- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1313 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, V KALLAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562125. ALSO AT K.L SRINIVAS REDDY S/O LAGUMAYYA, R/AT NO.156, VALAGEREKALLAHALLI, DOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL, BENGALURU-562125. 2. NAGARATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, V KALLAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562125. ALSO AT NAGARATHNA, W/O GOPAREDDY, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 R/AT NO.223, SARJAPURA ROAD, VALAGEREKALLAHALLI, DOMMASANDRA, ANEKAL, BENGALURU-562125. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G S PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SARJAPURA PS, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. RAMESH BABU S/O LAKSHMAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT L54, 2ND B MAIN, 14TH CROSS, 6TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU- 560102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.16/2025 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT SARJAPURA P.S., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, FILED FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 506, 504, 406, 420, 34 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Cr.No.16/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 504, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The defacto complainant lodged the complaint with the jurisdictional police station alleging that the petitioners have collected an advance amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- by executing an agreement to sell in favour of the complainant in respect of the land bearing Survey No.53 measuring 1.12 acres. Respondent No.2/complainant alleges that petitioners have collected huge amount by suppressing earlier agreement and sale deed executed in favour of M/s.Dreams Infra India Pvt. Ltd. The complainant has also alleged that on verifying the records, more particularly, RTCs, the property now vests with the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 Government. Complainant also alleges that inspite of repeated demand, the petitioners have not returned the money and on the contrary, have used abusive language disputing payment of advance sale consideration of Rs.1,25,00,000/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds has placed reliance on additional documents produced before this Court to demonstrate that petitioners have not conveyed the property in favour of M/s. Dreams Infra India Pvt. Ltd. Placing reliance on Clause (4), it is contended that the agreement contemplated that the transaction should be completed within two months and this agreement is of the year 2012 and therefore, question of suppressing an agreement does not arise. While countering the complainant's claim that now the property is vested with the Government, petitioners have placed reliance on the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.21898/2023 wherein the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 State authorities are restrained from taking any coercive action without the leave of the Court. 4. Petitioners' counsel has relied on the following judgments: 1. 2024 scc online sc 2311 - Radheysham & Ors Vs State of Raj & Ors; 2. 2025 INSC 917 - S.N.Vijayalakshmi & Ors Vs State of Kar & Another; 3. (2023)20 SCC 209 - Haji Iqbal Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors; 4. (2023) 6 SCC 109 - Kunti & Another Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Another 5. (2009) 14 SCC 696 - Dalip Kaur & Ors Vs Jagnar & Another; 6. (2005) 13 SCC 699 - Murari Lal Gupta Vs Gopi Singh; 7. (2009) 3 SCC 78 - V.Y Jose & Another Vs State of Gujarat & Another. 5. Conversely, learned Senior Counsel referring to the allegations in the complaint would vehemently argue and contend that the mere suppression of earlier transaction in the context of the magnitude of advance - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 sale consideration paid by the complainant makes out a case under Section 406, 420 of IPC and therefore, this is a fit case for investigation and therefore, no indulgence is warranted at this juncture. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments: 1. I.S. Sikandar (D) by LRS. & ORS. V/s. K. Subramani And Others In - 2013 (15) SCC 27 6. Learned HCGP has strongly resisted granting of any indulgence at this stage and requests this Court to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel on record, this Court has given its anxious consideration to the averments in the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. Before this Court proceeds further, it is apposite to extract the relevant portion of the complaint: "ೋಾಲ ೆ ಮತು ೕಾಸ ೆ ರವರು ಆೇಕ ಾಲೂಕು, ಸಾಪ ರ !ೋಬ#, $. ಕಲಹ#' ಾಮದ ಸೆ ನಂಬ+ 53 ರ,ನ 1 ಎಕ ೆ 12 ಗುಂ/ೆ ಜ1ೕನನು2 3: ೕ45 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 ಇ£Áàç ಇಂ. ೆ7. ,. ರವ8ೆ 9ಾ ಾಟ 9ಾ ಅವ8ಂದ ಹಣವನು2 ಪ=ೆದು>ೊಂಡು ನನೆ ವಂಚೆ 9ಾ Aೕಸ 9ಾಡುವ ಉCೆDೕಶFಂದ ಜ1ೕನನು2 9ಾ ಾಟ 9ಾ ರುವ $Gಾರವನು2 ನನೆ H#ಸCೇ ಮುIJಟುK, ನ2ಂದ 1,25,00,000 ರೂ. ಗಳನು2 ಪ=ೆದು>ೊಂಡು Mೇ ಅN3ಂO 9ಾ >ೊPKರುಾ ೆ. ಈ $Gಾರ ೊಾದ ನಂತರ ೕಾR ೆ , Sೇ. ೋಾಲ ೆ ರವರ !