- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1586 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SMT. AISHWARYA GOWDA D/O NANJUNDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NO.111/1, SAMBRAMA, 3RD CROSS, 3RD MAIN ROAD, BEML LAYOUT, RAJRAJESHWARI NAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 098. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANTOSH B Y.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. DR. GIRISH A.C S/O A M CHANDRAMOULI AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/A NO.760, 8TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. SANGAMESH G.PATIL.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.23/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 384, 420, 504, 506 OF IPC, OF VIJAYANAGAR P.S., FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGLAURU AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON 08.04.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CAV ORDER This petition by the sole accused seeks quashing of the criminal proceedings registered as an FIR in Crime No.23/2024 dated 03.02.2024 pursuant to a complaint dated 03.02.2024 filed by the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant for alleged offences punishable under Sections 384, 420, 504, and 506 IPC pending on the file of the I ACJM, Bangalore, currently being investigated by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), Bangalore. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:- The 2nd respondent – de facto complainant, Dr.Girish filed the instant complaint dated 03.02.2024 alleging that the petitioner gained the trust and confidence of the de facto complainant and his wife Dr.Manjula and on the representation of delivering high end - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 cars, petitioner induced the 2nd respondent to transfer large sums of money including Rs.2 crores obtained via property loan, Rs.65 lakhs through banking channels and further sum of Rs.4 crores in cash at different times. It is further alleged that when repayment was demanded, petitioner resorted to threats and ultimately extorted a sum of Rs.5 lakhs and refused to return the amounts back to the 2nd respondent and his wife and threatened them resulting in filing of the instant complaint by the 2nd respondent. Aggrieved by the impugned complaint and FIR, petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 3. Heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for 1st respondent and learned counsel for 2nd respondent – de facto complainant and perused the material on record. 4. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the memorandum of petition and referring to the material on record, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned FIR is a gross abuse of process of law and has been filed as a malicious counter blast since on 02.02.2024 itself, i.e., one day prior to the impugned FIR dated 03.02.2024, petitioner had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 lodged a complaint against Dr.G.M.Manjula, wife of 2nd respondent before the Police commissioner, Bangalore, alleging threats and demands for usurious interest in pursuance of which, the Thalaghattapura Police Station issued a notice to the said Manjula on 03.02.2024. It was submitted that only thereafter that the 2nd respondent lodged the present false and concocted complaint as a retaliatory measure attempting to raise a dispute which is fundamentally civil in nature and evident as per the material on record, which indicates that essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out and criminal machinery was being misused for debt recovery which was impermissible in law and as such, the impugned complaint, FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto deserve to be quashed. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel for he petitioner places reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Indian Oil Corpn V.NEPC India & Ors. - (2006) 6 SCC 736; (ii) Lalit Chaturvedi & Ors v. State of U.P - (2024) SCC ONLINE SC 171; (iii) Naresh & Anr v. State of Karnataka & Anr. - (2024) SCC ONLINE SC 268; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 (iv) Harilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh - 2023 SCC ONLINE SC 1124; (v) Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal & Anr. - (2023) 15 SCC 135; (vi) Delhi Race Club V. state of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. - (2024) 10 SCC 690; (vii) Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand (2025) SCC On Line SC 2058; (viii) Mr.C.Gopalan V. State of Karnataka – W.P. No.13519/2024 dated 13.10.2025; (ix) Sri. BK Sanjay Krishnamurthy.V State of Karnataka - Criminal Petition No.6311/2024 dated 13.10.2025; (x) Ankul Singh V. State of UP & Anr. - (2025) SCC On Line SC 2060; (xi) Vedhasingh v. R.M.Govindan & Ors. -(2022) SCC On Line SC 1010; (xii) State of Haryana & ors. V. Bhajan Lal - (1992) SUPP (1) SCC 335; (xiii) Sanjal Bose V. State of West Bengal & Ors. - (2026) SCC OnLine SC 525; (xiv) Rikhab Birani vs. State of U.P -2025 SCC OnLine 823; (xv) Chanchalpathi Das. Vs. State of West Bengal and Another -2023 SCC OnLine SC 650; - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 (xvi) Vishal Noble Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680. 5. Per contra, learned Addl.SPP for the 1st respondent – State and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that apart from the fact that the allegations in the FIR disclosed the commission of cognizable offences, the petitioner had a dishonest intention from the outset and induced the 2nd respondent to part with a substantial amount of money and subsequently, intimidated and extorted him and the FIR was lodged after exercising due diligence and since the veracity of the allegations can be determined only after thorough investigation and trial, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. In support of their submissions, they placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sau.Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar vs. State of Maharastra – Crl.A.No.255/2019 dated 12.02.2019. 6. Both sides have filed their written synopsis along with documents in support of their contentions, which are taken in record. The learned Addl.SPP has also placed the investigation material collected, which is taken on record. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 8. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to state that while the impugned complaint and FIR were filed and registered on 03.02.2024, the petitioner had lodged a complaint against Dr.Manjula wife of the complainant earlier on 02.02.2024, in pursuance of which, the police authorities issued a notice to the said Dr.Manjula dated 03.02.2024. The complaint dated 02.02.2024 reads as under; EªÀjUÉ, ¢£ÁAPÀ: ¥ÉÆð¸ï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 560 053. EAzÀ, L±ÀéAiÀÄð UËqÀ gÁdgÁeÉñÀéj£ÀUÀgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 560 098. