- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1122 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. HARSHA R S/O. RAMACHANDRAMURTHY. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING NEAR GOPAL TECH INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL, LAKSHMIPURA, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 162. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVAMURTHY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2. SMT. RASHMI R D/O. H. RAMACHANDRAMURTHY, W/O. B. KANDAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT, 64/1. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 SHREE SAI PARADAISE, UTTARAHALLI MAIN ROAD, CHIKKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 061. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. ABHINAYA K., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE 1ST ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA IN P.C.R. NO. 348/2024 IN CRIME NO. 677/2024, REGISTERED BY THE MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406 AND 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the accused to quash the proceedings pending in PCR.No.348/2024 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala and the FIR registered in Crime No.677/2024 by the Madanayakanahalli Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. 2. The facts of the case are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 Respondent No.2/complainant has instituted a private complaint under Section 200 read with Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. alleging that her brother, the present petitioner/accused, has fraudulently created a document styled as a "Release Deed" in his favour by resorting to misrepresentation and without her consent. It is further alleged that in the said release deed, the petitioner/accused has recited payment of Rs.4 Crores to the complainant through eight cheques. The complainant asserts that the immovable property covered under the release deed is the absolute property of her father, late H. Ramachandra Murthy. On these allegations, the complainant has prayed for reference of the matter to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. 3. Acting upon the complaint, the learned Magistrate, in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., referred the matter to the jurisdictional police for investigation, pursuant to which Crime No.677/2024 came - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. 4. The petitioner/accused has approached this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings, contending that even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value, they do not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. According to the petitioner, the dispute, at its core, is civil in nature, and the attempt of the complainant to give it a criminal colour amounts to an abuse of process of law, warranting interference by this Court. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant seeks to justify the order of reference made by the learned Magistrate, contending that the matter is still under investigation and hence, no indulgence is called for at this stage. Learned HCGP also supports the order of the Magistrate referring the matter to police investigation. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the private complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The pleadings in O.S. No.5465/2024 instituted between the parties have also been examined. 7. Before adverting to the rival contentions, this Court finds it appropriate to extract paragraphs 3, 6, and 7 of the complaint, which read thus: "3. That the complainant and accused are brother and sister, the complainant father by name H Ramachandramurthy S/o Hanumanthappa is the absolute owner of the immovable property bearing Sy No.13, 3/3, 17/1, 18/2, 19, 20/4, 33/1, totally measuring of 10 Acre 30 Guntas and the above said land was granted by the Special Tahsildar under section 55(1) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 1961 and same is registered before the sub-registrar Nelamangala. The copy of the registered deed dated: 27.07.1982 is produced herewith and marked as Document No.1." "6. That the accused has shown different draft to the complainant but has dishonestly to defraud the complainant has got registered different document by playing fraud on the complainant. That the accused has prepared the document and by playing fraud on the complainant has created forged, fabricated, illegal, sham document titled Release Deed and got it registered by misrepresentation of facts and without consent of the complainant. The accused has dishonestly induced the complainant and her father to execute released by only in respect of Survey No. 13 measuring 2 Acre 39 Guntas but at the time of registration has clandestinely changed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 the draft and got the release deed in respect of all properties and deceived the complainant. 7. The complainant states that the accused has mentioned 8 cheque numbers in the release deed but the complainant has not received any amount from the complainant. The said fact clearly shows that the accused has played fraud on the complainant in order to knock off the property of the complainant and the accused has not given 8 cheques to the Complainant as mentioned in the Release Deed dated 31-07-2021. The copy of the Release deed is produced herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble court and marked as Document No.2." 8. This Court also deems it fit to extract the relief sought by respondent No.2/complainant in O.S.No.5465/2024. The prayer column is extracted, which reads as under: "A] Declare that the Plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share each in the suit schedule property; B] Declare that the Release Deed dated 31-07- 2021 registered in document No MDL-1-01890/2021- 2022 in the office of the sub register Madanayakanahalli Bangalore is obtained by Defendant No.2 by playing fraud and misrepresentation and the same is not binding on the share of the plaintiff and accordingly same is null & void. C] For means profits by holding an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 of Civil Procedure Code; D] Granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants their main, agents anybody acting on their behalf from interfering, alienating, transferring or - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 development of the Suit Schedule Property in any manner, in respect of undivided 1/3rd share of the Plaintiff and not to disturb the Plaintiff possession over the Suit Schedule Property in any manner; E] Such other relief's as the Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the circumstances of the case in the interest of equity and justice." 