1 Reserved on : 26.06.2025 Pronounced on : 13.08.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.11231 OF 2023 (GM - RES) BETWEEN: MR. PRUTHVI HONNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS S/O SRI M.HONNEGOWDA R/AT NO.85, MAYURI 1ST MAIN ROAD GURU RAGHAVENDRA NAGAR OPP. RBI LAYOUT J.P.NAGAR, 7TH PHASE BENGALURU – 560 078. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BAGALUR POLICE STATION BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR BENGALURU – 562 149 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2 BENGALURU. 2 . STATE OF KARNATAKA AMRUTHAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU – 560 092 BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU. 3 . SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE SRI B.LAKSHMANA GUPTA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.1188, 13TH FLOOR FLAT NO.002, 35TH ‘C’ CROSS JAYANAGAR ‘T’ BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 041. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI PRASANNA B. R., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R.NO. 210/2021 DTD 03/11/2021 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT POLICE AND COMPLAINT DATED 03/11/2021 GIVEN BY R-3 WHICH IS ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-A AND B PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 34, 120B, 323, 380, 406, 420, 447, 465, 468 AND 471 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860. 3 THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 26.06.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER Petitioner/accused No. 3 is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No. 210 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447, 380, 323, 465, 468, 471, 120-B & 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent 3. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: - 3.1. A particular land in Sy.No.35 of Sathnuru Village, Jala Hobli, measuring 19 acres 10 guntas was purchased by a 4 partnership firm, M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates represented by its partner Sri Lakshman Gupta. On 01-12-1970, six persons constitute a partnership firm and continued M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates which is said to have commenced from 26-11-1970, the date on which Sri Lakshman Gupta purchased the aforesaid property. The record of rights of the land stood in the name of the partner of M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates, Sri Lakshman Gupta. The RTCs from year to year stood in the said name. On 04-07-1992 Sri Lakshman Gupta dies. After his death the revenue entries were changed in the name of his wife Smt. B.L.Rathnamma and Smt. B.L. Rathnamma was inducted as a partner in the aforesaid firm. On 08-09-1994 all the partners of the firm enter into an dissolution deed, relinquishing all their rights in the said firm in favour of P.G. Nataraj. 3.2. An application was then made by P.G. Nataraj to mutate his name to the land bearing Sy.No.35/2. Accordingly, in terms of dissolution deed, revenue entries show the name of P.G. Nataraj. Certain RTC proceedings were instituted later in which Smt. B.L. Rathnamma, wife of late Lakshman Gupta filed an affidavit admitting that she has no claim over the land in Sy.No.35/2. All 5 the surviving legal heirs of late Lakshman Gupta thereafter on 31-08-2017 enter into a registered sale agreement in favour of one Smt. Ramya over the land measuring 19 acres and 10 guntas with P.G.Nataraj signing as a confirming party on receiving ₹7/- crores, whereunder possession of the property was allegedly handed over to Smt. Ramya. On the same day, a registered General Power Attorney (GPA) is executed by the legal heirs of late Lakshman Gupta in favour of Smt. Ramya in connection with the aforesaid Sy.No.35/2 measuring 19 acres and 10 guntas. 3.3. By another transaction one Shyam Raju enters into a memorandum of understanding with Smt. Ramya acting as a GPA holder of all the legal heirs of late Lakshman Gupta for purchase of the land for a total consideration of ₹51/- crores. The total extent of the land was 19 acres and 10 guntas and a sum of ₹4.80 crores was paid on the date of execution of memorandum of understanding in favour of Smt. Ramya. To this memorandum of understanding, the petitioner signs as a witness. It is here the petitioner, for the first time, comes into the picture of the transaction. Sri P.G.Nataraj along with one Venkatram Settappa 6 executes a deed of declaration admitting to have received the amount said to have been paid in terms of the agreement of sale entered into on 31-08-2017. On 30-12-2020, out of 19 acres and 10 guntas, 9 acres at the request of Shyam Raju who had placed a request to the petitioner to act as an aggregator or facilitator, the petitioner enters into a sale agreement with possession in favour of one Birendra Kumar Bajoria who was the owner of land in Sy.No.35/5 for a consideration of ₹2.08 crores. On the same day, the Birendra Kumar Bajoria executes a registered irrevocable GPA in favour of the petitioner. 