- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.7042 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B.J. RAMASWAMY S/O LATE JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 2. SRI B.J. MANJUNATH S/O LATE JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 3. SRI B.J. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. NO.300, BETTAHALASURU VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562157. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI NAGARAJA R.C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE, DEVANAHALLI SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. SRI N. RADHAKRISHNA S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 R/O NO.103A, RANKA ENCLAVE, NO.217, C.V. RAMAN’S AVENUE ROAD, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU-560080. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, LEARNED HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.10/2024, ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., DEVANAHALLI, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B AS ILLEGAL, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATED TO PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 stand at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.10/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri R. C. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned HCGP representing the State. 3. The complainant, though served two years ago, has remained unrepresented even today. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP are heard. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 The facts enumerated are as follows: 4. Respondent No.2 is said to be in possession of an unregistered agreement of sale with the petitioners, agreeing to purchase the schedule property within three months from the date of its agreement. The agreement was entered into on 25.10.2014. On 31.12.2022, it transpires that, without the consent or bringing it to the knowledge of the petitioners, respondent No.2 executed a registered agreement of sale in favour of his wife. On the basis of the agreement of sale that was entered into on 25.10.2024, the petitioners then executed a registered sale deed in favour of one M/s. Essem 18 Infra LLP. Upon the said execution of the sale deed, respondent No.2 and his wife filed a suit for specific performance of the contract entered into on 25.10.2014 in O.S. No.30/2024. After the institution of the suit in O.S. No.30/2024, sets the criminal law into motion for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC on the score that the petitioners have cheated the complainant by entering into the aforesaid agreement. The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the registration of the crime. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would reiterate the averments made in the petition and submit that a purely civil dispute is given a colour of criminality for an agreement that was entered into in the year 2014 by setting the criminal law into motion in the year 2024. 6. The learned HCGP would submit that the State has preferred an application seeking vacation of the interim order on the ground that the moment the crime was registered, the investigation has been stayed and they should be permitted to investigate in a very serious offence. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. Afore narrated facts are a matter of record. The petitioners entered into an agreement of sale with the complainant in the year 2014. Ten years passed by. Several transactions happened in the interregnum. A civil suit has been instituted by the complainant in O.S. No.30/2024 seeking specific performance of the contract entered into in the year - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 2014. Not stopping at that, a complaint comes to be registered on 13.01.2024 for offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows: “gÀªÀjUÉ, ¥ÉÆðøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï aPÀÌeÁ® ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ. gÀªÀjAzÀ, J£ï gÁzsÀPÀȵÀÚ ©£ï £ÀAdÄAqÀ¥Àà, ªÁ¸ÀB ¥Áèmï £ÀA.103/J, gÀAUÀ J£ï PÉè2ʪï. ¹.«. gÁªÀÄ£ï gÀ¸ÉÛ, ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀ£ÀUÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÉÆ.¸ÀA. 9845055402 ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄB AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, eÁ® ºÉÆç½, vÀgÀºÀÄt¸Éà UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 251 gÀ°è 13 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 88/4 gÀ°è 2 JPÀgÉ 27 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ PÉÆAqÀÄ PÀæAiÀÄzÀ PÀgÁgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÄÖ, ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀĪÀjUÉ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁr ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¨ÉlÖºÀ®¸ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ©.eÉ. gÁªÀĸÁé«Ä, ©.eÉ. ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ºÁUÀÆ ©.eÉ. ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄzsÀåªÀwðUÀ¼ÁzÀ «. ¯ÉÆÃPÉñï & eÉ.JA. ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ zÀÆgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸ÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, fêÀ£ÀPÉÌ jAiÀįï J¸ÉÖÃmï ©f£É¸ï ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. 2014 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è £Á£ÀÄ d«ÄãÀÄ ºÀÄqÀÄPÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÉÎ, ªÀÄzsÀåªÀwðUÀ¼ÁzÀ «. ¯ÉÆÃPÉñï & eÉ.JA. ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, eÁ® ºÉÆç½, vÀgÀºÀÄt¸Éà - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 251 gÀ°è 13 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 88/4 gÀ°è 2 JPÀgÉ 27 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀÄ ªÀiÁgÁlPÉÌ EgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ w½¹ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ¨ÉlÖºÀ®¸ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ©.eÉ. gÁªÀĸÁé«Ä, ©.eÉ. ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ºÁUÀÆ ©.eÉ. ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjZÀ¬Ä¹PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, d«Ää£À zÁR¯Áw ¸Àj¬ÄzÀÝ PÁgÀt, £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ¸À®Ä wêÀiÁ𤹠JPÀgÉUÉ 60.00.000/- gÀÆUÀ¼ÀAvÉ MlÄÖ 9.70.50.000/- UÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀªÁV ºÀAvÀ ºÀAvÀªÁV £ÀUÀzÀÄ & ZÀPï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ MlÄÖ 5.85.00.000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À¤ßAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ B 25/10/2014 gÀAzÀÄ ©.eÉ. gÁªÀĸÁé«Ä, ©.eÉ. ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ºÁUÀÆ ©.eÉ. ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀªÀ®èzÀ CVæªÉÄAmï lÆ ¸ÉÃ¯ï ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj CVæªÉÄAmï lÆ ¸Éïï UÉ ªÀÄzsÀåªÀwðUÀ¼ÁzÀ « ¯ÉÆÃPÉñï & f.JA. ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸À» ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. G½zÀ 3.85.50.000/- gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ £ÉÆAzÀt ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛ£É. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÁV 2017-2018 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è MlÄÖ 1.70.00.000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀzÉà d«Ää£À ªÀÄÆ® zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉà ¸ÀvÁ¬Ä¸ÀÄvÁÛ §gÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, d«Ää£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¸À®Ä ¥ÀæAiÀÄwß¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ¸ÀàA¢¸ÀzÀ PÁgÀt CªÀgÀ £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ §UÉÎ C£ÀĪÀiÁ£À §AzÀÄ G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹ RÄt¨sÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ, ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀÄ ©.eÉ. ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀÄ M/s. ESSEM18INFRA LLP Rep by partner S.M. Venkatesh gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ AiÀÄ®ºÀAPÀ G¥À£ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀB 08/12/2023 gÀAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §AvÀÄ. ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV ©.eÉ. gÁªÀĸÁé«Ä, ©.eÉ. ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ºÁUÀÆ ©.eÉ. ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ 2014 £Éà ¸Á°£À°è £À£ÀUÉ CVæªÉÄAmï lÆ ¸ÉÃ¯ï ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÄÖ £À¤ßAzÀ MlÄÖ 7.60.00.000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀAvÀ ºÀAvÀªÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆAzÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀzÉà ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ÀÄì PÉÆqÀzÉà ªÀAa¹, ¸ÀzÀj ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄgɪÀiÁa £À£ÀUÉ w½AiÀÄzÀ ºÁUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ B 08/12/2023 gÀAzÀÄ M/s. ESSEM18INFRA LLP Rep by partner S.M. Venkatesh gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ PÀæAiÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæ £ÉÆAzÀt ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÄÖ, CPÀæªÀÄ ¯Á¨sÀ GAlÄ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ©.eÉ. gÁªÀĸÁé«Ä, ©.eÉ. ªÀÄAdÄ£Áxï ºÁUÀÆ ©.eÉ. ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà & ªÀÄzsÀåªÀwðUÀ¼ÁzÀ « ¯ÉÆÃPÉñï & f.JA. ZÀAzÀæ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ, vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, Sd/-” 9. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.10/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. Section 420 of the IPC has its ingredients in Section 415. Section 415 mandates that the accused must lure the victim into a transaction with a dishonest intention right from the inception. The case at hand projects an agreement of sale between the parties of the year 2014 and the complainant and his wife have also filed a suit for specific performance in O.S. No.30/2024. If that be so, the issue that is purely civil in nature is now given a cloak of crime in Crime No.10/2024. In that light, the crime so registered is rendered unsustainable. Permitting investigation even in such crimes would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of URMILA DEVI AND OTHERS Vs. BALRAM AND ANOTHER1, wherein at paragraph Nos.2, 6, 8 and 9 held as under: 1 2025 SCC Online SC 1574 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 “2. The present appeal arises out of impugned order dated 09.04.2019 passed in Application u/S 482 No. 6543/2003 by the High Court of Allahabad dismissing the application preferred by the accused-appellants under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter “Cr.P.C.”). 2.1. Vide the impugned Order, the High Court refused to quash the Criminal Complaint Case No. 627 of 2002 titled, “Balram v. Kodai” under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Penal Code, 1860 (“hereinafter, “IPC”) pending before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti. x x x 6. During the course of submissions, Sri Tripurari Ray, learned counsel for the accused-appellant contended that this is not a case where any of the ingredients for the alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC are even prima facie present. It was contended that the circumstances make it apparent that the criminal proceedings were initiated only to abuse the process of law with the oblique aim of settling the civil disputes between the parties. 