- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36020 WP No. 22988 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 22988 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. H.C. PAPANNA SON OF LATE CHIKANNA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 356, 6TH MAIN IDEAL HOUSE TOWNSHIP RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR BANGALORE - 560098. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRIDHAR .S.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY KARNATAKA BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE OF BASAVESHWARA NAGAR POLICE STATION BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BANGALORE - 560079. 2. SRI. CHIDAMBARA SON OF LATE PUTTAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 42, A BLOCK 3RD CROSS, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI MAGADI MAIN ROAD BANGALORE - 560079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36020 WP No. 22988 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE BASAVESHWARANAGAR POLICE STATION CULMINATING IN THE REGISTRATION OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 245/2024 ON 29.06.2024 VIDE ANNX-C AND QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT BY THE BASAVESHWARANAGAR POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO. 245/2024, DATED 29.06.2024 AND ALL FUTHER PROCEEDINGS THERETO IF ANY VIDE ANNX-C. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner - accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.245/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2. Respondent No.2 - Complainant has filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging that the present petitioner - accused has cheated the complainant. 3. The sum and substance of the private complaint is that the petitioner–accused allegedly assured the complainant that he would sell a particular site in the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36020 WP No. 22988 of 2024 complainant’s favour. Acting on this assurance, the complainant claims to have paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- in cash on 15.06.2016 to the accused. It is further alleged that the accused, by giving a false assurance of executing the sale deed in respect of the said site, induced the complainant to part with the aforesaid amount. 4. The complainant avers that despite repeated requests and demands, the accused failed to execute the sale deed in his favour. It is also stated that, in order to gain time and pacify the complainant, the accused issued three blank cheques assuring that he would register the site in the complainant’s name. However, even after the lapse of six months, the accused neither executed the sale deed nor refunded the amount of Rs.35,00,000/-. 5. The complaint further narrates that, at the instance of the complainant, the matter was placed before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, who summoned the accused. During that intervention, the accused is said to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36020 WP No. 22988 of 2024 have acknowledged the receipt of Rs.35,00,000/- and agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of the site for a value of Rs.25,00,000/-, promising to return the remaining Rs.10,00,000/-. Notwithstanding this assurance, the accused allegedly failed, despite repeated demands, either to execute the sale deed or to return the amount received. Consequently, the complainant approached the learned Magistrate by filing a private complaint, alleging that the petitioner–accused had committed an offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. Upon presentation of the complaint, the learned Magistrate, after examining the contents thereof, referred the matter under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the jurisdictional police for investigation. Acting on such reference, the police registered a crime for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36020 WP No. 22988 of 2024 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention to the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the petitioner seriously disputes the alleged transaction with the complainant. He would further contend that, even assuming the allegations in the complaint to be true at their face value, the dispute is, at its highest, a civil dispute arising from an alleged agreement to sell. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the complainant was not justified in converting what is essentially a civil dispute into a criminal prosecution for the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. 8. Per-contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 – State submits that, at this preliminary stage, the materials on record are sufficient to proceed against the accused. It is, therefore, urged that this is not a fit case for the Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interdict the investigation or quash the proceedings. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36020 WP No. 22988 of 2024 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on record and on perusal of the material placed before this Court, it is noticed that Respondent No.2 – the De-facto Complainant has not chosen to contest the present proceedings despite due notice. A plain reading of the averments contained in the private complaint discloses, at the outset, that the dispute projected therein is essentially civil in nature. The allegation that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.35,00,000/- to the accused is stated to have been made entirely in cash. Significantly, there is no reference in the complaint to any written agreement or memorandum evidencing a concluded contract for sale of the site in question, nor have any supporting documents been annexed to substantiate the alleged transaction. 10. It is pertinent to observe that the alleged payment of Rs.35,00,000/- in cash, as claimed by the complainant, is a seriously disputed question of fact, which cannot be resolved in the course of investigation by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36020 WP No. 22988 of 2024 police. The issue as to whether such payment was made, and if so, under what circumstances, requires appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and falls squarely within the province of a competent Civil Court. The police, while acting under a referral made pursuant to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not equipped to adjudicate upon such complex civil claims or determine the veracity of transactions that are unaccompanied by written agreements or corroborative material. This Court also finds it necessary to observe that, in several instances, Magistrates have been mechanically or casually referring private complaints under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation, even when the allegations, on their very face, disclose disputes of a purely civil character. Such uncritical exercise of jurisdiction not only burdens the criminal justice system but also results in unwarranted harassment to parties by converting contractual or monetary disputes into criminal prosecutions. A Magistrate, before directing investigation - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36020 WP No. 22988 of 2024 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, is expected to apply his judicial mind and examine whether the complaint prima-facie discloses the essential ingredients of a cognizable offence or whether the matter is one to be agitated before a civil forum. Failure to maintain this distinction undermines the object of the provision and encourages abuse of process. 11. Be that as it may, even if it is assumed, for the sake of argument, that the petitioner–accused had received an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- towards the proposed sale of a site, the proper remedy available to Respondent No.2 was to seek enforcement of such alleged obligation before the competent Civil Court. The mere breach of a promise to execute a sale deed, without anything more to indicate a dishonest or fraudulent intention existing at the inception of the transaction, cannot, by itself, constitute the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36020 WP No. 22988 of 2024 12. The facts on record, taken at their highest, reveal a contractual dispute between the parties. They do not disclose the essential ingredients of Section 420 of IPC, namely, a dishonest inducement or fraudulent intent on the part of the accused at the time of receiving the amount. Unfortunately, the learned Magistrate, while referring the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., has not adverted to this crucial aspect or applied his mind to whether the allegations prima-facie constitute a criminal offence. The complaint itself, read in its entirety, makes it abundantly clear that the controversy is purely civil in character, and the criminal process could not have been invoked merely because the complainant failed to obtain performance of the alleged promise. 13. In such circumstances, permitting the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. The alleged payment of Rs.35,00,000/-, if at all made, is a matter that the complainant must establish in an appropriate civil forum in the manner - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36020 WP No. 22988 of 2024 known to law. Accordingly, this Court finds it just and proper to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and quash the proceedings initiated for the offence under Section 420 IPC. 14. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in Crime No.245/2024, registered by Basaveshwaranagar Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, together with all consequential steps arising therefrom, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12