3.4. When things stood thus, Smt. Ramya who was the GPA holder of the legal heirs of late Lakshman Gupta gets a sale deed executed to herself of the entire land of 19 acres and 10 guntas and by another transaction Shyam Raju enters into a registered sale deed of entire extent of 19 acres and 10 guntas executed by his partner P.G. Nataraj, wherein an amount of ₹22.80 crores has been transferred, which is said to be to the account of the petitioner. It is said to be the amount paid towards other projects in which the petitioner had assisted the two viz., Shyam Raju and Umesh Shyam 7 Raju to acquire various lands including acquisition of land of Bijendra Kumar Bajoria. When things stood thus, Smt. Ramya registers a crime against the petitioner alleging several offences on 02-10-2021, pursuant to which, a FIR is registered. This is not the issue in the subject petition. 3.5. Smt. B.L. Rathnamma who had relinquished her rights way back in 1997 swings into action. On 03-11-2021 she registers a complaint before the jurisdictional Police against P.G. Nataraj and Heriyanna Shetty which becomes a crime in Crime No.210 of 2021 for the afore-quoted offences. The petitioner was not named in the FIR. It is for the first time he comes into the picture when the said P.G. Nataraj and Heriyanna Shetty also dragged the name of the petitioner in the remand application. Therefore, the petitioner becomes accused No.3. Certain amounts are said to have been transferred after the registration of crime from the petitioner to Umesh Shyam Raju on three occasions totalling to ₹4/- crores. 3.6. The dragging of the name of the petitioner is called in question before this Court in the subject petition filed on 8 31-05-2023, while the name of the petitioner was dragged in on 21-01-2023. Certain analogous proceedings are instituted against the petitioner invoking Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which are unnecessary to be noticed. The petitioner, pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, has deposited ₹1.5 crores before the Registry. During the subsistence of the subject petition, a crime in Crime No.215 of 2021, that had been registered in connection with a complaint lodged by Smt. Ramya, ends up in a ‘B’ report. The ‘B’ report is said to have become final. Therefore, the case projected by Smt Ramya directly against the petitioner end up in a ‘B’ report and the subject case indirectly registered against the petitioner is now being considered. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri P.Prasanna Kumar would vehemently contend that Smt. B.L.Rathnamma had nothing to do with the petitioner. Smt. B.L. Rathnamma had in fact relinquished all her rights and by an affidavit before the authorities had indicated that she has no claim over Sy.No.35/2. The transaction is between Umesh Shyam Raju and Smt. Ramya, to which the petitioner is land aggregator/facilitator. Umesh Shyam 9 Raju and Shyam Raju had several transactions not with the petitioner, but with Smt. B.L. Rathnamma long before registration of the crime or by Smt. Ramya. He would contend that when there is no transaction between the complainant and the petitioner, it is ununderstandable as to why the complainant has registered the crime against the petitioner in particular, who is dragged as accused No.3. Therefore, the complaint is a masquerade of Shyam Raju and Umesh Shyam Raju who ought to have been accused in the case at hand and who are shown as witnesses. He would submit that even otherwise qua the role of the petitioner none of the offences can spring. 5. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri Ashok Haranahalli appearing for the complainant had initially submitted that the transaction was between the accused and the complainant particularly with accused No.3, the petitioner. Therefore, this Court had directed deposit of certain amounts from the petitioner. The learned senior counsel would now contend that there is no transaction between Smt. B.L. Rathnamma and the petitioner. All that the complainant wants to do is to secure some money and 10 hand it over to Shyam Raju and Umesh Shyam Raju. He would contend that the petitioner is also one of them who is benefited from the transaction, not with Smt. B.L.Rathnamma but with others. Therefore, these are matters which require investigation and the Police have conducted investigation and if the Court would permit, final report would be filed against them. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The history of the transaction and the link in the chain of events are all narrated hereinabove. They would not require any reiteration. Sri B.L. Rathnamma was the wife of late Lakshman Gupta who was a partner of M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates and had acquired 19 acres and 10 guntas as afore mentioned. On the death of Lakshman Gupta on 04-07-1992 the partnership is dissolved. Smt. B.L. Rathnamma in proceedings concerning mutation, files an 11 affidavit before the Special Deputy Commissioner. The affidavit reads as follows: “BEFORE THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN; BANGALORE Revision Petition No.5/96-97 BETWEEN: SRI N.BYRA REDDY. ..PETITIONER. AND: TAHSILDAR AND OTHERS. .. RESPONDENTS AFFFIDAVIT I, B.L. Rathnamma W/o late B.Lakshman Gupta 49 years, residing at 6-6-37/10, Kavadiguda, Secundrabad, Andhra Pradesh, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as follows: 1. I state that my Husband Late B.Lakshmana Gupta and Sri P.G.Nataraja, fourth respondent in the above case along with four others have formed a Partnership firm under the name and style of “HINDUSTAN IDEAL ESTATE” and which was reduced into writing on 1-12-1970 and the property in question i.e., Sy.No.35 has been purchased by the firm under a Sale Deed dated 16-11-1970 for valuable consideration. My husband late B.L.Lakshmana Gupta has purchased the property as partner of Hindustan Ideal Estate. 