is paramount, and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse the pursuit - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 of justice. This case exemplifies the need for a circumspect approach in discerning the genuine from the spurious and thus ensuring that the resources of the state are utilised for matters of true societal import. 16. For all the reasons recorded above, we are of the view that such criminal prosecution should not be allowed to continue where the object to lodge the FIR is not for criminal prosecution and for punishing the offender for the offence committed but for recovery of money under coercion and pressure and also for all the other reasons stipulated above. 8. In the instant case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, impugned complaint does not make out any cognizable offences committed by the petitioners and purely civil disputes have been sought to be given a criminal colour and as such, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would tantamount to abuse of process of law warranting interference in the present petition. 9. Accordingly, I pass following order. O R D E R (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:615 WP No. 29255 of 2023 (ii) Proceedings in Crime No.62/2023 pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupatunga Road, Bangalore City stand quashed qua the petitioners. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE ASN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 12