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, «µÀAiÀÄ: qÁ: ªÀÄAdļÀ Vjñï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ, ¸ÀļÀÄî DgÉÆÃ¥ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É MvÀÛqÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ L±ÀéAiÀÄðUËqÀ £ÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ qÁ: ªÀÄAdļÀVjñï gÀªÀgÀ §½ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ «ZÁgÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ K¦æ¯ï 2022 jAzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05/08/2022 ªÀgÉUÉ ¨ÁåAQ£À ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ gÀÆ. 2,36,00,000/- (JgÀqÀÄ PÉÆÃn ªÀÄƪÀvÁÛgÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ gÀÆ. 2,36,00,000/- - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 UÀ½UÀÆ ¢£ÀzÀ §rØ, ªÁgÀzÀ §rØAiÉÄAzÀÄ ¥sɧæªÀj 2023 gÀªÀgÉUÀÆ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05/02/2023 gÀªÀgÉUÀÆ £À«ÄäAzÀ »A¸ÁvÀäPÀªÁV, §®ªÀAvÀªÁV §rØ ºÁUÀÄ C¸À®Ä ¸ÉÃj gÀÆ. 5,70,00,000/- (LzÀÄ PÉÆÃn J¥ÀàvÀÄÛ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ) gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÁVAiÀÄÆ ªÀiÁZïð 2023 gÀ°è gÀÆ. 5,70,00,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß §rØUÉ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁrzÉÝêÉ. E£ÀÆß C¸À®Ä gÀÆ. 2,36,00,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ vÉUÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁªÀÅ PÉ®ªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár §UɺÀj¹PÉƼÀî®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CzÁVAiÀÄÆ qÁ: ªÀÄAdļÀVjñï gÀªÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀ ªÀiÁwUÀÆ vÀ¯É ¨ÁUÀzÉ EA¢UÉ gÀÆ. 5,00,00,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ £ÁªÀÅ »AwgÀÄV¸À ¨ÉÃPÁVgÀĪÀ ªÉÆvÀÛ F ¨ÁQ ªÉÆvÀÛ gÀÆ. 48,00,000/-( £À®ªÀvÉÛAlÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) CzÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÁåAPï ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ »AwgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ F 48,00,000/- (£À®ªÀvÉÛAlÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ) PÉÌ §rØ ¸ÉÃj¹ gÀÆ. 5,00,00,000/- (LzÀÄ PÉÆÃn gÀÆ¥Á¬ÄUÀ¼ÀÄ) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆr JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀĪÀÅzÀ®èzÉà ¸ÀªÀiÁdzÀ°è J®èqÉ £À£Àß UËgÀªÀgÀPÉÌ zÀPÉÌAiÀÄ£ÀÄß GAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ ºÁUÉAiÉÄà gÁdQÃAiÀÄ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gËrUÀ½AzÀ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁr¹ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀÄvÀÛªÀÄÄvÀÛ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À¸ÀàzÀªÁzÀ ¨ÁåUïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ElÄÖ £ÀªÀÄUÉ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ »A¸É PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV ¨ÉzÀj¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. ¥Àæ¨sÁ« ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À eÉÆvÉ ¸ÉÃj £ÀªÀÄä UËgÀªÀPÉÌ zÀPÉÌ GAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ gÀÆ. 2,36,00,000/- PÉÌ gÀÆ. 11,00,00,000/- §rØAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉüÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgÉ »ÃUÁV £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ¹Üw C¸Àé¸ÀÜUÉÆArzÀÄÝ vÀÄA¨Á »A¸ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß C£ÀĨsÀ«¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝÃ£É zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ F «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß UÀt£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ qÁ: ªÀÄAdļÀ VjÃ±ï «gÀÄzÀÝ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. EAw vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, (¸À»/-) L±ÀéAiÀÄð UËqÀ 9. The Police notice dated 03.02.2024 at Annexure-D, reads as under:- vÀ®WÀlÖ¥ÀÄgÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03.02.202. ¸ÀA: ¹DgïJA/10/¦nµÀ£ï/nd¦J¸ï/2024 ¥ÉÆð¸ï £ÉÆÃn¸ï - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¸ÀĪÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ, ²æÃ. L±ÀéAiÀÄðUËqÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÀiÁ£Àå ºÉZÀÄѪÀj ¥ÉÆð¸ï DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ¥À²ÑªÀÄ «¨sÁUÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ gÀªÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆj£À ªÀiÁ»wUÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.02.2024 gÀAzÀÄ vÀ®WÀlÖ¥ÀÄgÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è F PɼÀUÉ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ. (¸À»/-) ¥ÉÆð¸ï ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï vÀ®WÀlÖ¥ÀÄgÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ- 560 109. gÀªÀjUÉ, qÁ: ªÀÄAdļÀ VjÃ±ï «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA.9880268512 ¸ÀzÀj F ¥ÉÆð¸ï £ÉÆÃnøÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÉÆæ¸É¸ï PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ ºÉZï.¹. 11570 ¦¹. 13944 gÀªÀgÀÄ qÁ: ªÀÄAdļÀ Vjñï gÀªÀgÀ PÀ®ìð& PÀªÀìð PÁ¸ÉänPï ¸Àdðj ¸ÉAlgï D¸ÀàvÉæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ¨ÁV°UÉ CAn¹ eÁj ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.” 10. The impugned complaint dated 03.02.2024 reads as under:- To, The police Inspector Vijayanagara Police Station Vijayanagara, Bengaluru From, Dr. Girish A C S/o. A.M. Chandramouli 49 years, No. 760/ 8th Cross, 5th main Vijayanagara, Bengaluru – 560 040. Mob. 9480281652, 9880268512 Subject: complaint against Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda, aged 32 years residing at # 111/1, Sambarama, 3rd Cross, 3rd Main, BEML Layout, Rajarajeshwari Nagar, Bangalore. Respected Sir, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 Myself Dr. Girish A C & my wife Dr. Manjula G M are living in above mentioned address since past 5 years. We are also running Curls & Curves cosmetic Surgery Centre hospital since past 5 years in the same premises. Professionally we are qualified doctors serving the society for 20 years. We attend number of patients for various purposes relating to cosmetic surgeries. In the mean time we happened to meet Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda at Vijayanagara club near to 2 years back through mutual friend. Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda approached me various times regarding her cosmetic surgeries needs & got the surgeries done with us for which she used to pay the necessary fees. She used to meet myself & my wife too on many occasions after her surgeries. She built trust with myself & my wife; she even became close to my wife. She picturized herself to be a big financier & looking into top real estate business. Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda also made me & my wife to believe that she has high political contracts & She is having several crores transaction every year. Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda often used to ask lakhs of rupees initially, for which she used to pay back at proper time. Hence, winning over our trust, pretending to be honest & loyal, she further became close to my wife Dr. Manjula and the she explained about her business related to high ends cars which are imported & to be sold at lesser price. She encashed my wife’s confidence & myself & convinced us to put money now & then to her bank account number 920020052425162, Axis Bank, IFSC Code UTIB0001856, Srinivasanagara Branch. She misguided and cheated us that she will deliver high -end cars worth 6-7 Crores. Believing this we trusted her & mode 2 Crore loan against property in Kotak Bank on 01.10.2022 & same amount was transferred to Mrs. Aishwarya’s above mentioned bank account on 05.08.2022. Afterwards we have paid 4 Crores cash at different time to Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda. We met Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda often at Vijayanagar club, Shanthinagar hotel many times over a cup of coffee. After realizing that Mrs. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 Aishwarya Gowda is not genuine avoiding, misleading, cheating we requested her several times to return our money back. She was not returning our money giving one or the other reasons. After that we strictly told her to return back our amount, to our shock she threatened us that she will file false case against me to the Police Station by lodging a false complaint of molestation, rape and highlight in media. She asked me to come to Vijayanagar Club and there with her personal body guards who had deadly weapons, abused me with filthy language and threatened me that she will spoil reputation of our esteemed Curls & Curves Cosmetic surgery Centre hospital. Also, she threatened me to murder & break my limbs & hands into pieces. I was very much afraid at that point of time and couldn’t react out of fear. Then she demanded 5 laksh for not creating a scene of false molestation case . I then arranged somehow 2 lakhs cash the next day. She extorted another 3 lakhs by causing extortion. When I found threat to my life, I was forced to give Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda the said amount. Regarding this issue after discussing with the family. I am giving complaint now & hence the delay in lodging the complaint. We believe in the system of justice, hence I here by request you to take proper action against Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda, uphold justice and protect my family. Thanking You, Yours sincerely (Dr. Girish A.C.) 11. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the primary question that arises for consideration is, whether continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of process of the court; in this - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 context, it is relevant to state that the sequence of events preceding the registration of the impugned FIR is of paramount significance and the same would reveal that the petitioner having lodged the aforesaid complaint on 02.02.2024 against Dr.Manjula, wife of the complainant, in pursuance of which, the police authorities acted upon it and issued a notice to her on 03.02.2024 while the impugned FIR was registered against the petitioner at 2 p.m. in the afternoon on 03.02.2024; this close proximity in time strongly indicates that the impugned complaint is not merely a spontaneous grievance but a calculated and retaliatory action designed to pressurize and gain an upper hand in a financial dispute and the 2nd respondent having consciously suppressed the aforesaid prior complaint by the petitioner against his wife and the police notice issued to her clearly casts a serious doubt on the bonafides of the 2nd respondent thereby establishing that the impugned complaint and FIR are nothing but a counter blast which are not sustainable in law and warrant interference by this Court in the present petition. 12. 12. A plain reading of the complaint makes it evident that the entire dispute stems from a series of a financial transactions - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 between the parties over a period of two years and the petitioner has not denied the transactions and the gravamen of the complaint is merely non-payment of money simpliciter, without there being any criminality in this regard; it is well settled that criminal justice system cannot be used as a tool for recovery of money and the remedy available to the 2nd respondent is before the civil court and the attempt on the part of the respondent to cloak a purely a civil dispute with a criminal colour is manifest in the facts and circumstances of the instant case which is another circumstance which would vitiate the impugned complaint and FIR, which deserve to be quashed on this ground also. 13. There is no gainsaying the fact that the Apex Court has repeatedly deprecated the practice of converting disputes which are predominantly, overwhelmingly and essentially of a civil nature into a criminal proceedings by giving the same a cloak of criminality and a criminal texture / flavour which is impermissible in law. In Indian Oil Corporation’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- “ 10. The respondents herein filed Crl. OP No. 1563 of 2000 and Crl. OP No. 2418 of 1999 respectively - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the said two complaints on the following two grounds: (i) The complaints related to purely contractual disputes of a civil nature in respect of which IOC had already sought injunctive reliefs and money decrees. (ii) Even if all the allegations in the complaints were taken as true, they did not constitute any criminal offence as defined under Sections 378, 403, 405, 415 or 425 IPC. 19. Section 378 defines theft. It states: “378. Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.” The averments in the complaint clearly show that neither the aircrafts nor their engines were ever in the possession of IOC. It is admitted that they were in the possession of NEPC India at all relevant times. The question of NEPC committing theft of something in its own possession does not arise. The appellant has therefore rightly not pressed the matter with reference to Section 378. 14. In Lalit Chaturvedi’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- “ 5. This Court, in a number of judgments, has pointed out the clear distinction between a civil wrong in the form of breach of contract, non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of the contractual terms; and a - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406IPC. Repeated judgments of this Court, however, are somehow overlooked, and are not being applied and enforced. We will be referring to these judgments. The impugned judgment dismisses the application filed by the appellants under Section 482CrPC on the ground of delay/laches and also the factum that the charge-sheet had been filed on 12-12-2019. This ground and reason is also not valid. 9. We will assume that the assertions made in the complaint are correct, but even then, a criminal offence under Section 420 read with Section 415IPC is not established in the absence of deception by making false and misleading representation, dishonest concealment or any other act or omission, or inducement of the complainant to deliver any property at the time of the contract(s) being entered. The ingredients to allege the offence are neither stated nor can be inferred from the averments. A prayer is made to the police for recovery of money from the appellants. The police is to investigate the allegations which discloses a criminal act. Police does not have the power and authority to recover money or act as a civil court for recovery of money. 11. In this case entrustment is missing, in fact it is not even alleged. It is a case of sale of goods. The charge-sheet does refer to Section 506IPC relying upon the averments in the complaint. However, no details and particulars are given, when and on which date and place the threats were given. Without the said details and - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 particulars, it is apparent to us, that these allegations of threats, etc. have been made only with an intent to activate police machinery for recovery of money.” 15. In Naresh’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- 6. In the case of Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673, this Court recognized that although the inherent powers of a High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be exercised sparingly, yet the High Court must not hesitate in quashing such criminal proceedings which are essentially of a civil nature. This is what was held: “12. While exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code the High Court has to be cautious. This power is to be used sparingly and only for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. 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 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 - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.” 16. A perusal of the impugned complaint and FIR will indicate that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie not made out or forthcoming and the same are conspicuously absent from the impugned complaint and FIR; in this context, it is significant to note that it is well settled that for an offence of cheating, it is absolutely essential to demonstrate that there was a fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner at the very inception of the transaction; in the instant case, the complaint itself speaks of a two year long relationship between the petitioner and 2nd respondent and his wife with multiple transactions between them and mere subsequent failure to repay a loan cannot retrospectively impart a criminal intent to the initial transaction and the impugned complaint which is bereft of any specific averment to show deception at the outset is vitiated and the same deserves to be quashed on this ground also. 17. 17. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in addition to the present proceedings, the 2nd respondent – complainant has also instituted another proceeding against the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 petitioner under Section 138 of N.I.Act which is pending adjudication; though the questions / issue as to whether parallel / simultaneous / dual proceedings arising out of IPC offences and offences under the N.I.Act have been referred to a larger Bench by the Apex Court in the case of J.Vedhasingh vs. R.M.Govindan & others – 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1010, after noticing the divergent views of the Apex Court in the case of G.Sagarsuri vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – (2000) 2 SCC 636 and Kolla Veera Raghav Rao vs. Gorantla Venkateshwara Rao – (2011) 2 SCC 703 on one hand and the case of Sangeetaben Mahendra Bhai Patel vs. State of Gujarath – (2012) 7 SCC 621 and V.S.Reddy & Sons vs. Muthyala Ramalinga Reddy – Crl.A.No.1285/2015 dated 28.09.2015 on the other hand, having regard to the fact that even according to the 2nd respondent – complainant himself, the petitioner is alleged to have issued cheques in his favour in respect of the subject transactions, it cannot be said that there was any criminal intention on the part of the petitioner at the inception so as to attract the offence of cheating as alleged by the 2nd respondent and consequently, I am of the view that the impugned complaint and FIR deserve to be quashed on this ground also. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 18. In Anukul Singh’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- 11. Before adverting to the facts of the present case, it is necessary to recapitulate the settled legal principles governing the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is well established that though the High Court possesses wide and plenary inherent jurisdiction, such power is not unbridled or unlimited, but circumscribed by self-imposed restraints evolved through judicial pronouncements. 11.1. This Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, at paragraph 102, laid down illustrative categories where quashing of proceedings is justified. These are: “(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. (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. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 (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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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.” The categories in Bhajan Lal are illustrative and not exhaustive, but they provide guiding principles to balance two competing considerations - (a) preventing abuse of process of law, and (b) ensuring that criminal proceedings are not stifled at the threshold on disputed questions of fact. 11.2. Equally, this Court has consistently cautioned that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot embark upon a “mini-trial” or weigh the sufficiency of evidence, which falls within the domain of the trial Court. The scope of enquiry is confined to whether, on a plain reading of the FIR/complaint and accompanying material, the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. [See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madal Lal Kapoor, HMT Watches v. Abida and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 11.3. In Md. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar, it was reiterated that appreciation of contradictions or inconsistencies in witness statements lies within the exclusive domain of the trial Court and not in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Similarly, in CBI v. Aryan Singh, it was emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by examining the merits of the prosecution's case and holding that charges were not proved, which is a matter strictly for trial. 11.4. Nevertheless, an exception has been recognized where the defence relies upon unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence of sterling quality - such as documents of undisputed authenticity - which ex facie demonstrate that continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust and oppressive. This principle was recognized in Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Rajvir Industries Ltd., and followed in subsequent decisions. 11.5. Thus, the cumulative principles that emerge are: while the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, it is the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 duty of the High Court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it. Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial. 12. The specific case of the appellant is that his father purchased land comprised in Khasra Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 situated at Village Sherpur Mafi, District Moradabad, from one Akil Hussain. This land was used for the purposes of Qurbani. According to the appellant, in order to usurp the said property, the Shaher Imam of Bilari, in collusion with the district administration and under pressure exerted upon the local police, ensured that a series of false criminal cases were foisted against him. As many as eight FIRs were lodged against the appellant, including the present one, all of which, in substance, arise out of a civil dispute relating to ownership and possession of the property. Initiation of the present criminal proceedings, therefore, amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law, squarely falling within the illustrative categories delineated in Bhajan Lal, particularly where the dispute is manifestly civil in nature and the prosecution is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. 13. The record reveals that within a short span, as many as eight FIRs were registered against the appellant. The gravamen of the allegations in the present FIR is that - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 Respondent No. 2/complainant approached the appellant for a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-, but was allegedly advanced only Rs. 1,40,000/-. It is further alleged that, in connection with the said transaction, an agreement to sell dated 09.11.1998 was executed in respect of a plot owned by the complainant, and that the appellant procured three cheques from Respondent No. 2, which, upon presentation, were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Even if accepted in entirety, these allegations disclose, at best, a civil dispute and do not prima facie constitute the essential ingredients of the criminal offences alleged. 14. It is significant to note that prior to registration of the present FIR, the appellant had already initiated proceedings against Respondent No. 2, namely a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act (Complaint No. 2402840/2005) before the N.I. Court, Moradabad, as well as FIR No. 120/2002, in which, the complainant himself was arrested. The present FIR was lodged nearly three months after the filing of the Section 138 complaint and seven months after FIR No. 120/2002. The plea that the FIR is a retaliatory counterblast to the proceedings legitimately initiated by the appellant, therefore, carries substantial weight. 