2. It is stated that in the firm i.e., Hindustan Ideal Estates altogether there were six partners namely (1) Seetharama Gupta (2) Lakshman Gupta (3) P.Chadrasekaran (4) P.Papaiah Setty (5) P.G. Nataraj and (6) Venkatasubbaiah, on 8-09-1994 the partners of the firm i.e., Seetharama Gupta, Myself, Chandrashekaran, Papaiah Setty, P.G. Nataraj and C.Venkatasubbaiah have reached an understanding to dissolve the firm and the said document Sy.No.35 was allotted to the share of P.G. Nataraj. The outgoing partners i.e., Seetharama Gupta, Myself, Chandrashekaran and G.Venkatasubbaiah have received monetary consideration from Sri P.G. Nataraj and left 12 the property to the share of P.G. Nataraj. Though the property has been purchased by my husband in the name of Hindustan Ideal Estates, actually the property is now in the hands of Sri P.G. Nataraj and which is belonging to Sri P.G. Nataraj only, who is also one of the partners of Hindustan Ideal Estate and later on it was dissolved. 3. In view of the fact, absolutely I have no claim over the property and the property is one belonging to Sri P.G. Nataraj only and the khata of the property be ordered to be continued in the name of Sri P.G. Nataraj. I have no objection of whatsoever in doing so. I declare that this is my name and signature and the contents made in this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Sd/- (B.L. RATHAMMA) DEPONENT.“ (Emphasis supplied) The history of the land is traced and confirmed that the property had been purchased by her husband in the name of Hindustan Ideal Estates. Actually, the property is in the hands of P.G. Nataraj and the complainant clearly deposes before the Special Deputy Commissioner that she has no claim over the property and the property is the one belonging to P.G. Nataraj and the khatha of the property is ordered to be continued in the name of P.G.Nataraj. This was in the proceedings instituted by one Byra Reddy challenging the revenue entries made in favour of P.G. Nataraj. Who is Byra Reddy? Byra 13 Reddy is one of the legal heirs of the partners that constituted the firm in the year 1970. Thus, Smt. B.L. Rathnamma relinquishes all her claims even with regard to revenue entries. Therefore, Smt. B.L. Rathnamma could not be aggrieved of any action after relinquishment of her claims. 8. The land continued in the name of P.G.Nataraj. After about 20 years of relinquishment of claim by Smt. B.L.Rathnamma, GPA is said to have been executed in favour of Smt. Ramya. On the same day an agreement of sale is entered into between the legal heirs and Smt. Ramya to which P.G. Nataraj was a confirming party. Being the GPA holder of Smt. B.L. Rathnamma and other legal heirs of late Lakshman Gupta, she executes a sale deed to herself purchasing the property in Sy.No.35/2. Certain consideration is also mentioned in the sale deed. M/s Hindustan Ideal Estates represented by P.G. Nataraj now executes a sale deed in favour of Umesh Shyam Raju and accused No.2 Heriyanna Shetty and to this, the petitioner acts as a confirming party. The mention of the name of the petitioner in the sale deed is as follows: 14 “2. MR. PRUTHVI HONNEGOWDA, S/o Mr. Honnegowda Manche Gowda, Aged bout 36 years, residing at No.85, ‘MAYURI’, 1st Main Road, Guru Raghavendra Nagar, Opposite RBI Lay-out, JP Nagar 7th Phase, Bangalore 560 078, bearing Aadhar No.6272-4308-5788 and PAN No.ADNPH7836F (the “Aggregator/Agreement Holder No.2”). (Hereinafter collectively referred to as the “CONFIRMING/CONSENTING PARTY” which expression shall, wherever the context so requires or admits, shall man and include, his/her/their respective heirs, successors, administrators, legal representatives, executors and assigns) of the OTHER PART: (The Executor/Owners/Vendors, Purchaser and Confirming/ Consenting Party, hereinafter referred to as the “Parties’ and individually as a ‘Party’)” Confirming party is the aggregator. Certain amounts are transferred to the account of the petitioner. The transfer is as follows: “…. …. …. (d) An amount of INR 22,80,000/- (Indian National Rupees Twenty-Two Crores Eighty Lakhs only) paid to Confirming Party No.2 in the following manner: (i) An amount of INR 4,81,75,000/- (Indian National Rupees Four Crores Eighty-One Lakhs Seventy-Five Thousand only) vide Cheque bearing No.19625 dated 23rd July 2021 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited. (ii) An amount of INR 4,50,45,000/- (Indian National Rupees Four Crores Fifty Lakhs Forty-Five Thousand only) vide Cheque bearing No.19623 dated 23rd July 2021 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited. (iii) An amount of INR 2,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees Two crores only) paid through NEFT/RTGS transaction 15 bearing UTR No.KARBN17348146734 dated 14 December 2017. (iv) An amount of INR 2,00,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees Two Crore only) paid through NEFT/RTGS transaction bearing UTR No.KARBN18113293056 dated 23 April 2018. (v) An amount of INR 2,00,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees Two Crore only) paid through NEFT/RTGHS transaction bearing UTR No.KARBNH20336340424 