- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010027062024 NC: 2026:KHC:51749 CRL.P No. 525 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 525 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SONNAMMA @ CHINNAKKA W/O LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 2. SRI. CHOWDAREDDY FOSTERED SON OF SONNAMMA @ CHINNAKKA AND LATE CHOWDAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 3. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE R/O BELLAMBALLI VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT 563131 NOW R/O BANGAVADI VILLAGE, BYRAKUR HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR 563131. 4. SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR D.S. S/O SRIRAMULU NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.487, 3RD MAIN, B-AREA, ITI TOWNSHIP, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010027062024 NC: 2026:KHC:51749 CRL.P No. 525 of 2024 DOORAVANI NAGARA, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU 560 016. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.B.V.SRINATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MULBAGAL TOWN POLICE STATION, KOLAR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU 560 001. 2. SRI.G.V. JAYACHAMARAJ S/O VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT WARD NO.1 TAMAKA, KOLAR 563101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHESH P., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI.GANESH G.G., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.125/2023 (PCR.NO.132/2023) OF MULBAGAL TOWN POLICE NOW WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C. COURT, MULBAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406, 463, 420, 471, 120B OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010027062024 NC: 2026:KHC:51749 CRL.P No. 525 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Crime No.125/2023 (arising out of PCR No.132/2023) dated 10.10.2023 registered by Mulbagal Town Police Station, against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 463, 420, 471, 120B of IPC, on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), and JMFC Court, Mulbagal, Kolar Dist. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint against these petitioners before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal on 19.06.2023, alleging that he has entered into an Agreement of Sale with petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of land bearing Sy.No.53/2 to an extent of 2 acres and 29 guntas. Petitioner No.2 is the adopted son of petitioner No.1. The Agreement was executed on 16.03.2007 for a total sale consideration of Rs.9,53,750/- - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010027062024 NC: 2026:KHC:51749 CRL.P No. 525 of 2024 out of which an advance consideration of Rs.6,53,750/- was paid to petitioner No.1. It is further alleged that on 04.04.2015, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 have given shara that they have received a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- and the balance amount will be received on the date of registration of the said document. However the petitioners have not executed the sale deed and also not returned the advance sale consideration which was paid by respondent No.2. Further on 28.10.2021, respondent No.2 filed civil suit in O.S.No.79/2021 against the petitioners for specific performance and the same is pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulabagal for adjudication. In the meantime, the petitioners have executed a Sale Deed in respect to the said property in favour of petitioner No.4/accused No.4. As such respondent No.2 filed the private complaint against the petitioners. The learned Magistrate, referred the private complainant before the jurisdictional Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the jurisdictional Police registered an FIR in Crime No.125/2023 dated 10.10.2023 for the offences punishable under Section - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010027062024 NC: 2026:KHC:51749 CRL.P No. 525 of 2024 406, 463, 420, 471, 120B of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this petition. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State. 4. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the dispute between the petitioners and respondent No.2 is purely civil in nature and, despite respondent No.2 filed the suit for specific performance of the contract, to give a criminal colour to the dispute, this private complaint has been filed by respondent No.2. He further contended that there is an inordinate delay in filing this private complaint since the Agreement to Sale was dated 16.03.2007 and subsequent Agreement to Sale is dated 13.08.2014. However the private complaint was filed on 19.06.2023. In such circumstances, the proceedings cannot be sustained against these petitioners since the same is filed out of vengeance. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010027062024 NC: 2026:KHC:51749 CRL.P No. 525 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposed the prayer and contented that having knowledge about the execution of the Agreement with respondent No.2 and the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.79/2021, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 sold the property to third party i.e., petitioner No.4. As such there is a clear mens rea / intention on the part of these petitioners to lock out the property of respondent No.2. Hence, offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are made out and this has to be investigated by respondent No.1-Police. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 6. The learned HCGP also opposed the prayer on the ground that case is still in the investigation stage. 7. I have given my anxious consideration both on the submission and perused the entire materials available on record. 