- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13863 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. ROSHAN FAISAL ZAKI, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O ROSHAN SHABBIR. 2. MR. ROSHAN SHABBIR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O ABDUL RAHIM ROSHAN. 3. MRS. SHAHISTA NAZNEEN, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, W/O ROSHAN SHABBIR. 4. MR. ROSHAN FOUAD LABEEB, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O ROSHAN SHABBIR, ALL THE ABOVE ARE R/AT NO. 16-B, 9TH CROSS, ADI KABIR ASHRAM ROAD, MOTI NAGAR, RT NAGAR POST, BANGALORE 560 032. 5. TASNEEM FATHIMA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O MOHAMMED SULAIMAN, R/AT NO. 15, 3RD CROSS, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 PATEL GUNDAPPA BLOCK, MUNIREDDYPALYA, BANGALORE 560006. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VACHANA N V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. KH LAW OFFICE REP BY MR. HUSSAIN OWAIS. S, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O K M HUSSAIN, KH LAW OFFICE, NO.15, 1ST FLOOR, BHARAT BHAVAN, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI M.R BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) TO a) QUASH THE FIR NO.148/2024 REGISTERED AT R.T.NAGAR P.S., U/S 424,418,420,465,503,506,120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC, ALONG WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AS THE SAME ARE WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED, BASELESS AND AMOUNT TO AN ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-M DATED 30.04.2024 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 are before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.148/2024, pending before the VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 424, 418, 420, 465, 503, 506 and 120B r/w. 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Smt. Vachana N.V., learned counsel for petitioners, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri M.R.Balakrishna, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: Respondent No.2 is the complainant, an advocate. It is alleged that the petitioners from respondent No.2 had borrowed ₹32,00,000/- relating to retainership agreement and in furtherance whereof, the petitioners issued a cheque for ₹40,20,000/-. It is the further allegation of the complainant that the cheque so issued was dishonored for want of sufficient - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 funds. It transpires that, the petitioners overall had returned only ₹15,50,000/- out of the said amount of ₹32,00,000/-. When the complainant asked for returning of the remaining amount, the petitioners are said to have threatened respondent No.2 - complainant. This resulted in the complainant registering a complaint for the aforesaid offences. Registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. This Court in terms of its order dated 18.12.2024 had stayed further investigation, qua the petitioners and the said interim order is still in operation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 are all members of the same family. The complainant introduces himself as an advocate to the petitioners and projected himself to be handling property matters and also solicited that if he had any property issue, he could reach out to the complainant. One such civil case instituted in O.S.No.4663/2021 for which, the complainant demanded ₹7,50,000/- as court fee for an injunction suit. Certain transactions between the two have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 taken place on the pretext of the court fee, legal fees or other instances. Learned counsel submits that none of these would become the ingredients of the afore-quoted offences so alleged against the petitioners. He would seek quashment of the crime. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the transaction between the two has happened in furtherance of which certain cheque is issued. That transaction having gone wrong, the legal fee that the complainant is entitled to must be made good by the petitioners. A memorandum of understanding is said to have been executed between the petitioners and the complainant. The said memorandum of understanding clearly indicates that the petitioners are liable to pay ₹40,20,000/- and have agreed to pay ₹40,00,000/-. Therefore, the matter requires to be investigated into. 7. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant in seeking dismissal of the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 9. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are said to have acquired certain property between 2016-2018, due to which certain litigation had sprung. Respondent No.2 - complainant introduces himself to be an advocate through a mutual friend and claims to be dealing with property matters. Therefore, he was entrusted with an injunction suit in O.S.No.4663/2021 against the neighboring landowners and the petitioners had transferred a sum of ₹7,50,000/- towards the court fee on the request of respondent No.2 - complainant. Irrevocable retainership agreement is also executed between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and petitioners then transferred the legal fee of ₹22,00,000/-. The petitioners are said to have issued certain cheque, later which is dishonored. These facts are altogether a different circumstance. 10. A memorandum of understanding is said to have executed between the petitioners and respondent No.2 and that having been gone wrong, a private complaint is instituted and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. by respondent No.2, the complainant. The concerned Court refers the matter for investigation. The reference of the matter is registered in Crime No.148/2024. The gist of the complaint by the 2nd respondent is as follows: “…. …. …. 6. It is further submitted that complainant sent them statutory legal notice under 138 NI act for intimating that the cheque got returned unpaid with endorsement "fund insufficient" dated 17-02-2024 and asked to pay back the borrowed loan amount within 15 days of this legal notice but to shock and surprise these Accused person has denied the fact in their reply to our legal notice that they have never entered into any agreement and neither they issued any cheque which is totally a false statement wherein complainant has all the proofs in which these Accused person has accepted that they have entered into MOU cum agreement and has handed over the cheque also narrated in their whatsapp messages that they will return back the money at any cost. The whatsapp messages of the Accused Person accepting that they have entered into an agreement and has payment to be paid to the complainant is hereby produced before the Hon'ble court for your kind perusal. 