dated 1st December 2020. (vi) An amount of INR 3,00,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees Three Crores only) paid through NEFT/RTGS transaction bearing UTR No.KARBH20358238941 dated 23 December 2020. (vii) An amount of INR 3,00,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees Three Crores only) paid through NEFT/RTGS transaction bearing UTR No.KARBH20363502749 dated 28 December 2020. (viii) An amount of INR 2,25,00,000/- (Indian National Rupees Two Crores Twenty-Five Lakhs only) paid through NEFT/RTGS transaction bearing UTR No. KARBH21015150763 dated 15 January 2021. (ix) An amount of INR 22,80,000/- (Indian National Rupees Twenty-Two Lakhs Eighty Thousand only) vide SBI Ref.No.CKQ9547007, Challan No.01407 dated 23 July 2021.” The transaction runs into dispute not with Smt. B.L.Rathnamma, but with Umesh Shyam Raju or the petitioner and other accused. This results in registration of a complaint by Smt. Ramya before the jurisdictional Police on 02-10-2021. This becomes a crime in Crime 16 No.215 of 2021. The Police after investigation in the said crime have filed a ‘B’ report in favour of the petitioner. 9. After Smt. Ramya registering the crime, Umesh Shyam Raju has registered two proceedings against the petitioner for dishonour of a cheque. During the pendency of those proceedings Umesh Shyam Raju demands certain money from the hands of the petitioner and about ₹4/- crores is transferred. 10. What is shocking is Smt. B.L. Rathnamma who had nothing to do with the petitioner, now registers the crime on 03-11-2021, not against the petitioner, but two others. The complaint so registered reads as follows: “Date:03-11-2021 To Station House Officer, Bagalur Police Station, Bengaluru. Sir, Sub: Threatening to kill, assault on my housemaid and security guard, cheating with dishonest intention coupled with fraudulent motive, breach of trust, tampering of revenue records and submitted the same before the revenue Court with dishonest intention to cheat, fraudulently with dishonest intention got the katha and RTC transfer of the 17 agricultural property in Sy.No.35/2 of Sathnur Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru North, theft of household articles, Bank documents and property papers from the premises of my house by committing criminal trespass, life threats to me, Sandeepa, Sanjay my care taker Ms.Ramya H.M. by outraging the modesty, by P.G. Nataraj, Heriyanna Shetty and their associates. Ref: Written complaint dated 25-10-2021. -- I the undersigned B.L. Rathnamma, W/o late Lakshmana Gupta, aged about 74 years, a senior citizen is the absolute owner of the agricultural property bearing No.Sy.No.35/2 (Old Sy.No.35) of Sathanur Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru North (Property, the same was inherited from my husband after his demise in the year 1992. On 31-08-2017, I have executed a registered Agreement of Sale with possession of the property in favour of Ms. Ramya H.M. before The Sub- Registrar, Jala (Gandhinagar) the above stated person P.G. Nataraj was confirming party in the Sale Agreement and have received a sum of ₹93,00,000/-. On the very same day an Irrevocable General Power of Attorney was executed in favour of Ramya H.M. before The Sub-Registrar, Jala (Gandhinagar). On 18-03-2018, P. G. Nataraj have executed a registered Deed of Declaration in favour of the Ramya, H.M. declaring that he has not right and title on the subject property, all documents were registered before The Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura and the above stated Heriyanna Shetty was witness to all the above registered documents. I had constructed a house in the property consisting of two bedrooms, a living area and bathrooms, the electricity bill of the property is annexed. I and Ramya H.M. had engaged one named Sandeepa a resident of Sanjaynagar to take care of the housework and Sanjay as security guard. Ramya H.M. would use to take care of me and whenever I was visiting Bangalore I used to live in the house, Ramya H.M. would frequently visit my house and would enquire about my health and my welfare. Due to deterioration in my health condition in the month of March- April, 2021 and also due to Covid-19 second wave, I was advised by my doctors to be shifted to hospital and ultimately, I was living in my daughter’s house at Telangana. 18 On 1st July 2021, Ramya informed me that with P.G. Nataraj and representing him to be a partner of Hindustan Ideal Estates, have fraudulently with dishonest intention submitted fabricated documents before Assistant Commissioner, North Bengaluru and have got the Katha and RTC transfer into the name of Hindustan Ideal Estates, based on that fabricated documents, P.G. Nataraj in collusion with Heriyanna Shetty have transferred the property in favour of Umesh Shyama Raju a resident of Sadashivanagar on 26-07-2021. Thereafter the order of Assistant Commissioner was challenged and is set aside and the Assistant Commissioner made all the relevant observations and passed the order in my favour and restored back the RTC in my name. On 27-09-2021, I received a notice from your police station concerning to a false complaint lodged by P.G. Nataraj, I sought some permission to appear through my advocate and on the very same day, I sent a speed post to your police station requesting to protect my civil property rights as