ೆಂಡH ೕಮH, ಾಗರತ2ಮT ರವರನು2 $Gಾರ 9ಾ Cಾಗ ಹಣವನು2 ಾಪಸು5 >ೊಡುವ CಾN !ೇ#>ೊಂಡು ಬರುHದುD, ಇHೕGೆೆ ಇವರನು2 ಹಣವನು2 ಾಪಸು5 >ೊಡುವಂೆ >ೇ#Cಾಗ ಇಬUರು ನನೆ VಾWೆ ಬಂದಂೆ Vೈದು, ನೆ Yಾವ ಹಣ >ೊಡVೇ>ಾNಲ, ಇೊ2ಂದು ಸಲ ಹಣವನು2 >ೇ#ದ ೆ ನ2ನು2 MಾWZ ಇಲದಂೆ 9ಾ [ಡುೇೆಂದು ಾಣ Vೆದ8>ೆಯನು2 !ಾ]ರುಾ ೆ, ೕಾಸ ೆ ಮತು Sೇ. ೋಾಲ ೆ ರವರ !ೆಂಡH ೕಮH. ಾಗರತ2ಮT ರವರ 3ೕSೆ >ಾನೂನು 8ೕHಯ ಕಮ ಜರುNಸVೇ>ೆಂದು >ೋ8 ಇಾ^F" 8. The complainant has tried to make out a case of cheating on the ground that petitioners have conveyed the property in favour of M/s.Dreams Infra India Pvt. Ltd. However, on closer examination of the memorandum of understanding(MOU), which is produced by the petitioners reveals that it is a joint development agreement entered in 2012 and clause (4) of the MOU mandates that the MOU will be in force between the parties only for a period of two - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 months or the completion of the entire transaction whichever is earlier. Clause(4) of the MOU would be relevant and therefore, for easy reference the same is extracted, which reads as under: "4. DURATION: It is mutually agreed that the MOU will be in force between the parties for a period of 2 months or the completion of the entire transaction whichever is earlier" 9. It would be also apposite to take cognizance of the interim order granted by this Court in W.P.No.21898/2023, which would have a bearing on the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Interim order is extracted, which reads as under: "Learned AGA is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 and 4. Sri. Veeresh Budihal, learned counsel is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is directed to serve a copy of the petition papers upon the aforesaid learned counsel, forthwith. List this matter immediately after Winter Vacation, 2023. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 Till such time, the respondents are restrained from taking any coercive action qua the property of the petitioner, without leave of the Court. " 10. On meticulous examination of the extracted portion of the complaint, clause(4) of the MOU followed by the interim order granted by this Court relating to the mutation indicating that the land stands vested with the Government, two crucial points would emerge for consideration at the hands of this Court. Firstly, whether respondent No.2 could have launched criminal prosecution under Section 420 of IPC, when the dispute is essentially civil in nature. Secondly, even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted in entirety, whether the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. are made out. 11. On examining the extracted portion of the complaint, it is clearly evident that this complaint is lodged as the accused persons declined to repay the advance amount paid under the agreement to sell. Therefore, the dispute essentially is civil in nature and therefore, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 payment of advance amount of Rs.1,25,00,000/- cannot be recovered by adopting the arm twisting tactics that too by using police machinery. 12. Even on merits, if the allegations are accepted at its face value, the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. are made out. To make out an offence of cheating, the accused should be proved to have made to the complainant a statement which he knew to be a false statement. The element of dishonest or fraudulent intention should be gathered from the statement. In the present case, it has to be gathered from the recitals in the agreement to sell. Mere deception or mere dishonesty is not a criminal offence. In between the two, there may lie a thin line of breach of contract for which the remedy lies before the civil Court. 13. The culled out extract of the interim order granted by this Court further strengthens the petitioners' stand that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. The - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 fact that the petitioners have secured interim order at the hands of this Court obviously sustains the validity of the agreement to sell obtained by the complainant. Therefore, on mere bald allegations that the disputed property is already sold to M/s.Dreams Infra India Pvt. Ltd.company not supported by title documents indicating actual conveyance does not constitute any offence. 14. In the light of these significant details, this Court is of the view that respondent No.2 has made a feeble attempt in taking a short cut method to recover the money using the police machinery, which is impermissible in law. Unfortunately, the police officials also have entertained a dispute which is essentially civil in nature and therefore, warrants interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37726 CRL.P No. 1313 of 2025 ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in Cr.No.16/2025 registered by respondent No.1/Sarjapura Police Station, Bengaluru Rural District, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District, for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC., are hereby quashed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48