9. On perusal of the material on record, it is evident that in paragraph 3 of the private complaint, respondent No.2/complainant herself acknowledges that the property covered under the release deed is the self-acquired property of her father. However, in the plaint filed in O.S. No.5465/2024, she has taken a diametrically opposite stand by asserting that the very same properties are joint family ancestral properties and on such premise has sought partition and separate possession. In the said suit, respondent No.2 has also sought a declaration that the release deed dated 31.07.2021 has been obtained by the present petitioner/accused by playing fraud and misrepresentation on their father and therefore the same is not binding on her legitimate share. Once a comprehensive partition suit is pending consideration - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 before the competent civil Court, the allegations with respect to the validity of the release deed and whether the same is the result of fraud or misrepresentation, necessarily fall within the province of the civil Court. Unless fraud is established in accordance with law and unless respondent No.2 is able to substantiate that the properties covered under the release deed are joint family ancestral properties, contrary to what she has admitted in paragraph 3 of her own private complaint, the essential ingredients constituting the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are not made out. 10. A careful reading of paragraph 7 of the private complaint further discloses that respondent No.2 is also aggrieved on the ground that the alleged consideration amount of Rs.4 Crores, which is recited in the release deed as having been paid through eight cheques, has not been passed on to her. The grievance in relation to non- payment or non-receipt of consideration is again a matter which falls squarely within the domain of civil law. Such a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 grievance may at best give rise to a civil cause of action but cannot, by itself, constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC or cheating under Section 420 IPC. The settled position of law is that non- passing of consideration in a contractual transaction, absent any clear and cogent allegation of dishonest intention at inception, does not amount to a criminal offence. Hence, even on this score, the continuation of criminal proceedings is unsustainable. 11. A further circumstance that undermines the criminal allegations is that the release deed dated 31.07.2021 is executed and signed by the complainant’s father, Sri H. Ramachandra Murthy. The private complaint does not impute any act of deception, coercion, misrepresentation, or undue influence to the executant of the deed; nor is he arraigned as an accused. If fraud were indeed practiced to procure the release deed, the person allegedly deceived would necessarily be the executant. In the absence of any pleading that the father was deceived - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 at the inception, the indispensable elements of “deception” and “dishonest inducement” required for an offence under Section 420 IPC are conspicuously absent. Likewise, an offence under Section 406 IPC presupposes a specific entrustment by the complainant (or on her behalf) and dishonest misappropriation thereof; the complaint discloses neither entrustment to the petitioner nor breach of any fiduciary obligation. The selective arraignment of only the petitioner, who is merely the beneficiary under the deed, while sparing the executant and omitting foundational facts of inducement, fortifies the conclusion that the lis is essentially civil and that the criminal process is being invoked as an instrument of pressure in a dispute already sub judice in the comprehensive partition suit. 12. The proceedings are also liable to be quashed in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club v. State of U.P.1, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that the 1 (2024) 10 SCC 690 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot co-exist in the same factual matrix. The Court has further held that a mere breach of a civil obligation may at best furnish a cause of action for damages in civil law, but the same cannot be stretched into the realm of criminal law unless such breach is coupled with clear evidence of dishonest or fraudulent intention (mens rea) at the inception of the transaction. In the present case, the allegations made in the complaint, even if accepted at face value, do not disclose the existence of such mens rea. Therefore, the initiation of proceedings under both Sections 406 and 420 IPC is legally unsustainable. 13. In light of the conflicting stands taken by respondent No.2/complainant on the one hand, admitting in paragraph 3 of her private complaint that the properties in question are the self-acquired properties of her father, and on the other hand, claiming in the plaint filed in O.S. No.5465/2024 that they are joint family ancestral properties, the dispute clearly assumes the character of a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 purely civil dispute. Once respondent No.2 has already chosen to agitate her rights by filing a comprehensive suit for partition and separate possession, coupled with a prayer for declaration as to the invalidity of the release deed, the parallel initiation of criminal proceedings amounts to nothing but an attempt to exert pressure and arm-twist the petitioner by giving a civil dispute the colour of criminal prosecution. The element of cheating or fraudulent inducement cannot be examined unless respondent No.2 first establishes before the civil Court that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties and that the release deed was obtained by fraud. In the absence of such a finding, the allegations contained in paragraph 3 of the private complaint do not prima facie disclose any criminal offence. Consequently, the order of the learned Magistrate referring the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the resultant registration of crime in Crime No.677/2024 for offences punishable - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34490 CRL.P No. 1122 of 2025 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot be sustained in law. 14. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in Cr.No.677/2024 (PCR.No.348/2024) registered by Madanayakanahalli Police Station, pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Nelamangala for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC are hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2