7. It is further submitted by the complainant that when he told Accused Person that he do not want to get into litigation you give back the money which they borrowed from complainant instead of dragging unnecessary, for that these Accused Person clearly stated that they will not pay any amount and further stated that they will hire some other advocate for the closure of the cases in the court where they can trap another advocate with their sweet fake narrations. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 8. It is further submitted that on 06-03-2023 there was hearing of Accused case in OS No.4663/2021 wherein these Accused people without any intimation or clearing complainant payment which includes the borrowed money and payment for handling legal has directly engaged with another advocate and ask complainant to step back from their cases which caused mental agony as this Complainant has fought these Accused person case very sincere by taking it personally and took all the enemity of the opponent on himself and also these Accused person himself has stated in a whatsapp message addressing the complainant that they shall not leave him until the case is resolved on February 19, 2024 but at the end these Accused person stab the complainant at last. 9. It is further submitted by the complainant that he has a lot of whatsapp messages where these Accused persons has accepted that they has to repay the amount to the complainant, further just to escape from paying the legal fees and borrowed money from complainant these Accused person has cheated him and engaged the new advocate to look after their cases which were handled by complainant with full dedication and determination. 10. It is further submitted that, these Accused Person has cheated complainant by forging the signatures in the MOU cum Agreement which shows that they had criminal intention from day one to cheat complainant once they get back the possession of the property which was illegaly occupied by the opponents. 11. It is further submitted that these Accused Person has indulged in fraudulent activity wherein they have forged the document wherein they are oblige to return back the money they borrowed from complainant which clearly states their criminal intention kindly put retainership cum sale agreement and its signatures which are been forged by these Accused persons who has criminal intention to cheat complainant in order to save themselves to pay back complainant's money which - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 was borrowed by them by their fraudulent activities. 12. It is further submitted when the I-approach the RT nagar Police station they asked for the directions of the court to register the FIR hence this complaint. further I have approached The Commissioner of Police dated 14- 03-2024 to direct the RT NAGAR police station to file complaint against the Accused Person, but till today no action has been taken. 13. It is further submitted that these Accused Person are having criminal mindset wherein they have cheated the complainant itself who is an advocate, if no action is taken against them then there shall be more of these kind of Accused Person who plays with another advocate in order to cheat them once their work is done without paying the amount. 14. The complaint submits that this act is falling under the jurisdiction of RT Nagar Police Station, where the accused has done all the communication in order to cheat and committing fraud to fulfill their wrongful intention. 15. The complainant further submits that no other complaint has been filed or pending before any other court and before this Hon'ble court with regard to the same cause of action and prayer as sort in this complaint. WHEREFORE, the Complainant prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to take cognizance of the offences committed by the Accused under 456 (forging signature), 420 (cheating), 24(Dishonesty), 418 (Wrongful Loss), 120B (Criminal Conspiracy), 503 (Criminal Intimidation), and 506 R/w Section - 34 of Indian Penal Code -1860 and to refer the Complaint under section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C to the RT Nagar Police Station for Investigation and to file report and thereafter to issue process to the accused in the above complaint and sent these MOU cum Agreement to forensic in order to show that these Accused has forged the document in order to cheat the Complainant and prays to seizes Accused Person's Passport as they are planning to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 fly to another country cheating the complainant and punish them also to get the amount recovered which were grabbed by the Accused in accordance with law, in the interest of justice.” (Emphasis added) 10.1. A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that respondent No.2 is said to have set the criminal law into motion only for the purpose of recovery of money, this sans countenance. The Apex Court in the case of LALIT CHATURVEDI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1, has held as follows: “…. …. …. 6. In Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar [Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar, (2009) 8 SCC 751 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929] , this Court had referred to Section 420IPC, to observe that in order to constitute an offence under the said section, the following ingredients are to be satisfied: (SCC pp. 757-58, paras 18-19) “18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are as follows: (i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission; (ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to 1(2024) 12 SCC 483 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and (iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. 19. To constitute an offence under Section 420, there should not only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused should have dishonestly induced the person deceived: (i) to deliver any property to any person, or (ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security).” 