there was threat of dispossession from my property at the hands of P.G. Nataraj. Thereafter taking advantage of the fact that I was not residing in the house, on 28-09-2021 and 29-09-2021, the P.G. Nataraj, Heriyanna Shetty and other 25 members who are their associates, have assaulted and threatened Sandeepa and Sanjay who were present in the property, they have threatened to kill me and Ramya H.M. if they involved in the property, they have made them to leave the premises or to be killed, fearing for life the above persons has locked the doors of the house and have left the premises. Since they have caused damage to the property, I have submitted a written complaint on 25-10-2021 and requested to provide protection to my property, but even to this date there is no action taken on any of them. On 27-10-2021 at around 7.30 p.m. I along with the security guard Sanjay and Ramya H.M. went to my house and saw the locks installed on the doors were broken, further, went inside and saw that the household articles like fridge, washing machine, gas stove, cylinder, sofa sets, TV Air conditioner and other articles were missing. A blue color steel almirah which was inside the house was not to be found. The said almirah contained the property papers, my bank passbook, cash of ₹1,80,000/- all physical items are valued at around 10 lakhs was found missing and have been stolen by P.G.Nataraj, 19 Heriyanna Shetty and his associates, as such P.G. Nataraj, Heriyanna Shetty and their associates have criminally conspired with common intention, tampered with revenue records with dishonest and fraudulent intention to cheat and accumulate huge wealth illegally, fabricated my property documents and have sold the property on 26-07-2021 in favour of Umesh Shyama Raju, gave life threats and assaulted my house caretaker and security guard and criminally trespassed to my property, forcibly broke opened the locks of my house and committed theft and robbery of valuable things like household articles, property papers and bank pass book, kindly register a criminal complaint against P.G. Nataraj, Heriyanna Shetty and their associates for the above acts and investigate and provide justice and protection to our lives and property and also cancel the illegally registered sale deed and punish them in accordance with law. I have orally instructed my son to write this complaint and after that I have gone through the contents of this complaint. I can identify the missing household articles if I see it again. I was critically ill and was since I was under life threat, there is delay of lodging complaint, there is no ill-intention behind it. All the documents are annexed to this complaint, a pen drive is also submitted along with this complaint which contains the videos and photos. Thanking you, Sd/- B.L.Ratnamma.” This now becomes a crime in Crime No.210 of 2021 for the afore- quoted offences. In the entire complaint there is no mention of the name of the petitioner. It is only against P.G. Nataraj and Heriyanna Shetty. A remand application is filed before the concerned Magistrate. In the remand application, on the statement 20 of P.G. Nataraj and Heriyanna Shetty, the petitioner is brought into the web of crime and is arrayed as accused No.3. This is an admitted fact. The issue now would be the meeting of the offences as alleged. 11. As observed hereinabove, the complaint springs from Smt. B.L. Rathnamma who had absolutely no claim over the property. According to her affidavit in the year 1997 itself, the transaction was between Smt. Rathnamma and Sri P.G.Natraj. The complaint ought to have been, at best, against Umesh Shyam Raju. But, the complaint is by Smt. B.L.Rathnamma who admittedly had no transaction with the petitioner. In that light, whether the offences so alleged would be met, is necessary to be noticed. The offences are the ones punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. They read as follows: “406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.— Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. … … … "420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.—Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces 21 the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.” The ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are found in Sections 405 and 415 of the IPC respectively. They read as follows: “405. They read as follows: “405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. Explanation [1].—A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not] who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. Explanation 2.—A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance 22 Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. Illustrations (a) A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide the effects according to the will, and appropriates them to his own use. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (b) A is a warehouse-keeper. Z, going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (c) A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according to Z's direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to invest the same in Company's paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the money in his own business. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (d) But if A, in the last illustration, not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be more for Z's advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys Z's directions, and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying Company's paper, here, though Z should suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of that loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust. (e) A, a revenue officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust. 23 (f) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the property. A has committed criminal breach of trust. … …. … 415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. Illustrations (a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats. (b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. (c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. (d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats. 24 (e) A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats. (f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats. (g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery, A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract. (h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats. (i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.” (Emphasis supplied) Section 406 requires entrustment of a property by the complainant to the hands of the accused and its misappropriation with dishonest intention by the accused. The complainant and the petitioner have admittedly no transaction with each other. The complaint also does not name the petitioner as having any transaction with the complainant. If the petitioner has no transaction with the 25 complainant, what entrustment of property has taken place and what has been misappropriated of the complainant is a mystery. Therefore, the offence under Section 406 of the IPC has been laid so loosely that it does not satisfy an iota of ingredient of Section 405 IPC. 12. The other offence is under Section 420 IPC. Section 415 mandates that the accused, with a dishonest intention, from the outset of a transaction, should lure the complainant to enter into a transaction and thereafter cheat the complainant. The two ingredients require that it should be a transaction between the complainant and the accused; the accused should have lured the complainant to enter into a transaction which from the outset was with a dishonest intention. Both these ingredients are not met even to their semblance, as the petitioner and the complainant have no transaction at all between them. Therefore, there can be no question of the petitioner luring the complainant to enter into a transaction. In the aforesaid circumstance, it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of 26 S.N.VIJAYALAKSHMI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA1, wherein the Apex Court considers the entire spectrum of the law, on what could become the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The Apex Court holds as follows: “…. …. …. 35. In this background, the Court needs to consider as to whether the accusations of criminal nature levelled in the FIR are sustainable to permit the continuance of the criminal proceedings or not. Cognizance has finally been taken under Sections 120B, 406 and 420 of the IPC. For convenience, the said provisions are reproduced hereinbelow: ‘120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.- (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. xxx 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. xxx 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575 27 any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.’ 36. It would be useful, in addition, to set out the relevant definitional Sections from the IPC: ‘120-A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.—When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,— (1) an illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy: Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object. xxx 405. Criminal breach of trust.—Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”. Explanation 1.—A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not] who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the 28 employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. Explanation 2.—A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid. Illustrations (a) A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide the effects according to the will, and appropriates them to his own use. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (b) A is a warehouse-keeper. Z, going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (c) A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according to Z's direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to invest the same in Company's paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the money in his own business. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (d) But if A, in the last illustration, not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be more for Z's advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys 29 Z's directions, and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying Company's paper, here, though Z should suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of that loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust. (e) A, a revenue officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed criminal breach of trust. (f) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the property. A has committed criminal breach of trust. xxx 415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. Illustrations (a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats. (b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. (c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats. 30 (d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats. (e) A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats. (f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it. A cheats. (g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery, A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract. (h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats. (i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.’ 37. Purely from a legal lens, it is now settled that the same person cannot be simultaneously charged for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC with regard to one particular transaction, as per the decision rendered in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited (supra). In this regard, reference may also be made to a subsequent decision by us in V D Raveesha v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 1060 (penned by Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.), which noticed the exposition in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited (supra). In V D Raveesha (supra), the distinction between Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC was duly taken note of, but charges under Sections 406 and 420 of 31 the IPC against the same person were upheld, not being part of a single transaction and committed against different persons. The relevant passage from V D Raveesha (supra) reads thus: ‘21. Though, having regard to the afore-enumerated position of law, on an overall conspectus of the factual aspects juxtaposed with the evidence on record, as regards fulfilment of the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, at first sight, it may appear that the petitioner cannot be convicted both under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, but, in the present case, on a proper consideration of the issue in its entirety, there is a fine distinction inasmuch as, there are two different persons against whom the petitioner has committed the respective offences under the Sections supra : first, the Company and second, Mallikarjuna (PW4 and husband of purchaser Savithramma). Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, evidently the petitioner is guilty of offence committed against the Company punishable under Section 406 of the IPC and also, of offence committed against Mallikarjuna (PW4 and husband of purchaser Savithramma) punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.’ (emphasis supplied) 38. Section 406 deals with punishment for criminal breach of trust, which itself has been defined under Section 405 of the IPC. Section 420 of the IPC deals with cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, the substantive offence of cheating has been defined in Section 415 of the IPC. We now apply the ingredients to the factual position. 39. From a bare reading of Section 405 of the IPC, criminal breach of trust would arise only in a situation where the accused in any manner has been entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property and dishonestly misappropriates or converts the same to his own use, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property. Here, it is not a case where the accused were entrusted with the subject property. The subject property belongs to them and they had rights over it as owners with title. Thus, the very 32 foundation for invoking Section 406 of the IPC falls to the ground. 40. Coming to Section 415 of the IPC, it is required that the person charged, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces him to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or not to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. In the present case, we do not find that by deceiving the complainant, the appellants had fraudulently or dishonestly induced him to deliver the property to them or to any other person or to consent that any person shall retain any property or intentionally induced the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. From the case set up by the complainant himself, as averred, the ATS was entered into between the appellants and the complainant on 30.11.2015. However, the subject property is said to have been handed over to Ravishankara Shetty on 06.09.1996. Thus, if the same was correct, then there is no explanation as to why possession of the subject property, being prime land, would be handed over to any other person without any other agreement or safeguard, for if the version of the complainant is to be taken as correct, then it appears that Ravishankara Shetty got possession of the subject property way back on 06.09.1996, but the ATS with the complainant, albeit as a nominee of Ravishankara Shetty, was only executed much later on 30.11.2015. However, on a reading of the recitals in the ATS, it is seen that possession was with the appellants and in fact, Clause 6 of the ATS concerning possession, it has been postulated that possession of the subject property would be handed over in ready condition upon execution of the Sale