8. As could be gathered from records, undisputedly there is an Agreement of Sale executed between petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2 in connection with their property bearing Sy.No.53/2 measuring 2 acres and 29 guntas. On 16.03.2007 - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010027062024 NC: 2026:KHC:51749 CRL.P No. 525 of 2024 sale consideration of Rs.9,53,750/- was paid by respondent No.2 to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and subsequently, respondent No.2 also filed a civil suit for relief of specific performance in O.S.No.79/2021 against the petitioners for non- permanence of contract, which is pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mulbagal for adjudication. The contention of respondent No.2 that in the meantime petitioner Nos.1 to 3 sold the property to third party i.e., petitioner No.4 is concerned, the same is required to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. The agreement between the petitioners and respondent No.2 was executed in the year 2007 and suit was filed in the year 2021, and the present complaint is filed in the year 2023, as such, it could be presumed that, only to give criminal colour to the civil dispute the present complaint is filed by respondent No.2. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arshad Neyaz Khan vs State of Jharkand and Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058 held that the offence under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC cannot go with hand in hand and if the disputes are civil in nature in respect of the performance of contract, the remedy available for the - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010027062024 NC: 2026:KHC:51749 CRL.P No. 525 of 2024 aggrieved parties to approach the Civil Court not by initiating a criminal proceedings for violation of contractual rights and the relevant paragraph Nos.19 to 22 of the above judgment are held as under: " 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. 20. On perusal of the allegations contained in the complaint, in light of the ingredients of Section 406 IPC, read in the context of Section 405 IPC, do not find that any offence of criminal breach of trust has been made out. It is trite law that every act of breach of trust may not result in a penal offence unless there is evidence of a manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation of property entrusted to him. In the case of criminal breach of trust, if a person comes into possession of the property and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts it to its own use against the terms of contract, then the question whether such retention is with dishonest intention or not and whether such retention involves criminal breach of trust or only a civil liability would depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the complainant/respondent No. 2 has failed to - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010027062024 NC: 2026:KHC:51749 CRL.P No. 525 of 2024 establish the ingredients essential to constitute an offence under Section 406 IPC. The complainant/respondent No. 2 has failed to place any material on record to show us as to how he had entrusted property to the appellant. Furthermore, the complaint also omits to aver as to how the property, so entrusted to the appellant, was dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own use, thereby committing a breach of trust. 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. 22. At this point, we must hasten to add that the complaint was filed after a delay of nearly eight years. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No. 2 has failed to impress the Court about the reason for the delay and hence this fact further raises a suspicion about the bona fides of the complainant/respondent No. 2. The delay in lodging of the complaint and FIR, coupled with the vague allegations do not inspire any confidence in the Court to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the appellant. Further, the complainant/respondent No. 2 had an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit claiming damages for the alleged violation of his contractual rights which has not been availed but a route through criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made out, cannot be permitted. Criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas. The appellant therefore, in our view, could not be attributed any mens rea - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010027062024 NC: 2026:KHC:51749 CRL.P No. 525 of 2024 and therefore, the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant are unsustainable. 23. Furthermore, in Inder Mohan Goswami, it was held by this Court that 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. It was further held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down any inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion that to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellant herein would cause undue harassment to him because as observed hereinabove, no prima facie case for the offence under Sections 406 or 420 IPC is made out." 9. On collocating the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that those findings are squarely applicable to the present case. In such circumstances, continuation of the proceedings against these petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following; ORDER i. The petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings in Crime No.125/2023 (arising out of PCR No.132/2023) dated 10.10.2023 registered by Mulbagal Town Police Station against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 463, 420, 471, 120B of IPC, on the file of Prl.Civil - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010027062024 NC: 2026:KHC:51749 CRL.P No. 525 of 2024 Judge (Jr.Dn.), and JMFC Court, Mulbagal, Kolar Dist., is hereby quashed. iii. This observation shall not come in the way of disposing the civil suit in O.S.No.79/2021. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6