7. Similar elucidation by this Court in V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat [V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 3 SCC 78: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 996], explicitly states that a contractual dispute or breach of contract per se should not lead to initiation of a criminal proceeding. The ingredient of “cheating”, as defined under Section 415IPC, is existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of making initial promise or representation thereof, from the very beginning of the formation of contract. Further, in the absence of the averments made in the complaint petition wherefrom the ingredients of the offence can be found out, the High Court should not hesitate to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482CrPC. Section 482CrPC saves the inherent power of the High Court, as it serves a salutary purpose viz. a person should not undergo harassment of litigation for a number of years, when no criminal offence is made out. It is one thing to say that a case has been made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not be quashed, but another thing to say that a person must undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has been made out in the complaint. This Court in V.Y. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 Jose [V.Y. Jose v. State of Gujarat, (2009) 3 SCC 78: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 996] placed reliance on several earlier decisions in Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI [Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. CBI, (2003) 5 SCC 257: 2003 SCC (Cri) 1121: (2003) 262 ITR 466], Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736: (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188], Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal [Vir Prakash Sharma v. Anil Kumar Agarwal, (2007) 7 SCC 373: (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 370] and All Cargo Movers (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain [All Cargo Movers (India) (P) Ltd. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain, (2007) 14 SCC 776: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 947]. 8. Having gone through the complaint, which was registered as an FIR and the assertions made therein, it is quite clear that Respondent 2 complainant Sanjay Garg's grievance is regarding failure of the appellants to pay the outstanding amount, in spite of Respondent 2 complainant Sanjay Garg's repeated demands. Respondent 2 complainant Sanjay Garg states that the supplies were made between the period 1-12-2015 and 6-8-2017. The appellants had made the payments from time to time of Rs.3,76,40,553 leaving a balance of Rs 1,92,91,358. 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 415 IPC 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. 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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 and criminal breach of trust simultaneously. [Wolfgang Reim v. State, (2012) 173 Comp Cas 86 : 2012 SCC OnLine Del 3341; Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. v. Delta Classic (P) Ltd., (2009) 151 Comp Cas 661 : 2009 SCC OnLineGau 105 : (2011) 6 Gau LR 604; Mukesh Sharma v. State of H.P., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 426] 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. 12. It is for Respondent 2 complainant Sanjay Garg to file a civil suit. Initiation of the criminal process for oblique purposes, is bad in law and amounts to abuse of process of law.” 10.2. The Apex Court in its recent judgment in the case of V. GANESAN v. STATE2, has held as follows: "…. …. …. 12. In Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Inc.5, this Court laid down the ingredients of an offence of cheating as defined in Section 4156 of IPC. It was observed that Section 415 of IPC has two parts. The first part makes it necessary that the deception by the accused of the person deceived, 2 2026 SCC OnLine SC 444 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 must be fraudulent or dishonest. Such deception must induce the person to either: (a) deliver property to any person; or (b) consent that any person shall retain any property. The second part also requires that the accused must by deception intentionally induce the person deceived either to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit, if he was not so deceived. Besides, such act or omission must cause or must be likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Thus, deception is a necessary ingredient for the offence of cheating under both parts of this section. Besides, the complainant must allege/prove that the inducement had been caused by the deception exercised by the accused. In other words, such deception must produce the inducement to part with or deliver property, which the complainant would not have parted with or delivered, but for the inducement resulting from such deception. The explanation to the section clarifies that non-disclosure of relevant information would also be treated as a misrepresentation of facts leading to deception. 13. In order to constitute an offence of cheating the intention to deceive should be in existence when the inducement was made. It is necessary to show that a person had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise. Mere failure to keep the promise subsequently cannot be the sole basis to presume that dishonest intention existed from the very beginning. 14. In Vesa Holdings Private Limited v. State of Kerala7, this court held that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating. Only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later, the same cannot amount to cheating. In other words, for the purpose of constituting an offence of cheating, the complaint is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. Even in a case where allegations are - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 made about failure on part of the accused to keep his promise, in absence of a dishonest intention at the time of making the initial promise, no offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out. 15. Whether non-fulfilment of promise/commitment by the accused is a reflection of his or her dishonest intention at the time of making the promise is ordinarily a matter of trial. However, in our view, where the transaction between the parties is such that fulfilment of the promise is not entirely in the control of the promisor, or there is an inherent risk in fulfilment of the promise, the High Court may, in exercise of its inherent powers under the Code, or under Article 226 of the Constitution, as the case may be, upon consideration of the attending circumstances, take a decision whether the dishonest intention existed or not at the time of making the promise. And, if it comes to the conclusion that the alleged conduct of the parties does not reflect a dishonest intention of the accused from the very beginning, it may quash the criminal complaint/proceedings and relegate the aggrieved party to civil remedies. 