15. The mala fide nature of the complaint is further fortified by the fact that, by judgment dated 15.01.2025, the trial Court convicted Respondent No. 2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, sentencing him to one month's imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs. 90,000/-. This conviction lends strong support to the appellant's case - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 that the initiation of the present FIR was a retaliatory measure, maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to neutralise the lawful action taken by him. 16. Despite this background, the police proceeded to file a charge sheet dated 16.04.2003 against the appellant for offences under sections 420, 467, and 468 IPC. Even if the allegations are assumed to be true, they unmistakably arise out of a commercial/contractual transaction relating to loan and repayment, which has been given a criminal colour. The case thus falls squarely within categories (1) and (7) of Bhajan Lal, namely, where the allegations do not disclose the commission of an offence, and where the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. Continuation of such prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law and consequently, warrant quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 17. This Court has, in a long line of decisions, deprecated the tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., it was held that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual matters, and that such misuse amounts to abuse of process. The following paragraphs from the decision are apposite: “9. The principles, relevant to our purpose are: (i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute any offence or - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 make out the case alleged against the accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations. Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while examining prayer for quashing of a complaint. (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable. (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used sparingly and with abundant caution. (iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence. (v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not. 10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.” 18. Similarly, in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal it was emphasized that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment or private vendetta. In Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam, this Court again reiterated that criminal complaints in respect of property disputes of civil nature, filed solely to - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 harass the accused or to exert pressure in civil litigation, constitute an abuse of process. 19. Most recently, in Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court disapproved the practice of using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil remedies, observing that money recovery cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution where the dispute is essentially civil. The Court cautioned High Courts not to direct settlements in such matters but to apply the settled principles in Bhajan Lal. The following paragraphs are relevant in this context: “9. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral agreement between the parties. The Respondent No. 4 might have parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the appellant - herein owes a particular amount to be paid to the Respondent No. 4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant. 10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality. 11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of “Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh”, (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that this very decision was - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent. We fail to understand why the High Court should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016. 12. Why the High Court was not able to understand that the entire dispute between the parties is of a civil nature. 13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of the process of law. 14. We could have said many things but we refrain from observing anything further. If the Respondent No. 4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 15. We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order. The High Court first directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- to the Respondent No. 4 and thereafter directed him to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the purpose of settlement. That's not what is expected of a High Court to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of FIR or any other criminal proceedings. What is expected of the High Court is to look into the averments and the allegations levelled in the FIR along with the other material on record, if any. The High Court seems to have forgotten the well-settled principles as enunciated in the decision of this Court in the “State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal”, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335” 20. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the dispute - concerning repayment of loan money and the alleged coercion in execution of documents - is purely civil in character. The essential ingredients of cheating or forgery are not prima facie made out. The institution of multiple FIRs in quick succession, particularly after the appellant had already initiated lawful proceedings, reinforces the inference of mala fides. 21. The High Court, in refusing to quash the proceedings, misdirected itself in law by failing to apply the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal, and the subsequent authorities referred to above, which uniformly hold that the machinery of criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance. 22. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 22.10.2019 of the High Court is set aside. FIR No. 47 of 2003 dated 05.02.2003 and the consequential charge sheet dated - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 16.04.2003, pending before the trial Court, are hereby quashed. This judgment, however, shall not preclude the parties from pursuing civil remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law. 23. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed in the above terms. 24. Pending Application(s), if any, stand disposed of.” 19. In Arshad Neyaz Khan’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- “ 17. In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 (“Inder Mohan Goswami”), while dealing with Section 420 IPC, this Court observed thus: “42. On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is manifest that in the definition there are two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to any person. The second class of acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducement must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need not be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning.” 19. It is settled law that for establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant/respondent No. 2 was required to show that the appellant had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a promise or representation of not fulfilling the agreement for sale of the said property. Such a culpable intention right at the beginning when the promise was made cannot be presumed but has to be made out with cogent facts. In the facts of the present case, there is a clear absence of dishonest and fraudulent intention on the part of the appellant during the agreement for sale. We must hasten to add that there is no allegation in the FIR or the complaint indicating either expressly or impliedly any intentional deception or fraudulent/dishonest intention on the part of the appellant right from the time of making the promise or misrepresentation. Nothing has been said on what the misrepresentations were and how the appellant intentionally deceived the complainant/respondent No. 2. Mere allegations by the complainant/respondent No. 2 that the appellant failed to execute the agreement for sale and failed to refund the money paid by the complainant/respondent No. 2 does not satisfy the test of dishonest inducement to deliver a property or part with a valuable security as enshrined under Section 420 IPC. - 32 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 21. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that if it is the case of the complainant/respondent No. 2 that the offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC, punishable under Section 406 IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined in Section 415, punishable under Section 420 IPC. This Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 10 SCC 690 observed that there is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriates the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver a property. In such a situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously. Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the offences that are independent and distinct. The said offences cannot co-exist simultaneously in the same set of facts as they are antithetical to each other.” 20. In the aforesaid judgment, the Apex Court reiterated the principle laid down by it in Delhi Race Club’s case supra to the - 33 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 effect that offences punishable under Section 420 and 406 cannot co-exist on the same set of facts and held as hereunder:- “ 38. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405IPC, punishable under Section 406IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415IPC, punishable under Section 420IPC. 43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co- exist simultaneously. 46. It has been held in State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal [State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal, 1967 SCC - 34 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 OnLine SC 58 : AIR 1968 SC 700 : (1968) 2 SCR 408] : (SCC OnLine SC para 8) “8. The term “entrusted” found in Section 405IPC governs not only the words “with the property” immediately following it but also the words “or with any dominion over the property” occurring thereafter—see Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra [Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 185 : AIR 1965 SC 1433 : (1965) 2 SCR 429] . Before there can be any entrustment there must be a trust meaning thereby an obligation annexed to the ownership of property and a confidence reposed in and accepted by the owner or declared and accepted by him for the benefit of another or of another and the owner. But that does not mean that such an entrustment need conform to all the technicalities of the law of trust — see Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay [Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. State of Bombay, 1956 SCC OnLine SC 46 : AIR 1956 SC 575 : 1956 SCR 483] . The expression “entrustment” carries with it the implication that the person handing over any property or on whose behalf that property is handed over to another, continues to be its owner. Further the person handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking the property so as to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an “entrustment”.” 49. From the aforesaid, there is no manner of any doubt whatsoever that in case of sale of goods, the property passes to the purchaser from the seller when the goods are delivered. Once the property in the goods passes to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the purchaser was entrusted with the property of the seller. Without entrustment of property, there cannot be any criminal breach of trust. Thus, prosecution of cases on charge of criminal breach of trust, for failure to pay the consideration amount in case of sale of goods is flawed to the core. There can be civil remedy for the non-payment of the consideration amount, - 35 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 but no criminal case will be maintainable for it. [See : Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U.P. [Lalit Chaturvedi v. State of U.P., (2024) 12 SCC 483 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 171] and Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand [Mideast Integrated Steels Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand, 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 301] .] 21. Viewed from this angle also, the impugned complaint and FIR deserve to be quashed. 22. The complainant has also made allegations of extraction interalia alleging that the petitioner who is the alleged debtor of crores of rupees extorted a sum of Rs.5 lakhs from her creditor, the 2nd respondent herein by putting him by fear of injury; this allegation of extortion is clearly and inherently improbable and absurd and on the face of it, this allegation appears to be a malicious embellishment to invoke a more serious offence which is impermissible in law and the impugned complaint and FIR in relation to the alleged offence of extortion deserve to be quashed. 23. Insofar as the allegation of intentional insult and criminal intimidation as contemplated under Sections 504 and 506 IPC are concerned, a perusal of the impugned complaint will indicate that the allegations in this regard are general omnibus and vague - 36 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 without providing any particulars or details as to the date, time, place or specific words used which are made with malafide intentions only to activate the police machinery which is not sustainable in law and the same deserves to be quashed on this score also. 24. In Lalit Chaturvedi’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- “ 5. This Court, in a number of judgments, has pointed out the clear distinction between a civil wrong in the form of breach of contract, non-payment of money or disregard to and violation of the contractual terms; and a criminal offence under Sections 420 and 406 IPC. Repeated judgments of this Court, however, are somehow overlooked, and are not being applied and enforced. We will be referring to these judgments. The impugned judgment dismisses the application filed by the appellants under Section 482CrPC on the ground of delay/laches and also the factum that the charge-sheet had been filed on 12-12-2019. This ground and reason is also not valid. 9. We will assume that the assertions made in the complaint are correct, but even then, a criminal offence under Section 420 read with Section 415IPC is not established in the absence of deception by making false and misleading representation, dishonest concealment or any other act or omission, or inducement of the - 37 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 complainant to deliver any property at the time of the contract(s) being entered. The ingredients to allege the offence are neither stated nor can be inferred from the averments. A prayer is made to the police for recovery of money from the appellants. The police is to investigate the allegations which discloses a criminal act. Police does not have the power and authority to recover money or act as a civil court for recovery of money. 10. The charge-sheet also refers to Section 406IPC, but without pointing out how the ingredients of the said section are satisfied. No details and particulars are mentioned. There are decisions which hold that the same act or transaction cannot result in an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust simultaneously. For the offence of cheating, dishonest intention must exist at the inception of the transaction, whereas, in case of criminal breach of trust there must exist a relationship between the parties whereby one party entrusts another with the property as per law, albeit dishonest intention comes later. 