- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29661 CRL.P No. 6913 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6913 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. JAYARAMU .R S/O LATE V. RAMKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/AT NO.1132, 1ST CROSS PADUVANA ROAD, T.K.LAYOUT MYSURU DISTRICT-577 235. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LETHIF .B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUVEMPUNAGAR POLICE STATION MYSORE DISTRICT REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. 2. NOOR SABIHA BANU C/O S.P. AHMED KHAN AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT NO. 1, NEW NO.22 6TH CROSS, SHIVAJI ROAD N R MOHALLA, MYSORE- 570007. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29661 CRL.P No. 6913 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.3637/2018 OF KUVEMPUNAGARA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF I.P.C ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, MYSORE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.3637/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Mysore. 2. The respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint alleging that, upon noticing an advertisement published in the newspaper wherein one Nimish Wealth Management Private Limited, owned by R. Jayaram, was offering financial advice pertaining to savings and investment matters, she came into contact with the said company and its representatives. Pursuant to the advice and upon receiving instructions, respondent No.2 claims to have - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29661 CRL.P No. 6913 of 2024 initially invested a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in the company, on the assurance that she would receive a 5% return on investment per month. It is further alleged that in the year 2015, the accused once again persuaded respondent No.2 to make an additional investment. Acting upon such representations, respondent No.2 asserts that she invested a further sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in cash, which was generated by selling property owned by her daughter. 3. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that despite investing a considerable amount, she did not receive any returns. Upon repeated visits to the office of the accused and persistent demands for repayment, the petitioner/accused is said to have issued a cheque towards repayment of the invested amount. However, the said cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured with the endorsement "insufficient funds." Based on these allegations, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional Police Station, which led to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29661 CRL.P No. 6913 of 2024 registration of a case in Crime No.78/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in C.C. No.3637/2018, primarily on the ground that the dispute, being civil in nature, is amenable to resolution before a competent Civil Court. It is contended that respondent No.2 has an efficacious remedy for recovery of the amount allegedly invested. Further, the petitioner submits that parallel proceedings cannot be maintained for the same cause of action, especially when proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act have also been initiated in respect of the dishonoured cheque. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated pursuant to the registration of FIR. 5. This Court, having heard the learned counsel on record, had granted an interim order on 05.08.2024, thereby staying the proclamation order. However, upon a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29661 CRL.P No. 6913 of 2024 more detailed consideration of the records, it emerges that the interim order was secured by the petitioner on the premise that the proclamation order had been issued against him. Significantly, in the present petition, the petitioner has not challenged the proclamation order per se, but instead seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.3637/2018 on the ground that the dispute raised by respondent No.2 is of a purely civil nature and therefore does not warrant criminal prosecution. 6. On perusal of the records, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly conceded that respondent No.2 has not initiated any proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. In particular, no private complaint has been filed under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the N.I. Act, even though the cheque allegedly issued by the petitioner was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29661 CRL.P No. 6913 of 2024 7. In the backdrop of these admitted facts, this Court finds it appropriate to examine the nature of the grounds urged in the petition. A careful reading of paragraph 8 of the petition reveals that the petitioner has taken a categorical stand that the most efficacious remedy available to respondent No.2 is to approach the competent civil court for redressal of her grievance. Such an averment clearly suggests that the petitioner is not seriously denying the issuance of the cheque or the factum of financial transaction. Even assuming that the petitioner now seeks to dispute the issuance or genuineness of the cheque, such a contention raises disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and must necessarily be examined during trial after recording of evidence. 8. Furthermore, the core allegation made by the complainant is that, under the guise of rendering financial advice, the petitioner induced her to invest a substantial sum of Rs.10,00,000/- by making false assurances of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29661 CRL.P No. 6913 of 2024 monthly returns. The amount was allegedly invested by the complainant by selling property owned by her daughter. Such a serious allegation of inducement and cheating, if proven, would clearly attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The assertion that the transaction is purely civil in nature, therefore, cannot be accepted at this stage without a full-fledged trial. It is a settled principle of law that where the allegations in the complaint, on their face, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the proceedings cannot be interdicted merely because there may also be a civil dimension to the dispute. The attempt of the petitioner to give the dispute a purely civil colour and thereby seek quashing of the proceedings is, in the opinion of this Court, misconceived. The grounds urged in the petition fall short of justifying the invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.3637/2018. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29661 CRL.P No. 6913 of 2024 9. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the petition. The same is liable to be, and is hereby, dismissed. 10. However, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present order are only for the purpose of deciding the prayer for quashing and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The burden of establishing the allegations made in the complaint lies entirely upon respondent No.2, and the same shall be substantiated during the course of the trial. The learned trial Judge shall proceed independently and uninfluenced by any observations made herein. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39