16. In the present case, what the High Court overlooked is that money was advanced for movie making and initially the agreement was to share the profits. Importantly, when the first tranche of money was transferred by the de-facto complainant to the accused, the alleged promise was a share in profits. Second tranche of money was transferred when the project could not be completed for want of funds. It also appears from paragraph 2 of the impugned order that before the movie could be released, de facto complainant took objection to its release. However, when the appellant gave two post-dated cheques, the movie could be released. 17. The aforesaid facts would indicate that the initial payment of money by the de-facto complainant to the appellant was for a movie project on promise of a share in profits. Additional money was paid later for its completion under a promise of an enhanced share in the profits. Thereafter, post-dated cheques - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 were issued to return the principal amount because of an objection taken by the de facto complainant to the release of the movie. Since there is no denial about the completion of the movie and its ultimate release, what is clear is that the promise to make a movie was not false. Therefore, it cannot be said the appellant made a false promise that he would make a movie with the aid of funds received by him. Insofar as promise qua sharing of profits is concerned, there are no allegations that the movie earned profits. Therefore, from the allegations made in the complaint it cannot be said that there was any dishonest intention of the appellant in making the promise which remained unfulfilled. In our view, the High Court overlooked that movie making is a high risk business. No one can be sure whether a movie would earn profits or would be a flop. If one agrees to share profits in lieu of his investment in a movie, he takes the risk of a possible zero return. Thus, the nature of transaction between the parties was a crucial factor in determining whether the investor party should be allowed to bring in a criminal action or pursue civil remedies. Unfortunately, the High Court overlooked this vital aspect. 18. Insofar as dishonour of those two cheques are concerned, it is clear that those were post-dated cheques issued not as an inducement to obtain delivery of money from the de facto complainant but to discharge an existing obligation at a future date. Thus, in essence, those cheques were not by way inducement to lend money or invest money in the proposed movie. Therefore, dishonour of those cheques, though may give right to initiate proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, would not ipso facto amount to an offence of cheating, inasmuch as for an offence of cheating dishonest intention must exist from the very beginning. Ordinarily, post-dated cheques are issued either by way of security to discharge an existing or future liability or to discharge the liability at some point of time in future. It is quite possible that at the time of issuance of a post-dated cheque, the drawer may have reason to believe that he would have sufficient balance in his account by the date of the cheque. Therefore, in our view, dishonour of a post-dated cheque by itself is not sufficient to presume existence of a dishonest intention on part of its drawer. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 19. In the instant case, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant had a dishonest intention from the very beginning. Had it been a case where the appellant had not made the movie despite borrowing funds to make one, an inference about existence of a dishonest intention was permissible. However, here there is no allegation that movie was not made. Rather, it was made and released. The prosecution case itself is to the effect that further advance was taken to complete and release the movie. However, when complainant took objection to its release, the appellant issued post-dated cheques to repay the principal amount. Thus, those cheques were to discharge an existing liability and not by way of an inducement to take more money. 20. Assuming that by issuance of those cheques, the de facto complainant was led to vacate his objection to movie's release, even then an offence of cheating would not be made out for two reasons. First, those cheques were post-dated therefore, did not carry a representation of sufficient funds in the bank account at the time of its issuance. Second, initial agreement, as per the allegations, was to share profit on release of the movie. Thus, in absence of allegations that movie made profits, in our view, the complaint and the supporting materials failed to indicate that the appellant harboured a dishonest intention from inception. In conclusion, the allegations only disclosed a civil cause of action and the High Court fell in error in not quashing the criminal proceedings." (Emphasis supplied at each instance) In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the admitted fact that the complaint is registered for the purpose of recovery of money, the petition deserves to succeed. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29087 CRL.P No. 13863 of 2024 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The criminal petition is allowed. b. The impugned crime in Crime No.148/2024, now pending before the VIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, stands quashed. c. It is made clear that the observation made in the course of the order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and shall not be applicable to any dispute between the parties that are pending before any forum, or if initiated in future. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj List No.: 2 Sl No.: 0