Deed by the vendors. This version of events, put forth by the complainant, falsifies the claim of Ravishankara Shetty to have taken over possession of the subject property on 06.09.1996, for the simple reason that he himself is a witness cited in the FIR filed at the instance of the complainant. Thus, when from the own pleadings of the complainant, it emerges that possession of the subject property was never given to the 33 complainant and rather, stipulation was made for such possession being handed over after execution of Sale Deed, Section 420 of the IPC would not be attracted, regard being had to the definition in Section 415 of the IPC. 41. Thus, we do not find any criminal aspect in the allegations ex-facie. Moreover, be it noted, the complainant has filed a civil suit for reliefs already enumerated above. 42. Coming to the second question i.e., whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations qua the same person(s), the answer stricto sensu, is that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR, as pointed out, inter alia, in P Swaroopa Rani v. M Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC 528. The obvious caveat being that the allegations, even if having a civil flavour to them, must prima facie disclose an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of the Court, which the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed. In this connection, Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 can be referred to: ‘12. … Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a 34 situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.’ (emphasis supplied) 43. In Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, (2023) 15 SCC 135, while quashing the FIR therein and further proceedings based thereon, it was observed ‘…the factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature.’ (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that in a seemingly civil dispute which is given a colour of crime, the Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must step in, to save the proceeding from becoming an abuse of the process of the law. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand qua the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are considered on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, what would unmistakably emerge is, the loosely laid allegations against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. 13. The other offences are the ones punishable under Sections 465, 468, 447, 380, 323 and 120B of the IPC. If there is 35 no transaction between the petitioner and the complainant, which is an admitted fact even according to the learned senior counsel for the complainant, how can the offences afore-mentioned spring, as they are all an offshoot of a transaction or further proceedings to a transaction, concerning the complainant and the accused. It appears certain persons who had to become accused are shooting from the shoulders of the complainant, as admittedly the complainant has no transaction with the petitioner. At best, the grievance may be against other accused. The petitioner being a witness or a confirming party to the transaction on the strength of him being a land facilitator or aggregator, is dragged into the web of crime, in what is seemingly a civil dispute of certain land transaction. 14. The complainant has lost nothing, and the complainant has nothing to lose. There is no transaction of the complainant with the petitioner. The petitioner and the complainant are unknown to each other. Therefore, against the petitioner even if it is taken as the offence alleged, it would not amount to an offence as the transaction itself is absent between the two. In such circumstances, 36 the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, or even other sections would not become investigatable even against the petitioner. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL2, wherein it is laid down 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. 2 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 37 (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the 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) In the light of the aforesaid facts and the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of S.N.VIJAYALAKSHMI and BHAJAN LAL supra, permitting further investigation, against the petitioner would 38 become an abuse of the process of law, and result in patent injustice. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) FIR in Crime No.210 of 2021 dated 03-11-2021 registered by Bagalur Police Station and pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli stands quashed qua the petitioner/accused No.3. (iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and the same would not influence or bind the investigation in any other proceedings against other accused before any fora. (iv) In terms of the interim order, the petitioner has deposited Rs.1.5 crores before this Court. In the light of the proceedings being held to be an abuse of the process of law leading to the obliteration of the crime qua the petitioner, the amount that is in deposit before 39 this Court, is to be transmitted to the petitioner, within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, after due verification by the Registry. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Bkp CT:SS