- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6066 CRL.P No. 102054 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102054 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ALKHA THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: CONSULTANCY BUSINESS, GLOBAL FUTURE CONSULTANCY SCO 139-140, 2ND FLOOR, CABIN NO. 206-207, SECTOR-9C, DIST. CHANDIGARH, POST: CHANDIGARH – 160009. 2. SRI. MANPREET SINGH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: CONSULTANCY BUSINESS, GLOBAL FUTURE CONSULTANCY, SCO 139-140, 2ND FLOOR, CABIN NO. 206-207, SECTOR-9C, DIST: CHANDIGARH, POST: CHANDIGARH – 160009. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETAN T. LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, SPP OFFICE, Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6066 CRL.P No. 102054 of 2024 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD, THROUGH PSI, KUMTA POLICE STATION, UTTARA KANANDA (KARWAR), PIN – 581343. 2. SRI. AKHIL PARVEZ KHAN S/O. RAJE KHAN, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: SALESMAN, R/O: MUSLIM GALLI, POST: KUMTA, TQ: KUMTA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA, PIN: 581 343. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1; R2 – SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT AND FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 HEREIN IN KUMTA PS CR.NO.175/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC INSOFAR AS PRESENT PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, KUMTA IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6066 CRL.P No. 102054 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the complaint and FIR registered in Kumta P.S. Crime No.175/2023 for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short). 2. The respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against the petitioners and same came to be registered in Crime No.175/2023 of Kumta P.S. for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The gist of the complaint averments is that petitioners have contacted the complainant/respondent No.2 by collecting his Bio-data and thereafter the petitioners have explained about a job at abroad more particularly at Canada. The complainant has shown his interest towards work at Canada and has consented for further process and procedures and the petitioners have assisted him in getting a job. The petitioners have collected the processing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6066 CRL.P No. 102054 of 2024 fees and other documentation charges from the complainant in a sum of Rs.5,70,000/-. The petitioners cheated the complainant by not getting any job for him at abroad and committed offences alleged against them. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1-State. Inspite of service of notice, respondent No.2 remained absent and unrepresented. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners would contend that there are agreements between the petitioners and respondent No.2 with regard to they assisting him in applying for a job at Canada. The embassy of Canada has refused the application of respondent No.2 for Visa. The petitioners have performed their part of contract. Even if there is a breach of any terms of the contract, it is enforceable in Civil Court. The dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2 is of civil nature and it is given colour of criminal offence. On those points, he placed reliance on the following decisions: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6066 CRL.P No. 102054 of 2024 i. Sushil Sethi and Another V/s State of Arunachal Pradesh and others reported in (2020) 3 SCC 240 ii. Sri. Amit Garg V/s State of Karnataka and Another in Criminal Petition No.4856/2021 disposed off on 26.07.2022. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate would contend that the petitioners in the guise of getting a job for respondent No.2 in Canada have taken Rs.5,70,000/- and cheated him and they did not get him job at Canada. He further submits that the matter requires investigation and prayed for dismissal of the petition. 6. Having heard learned counsels, the Court has perused FIR, complaint and other materials placed on record. 7. The materials placed on record indicate that there are agreements between petitioners and respondent No.2 for assisting the respondent No.2 for applying and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6066 CRL.P No. 102054 of 2024 processing the application and getting a job at Canada. The allegation of respondent No.2 is that as agreed, the petitioners did not get him a job at Canada and cheated him. In case, there is a breach of terms of agreement, the respondent No.2 has to approach the Civil Court for enforcing the said agreements/contract. The document enclosed with the petition indicates that the Visa application of the respondent No.2 had been refused by Canada embassy. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Sethi and Another V/s State of Arunachal Pradesh and others (supra) has observed thus: 7.2 In Vesa Holdings (P) Ltd., it is observed and held by this Court that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. It is further observed and held that for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6066 CRL.P No. 102054 of 2024 promise or representation. It is further observed and held that even in a case where allegations are made in regard to failure on the part of the accused to keep his promise, in the absence of a culpable intention at the time of making initial promise being absent, no offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been made out. It is further observed and held that the real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose the criminal offence of cheating or not. 8. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri. Amit Garg V/s State of Karnataka and Another (supra) has observed thus: 17. The facts in the case at hand are identical to what fell for consideration before the Apex Court in the case of SUSHIL SETHI (supra). The contract between the parties or supply of inferior quality would undoubtedly come within the realm of civil proceedings of whatever nature the complainant would seek to initiate, but not registration of a crime. It is trite law that criminal law cannot be set into motion for recovery of money unless - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6066 CRL.P No. 102054 of 2024 the offence of cheating or even criminal breach of trust is established. The case at hand involves both incurable infirmities for setting criminal law in motion – one it is initiated for breach of contract and the other it is initiated for recovery of money. Therefore, further proceedings if permitted to continue against the petitioner, it would degenerate into harassment and result in miscarriage of justice, for which the case at hand becomes a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and obliterate the impugned proceedings. 9. The contract between the petitioners and respondent No.2 is with regard to the petitioners assisting the respondent No.2 in processing his application and getting a job at Canada. The Visa application of the respondent No.2 has been rejected by Canada embassy. On perusal of averments of the complaint indicate that the respondent No.2 has filed complaint in order to recover money paid by him to petitioners. It is tried law that criminal law cannot be set into motion for recovery of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6066 CRL.P No. 102054 of 2024 money unless the offence of cheating or even criminal breach of trust is established. The case at hand involves both incurable infirmities for setting criminal law into motion- one it is initiated for breach of contract and the other it is initiated for recovery of money. Therefore, further proceedings against the petitioners are abuse of process of law. 10. In the result, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The FIR and complaint registered against the petitioners in Kumta P.S Crime No.175/2023 for offence punishable under Sections 419, 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC are quashed. Sd/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE RKM/CT-ASC, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43