11. In this case entrustment is missing, in fact it is not even alleged. It is a case of sale of goods. The charge- sheet does refer to Section 506IPC relying upon the averments in the complaint. However, no details and particulars are given, when and on which date and place the threats were given. Without the said details and particulars, it is apparent to us, that these allegations of threats, etc. have been made only with an intent to activate police machinery for recovery of money. - 38 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 25. The present case is a classic illustration falling within the parameters and categories 1, 5 and 7 of paragraph-102 of the land mark judgment of the Apex Court in Bhajanlal’s case supra, wherein it is held as under:- “ 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 have given 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. (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. - 39 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 (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.” 26. As stated supra, the petitioner has placed reliance upon her earlier / prior complaint dated 02.02.2024 lodged against Manjula wife of the 2nd respondent and the police notice issued to her on 03.02.2024; these documents are of sterling and impeccable quality which irrefutably established that the impugned complaint and FIR are nothing but a counter blast and are of retaliatory nature which clearly negates the allegations made in the complaint, leading to quashment of the complaint and FIR as held by the Apex Court in Sanjal Bose’s case supra, wherein it is held as under:- “ 20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal submitted that the investigation was conducted strictly in accordance with law and that specific and clear roles have been attributed to the appellants in the commission of the alleged offences. It was contended that the complainant had consistently named the accused persons including the appellants in the FIR and in his statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC. The CCTV footage seized during investigation, along with medical records and other documentary material, prima facie - 40 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 establishes their presence and participation in the occurrence in question. It was further urged that the chargesheet was filed only upon due consideration of the evidence collected, disclosing cognizable offences, and that the questions sought to be raised by the appellants revolve around disputed factual aspects which can be adjudicated only upon trial. The State, therefore, supported the impugned judgment of the High Court to the extent it declined to quash the proceedings against the appellants and submitted that no case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is made out. 32. Recently, this Court in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh, revisited and further elucidated the parameters governing the exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. While drawing guidance from earlier precedents, this Court delineated a structured four-step test to assess the sustainability of a prayer for quashing criminal proceedings. The said decision underscores that where the material relied upon by the accused is of sterling and impeccable quality; is sufficient to negate the allegations in the complaint; remains unrefuted or incapable of justifiable refutation by the prosecution; and where continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of Court and not serve the ends of justice, the High Court would be justified in exercising its inherent powers to quash the proceedings. For ready reference, the relevant observations from the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:— - 41 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 “20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.: — (i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality? (ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false. (iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant? (iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice? If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising - 42 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused.” 27. In Vishal Nobel Singh’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- “ 18. On a reading of the FIR as well as the charge- sheet, we do not find that the offences aforestated are made out at all. We do not find any criminal breach of trust nor any cheating by impersonation. There is also no cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, nor have any documents referred to any forgery or security or any forgery for the purpose of cheating. There is no reference to any document which has been forged so as to be used as a genuine document and much less is there any criminal conspiracy which can be imputed to the appellants herein in the absence of any offence being made out vis-à-vis the aforesaid sections. 19. In this regard, our attention was drawn to paras 42-44 and 46 of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal [Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 259] , dealing with Sections 420 and 467IPC, which are extracted hereunder with regard to Section 420IPC, it was observed thus: (SCC pp. 15-16) “42. On a reading of the aforesaid section, it is manifest that in the definition there are two separate classes of acts which the person deceived may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to deliver property to any person. The second class of acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which the person deceived would not do or omit to do if he were not so - 43 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 deceived. In the first class of cases, the inducing must be fraudulent or dishonest. In the second class of acts, the inducing must be intentional but need not be fraudulent or dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. From his mere failure to subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume that he all along had a culpable intention to break the promise from the beginning. 43. We shall now deal with the ingredients of Section 467IPC. … 44. The following ingredients are essential for commission of the offence under Section 467IPC: 1. the document in question so forged; 2. the accused who forged it; 3. the document is one of the kinds enumerated in the aforementioned section. *** 46. The court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. On analysis of the aforementioned cases, we are of the opinion that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482CrPC though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution and only when it is justified by the tests specifically laid down in the statute itself and in the aforementioned cases. In view of the settled legal position, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.” (emphasis supplied) 20. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against the appellant-accused herein are made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against the appellant-accused herein have been made with a mala fide intent and therefore, the judgment of - 44 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] and particularly sub-paras (1), (3), (5) and (7) of para 102, extracted above, squarely apply to the facts of these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue. 21. This Court, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , reasoned that the criminal process cannot be utilised for any oblique purpose and held that while entertaining an application for quashing an FIR at the initial stage, the test to be applied is whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the offence. This Court also concluded that the court should quash those criminal cases where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuation of a criminal prosecution. The aforesaid observations squarely apply to this case. 22. We find that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud. 23. We say so for the reason that while the second respondent complainant has made grave allegations against the appellants herein and on whose behalf a charge-sheet - 45 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 has also been filed against such allegations, has failed to appear before this Court to justify the same. Such acts would not only cause deep fissures and mistrust between people and also unnecessarily burden the law courts and the criminal justice system.” 28. The aforesaid facts and circumstances clearly established that the impugned criminal proceedings are manifestly attended with malafides and are instituted with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance upon the petitioner and the impugned proceedings being an attempt to give a cloak of criminality and convert an essentially, predominantly and overwhelmingly civil dispute by giving the same a criminal colour / texture which is impermissible in law, allowing such proceedings to continue would be a gross abuse of process of court and would result in travesty of justice warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 29. 29. A perusal of the material will indicate that there is a long unexplained and inordinate delay on the part of the 2nd respondent in lodging the impugned complaint on 03.02.2024 in relation to alleged offences said to have been committed over a period of two years and the impugned complaint and FIR are unsustainable in - 46 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 law on this ground also as held by the Apex Court in Chanchalapathi Das’s case supra, wherein it is held as under:- “ 18. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have power to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised and with great caution, the said powers ought to be exercised if a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out by the accused. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy the Supreme Court had held that the criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 if the court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed. 19. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark decision State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, after considering relevant provisions more particularly Section 482CrPC and the principles of law enunciated by this Court relating to the exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226, had laid down certain guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing, which have been followed in umpteen number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads as under “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 - 47 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 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. (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. - 48 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 (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 Act concerned (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 Act concerned, 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.” 20. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy this Court had observed that the court would be justified to quash the proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of court. 21. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N. that though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a - 49 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint. 22. In the light of the aforestated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the charge- sheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-accused. 23. Before parting, a few observations made by this Court with regard to the misuse and abuse of the process of law by filing false and frivolous proceedings in the courts need to be reproduced. In the Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. “1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice- delivery system which was in vogue in the pre- Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. - 50 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.” 24. In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India it was observed as under : “191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims.” 25. We would like to add that just as bad coins drive out good coins from circulation, bad cases drive out good cases from being heard on time. Because of the proliferation of frivolous cases in the courts, the real and genuine cases have to take a backseat and are not being heard for years together. The party who initiates and continues a frivolous, irresponsible and senseless litigation or who abuses the process of the court must be saddled with exemplary cost, so that others may deter to follow such course. The matter should be viewed more seriously when people who claim themselves and project themselves to be the global spiritual leaders, engage themselves into such kind of frivolous litigations and use the court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores or to nurture their personal ego. 26. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons stated - 51 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, arising out of FIR No. 33 of 2009 registered at Ballygunge Police Station, and quash the same.” 30. So also, in Harilal’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under:- 20. Although there might not have been a specific question put to PW-9 as regards the delay in lodging the FIR but the fact that it was a delayed FIR cannot be ignored. When an FIR is delayed, in absence of proper explanation, the courts must be on guard and test the evidence meticulously to rule out possibility of embellishments in the prosecution story, inasmuch as delay gives opportunity for deliberation and guess work. More so, in a case where probability of no one witnessing the incident is high, such as in a case of night occurrence in an open place or a public street” 31. In Rikhab’s case supra, the Apex Court held as under; 18. In Kunti v. State of Uttar Pradesh, this Court referred to Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab wherein it was observed that a breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep a - 52 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. Thus, the dishonest intention on the part of the party who is alleged to have committed the offence of cheating should be established at the time of entering into the transaction with the complainant, otherwise the offence of cheating is not established or made out. 32. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned complaint and FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto would amount to abuse of process of law / court warranting interference by this Court in the present petition and consequently, the impugned complaint and FIR and all further proceedings deserve to be quashed. 33. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned complaint dated 03.02.2024 lodged by the 2nd respondent – de facto complainant and impugned FIR in Crime No.23/2024 dated 03.02.2024 registered by the 1st respondent – Police and all further proceedings pursuant thereto insofar as the petitioner – accused is concerned, are hereby quashed. - 53 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35159 CRL.P No. 1586 of 2024 (iii) It is made clear that the present order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in any other pending / future civil litigation between the parties before any court or forum and all rival contentions in this regard are kept / left open and no opinion is expressed on the merits / demerits of the rival contentions. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.