6.1. Furthermore, it was contended that the High Court failed to appreciate that the Mutation Order in favour of the appellants was passed after granting full opportunity to the complainant-respondent No. 1 and that once the objections filed by the complainant-respondent No. 1 were dismissed, no further proceedings were initiated. Similarly, as no further proceedings were ever initiated challenging the rejection of the counter-claim, the order rejecting the counter-claim had attained finality. 6.2. Reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy v. Sudha Seetharam, (2019) 16 SCC 739 (“R.K. Vijayasarathy”) and Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706 (“Anand Kumar Mohatta”), to contend that the High Court should have been vigilant enough and exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. to quash proceedings that are essentially of a civil nature - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 but have been given the disguise of a criminal offence with a veiled object. x x x 8. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length and perused the material on record. We have given our thorough consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar in light of the material on record. 8.1. At the outset, we may place reliance on the seminal judgment of this Court in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (“Bhajan Lal”) with particular reference to paragraph ‘102’ therein and sub-paras 1, 3, 5 and 7, which read as under: “102. (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. *** (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. *** (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. *** (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.” 8.2. On perusal of the record, it is noted that based on the complaint filed by complainant-respondent No. 1, a complaint case No. 627/2002 was registered against the appellants under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 and 471 of the IPC. For ease of reference, the aforesaid Sections are extracted as under: “419. Punishment for cheating by personation.-Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. xxx xxx xxx 467. Forgery of valuable security, will etc.- Whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son, or which purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money, movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and also be liable to fine. xxx xxx xxx 468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. xxx xxx xxx 471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.- Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document or electronic record.” 8.3. Upon giving our thorough consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar, we fail to understand as to how the allegations against the appellants herein who are only legatees under the Will in question, could be sustained in light of the material on record. 8.4. The allegations against the accused- appellants, in sum and substance, are that they entered into a conspiracy with other individuals to fabricate a forged will after the death of the testator that was then used to circumvent the sale deed dated 25.04.1994. 8.5. Upon appreciating the facts and circumstances, we do not find that the offences aforementioned are made out in the present case. Neither do we find any criminal breach of trust nor do we find any cheating by impersonation. We also do not find any cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. In these circumstances, we fail to see how it could be alleged that the accused-appellants cheated and dishonestly induced the complainant-respondent No. 1. 8.6. It is writ large on the face of the record that the complaint case has been employed as a circuitous tool to abuse the process of law, especially after the complainant-respondent No. 1 failed to pursue the remedies available to it. The chronology of events indicates that the criminal proceedings in the year 2001 were instituted only after approximately seven years of the mutation order dated 27.09.1994, four years after the ex-parte ad-interim order issued on 30.07.1997 and three years after the rejection of the objections to the Mutation Order vide Order dated 09.01.1998. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 8.7. In this regard, our attention was drawn to paras 42-44 and 46 of Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1, dealing with Sections 420 and 467 IPC, which are extracted hereunder: “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 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 467 IPC. … 44. The following ingredients are essential for commission of the offence under Section 467 IPC: 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. x x x 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 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 inherent jurisdiction. Inherent jurisdiction of the High Courts under Section 482 CrPC 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.” (underlining by us) 8.8. This Court, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, (Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia) reasoned that the criminal process cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose. This Court also observed 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. 8.9. In R.K. Vijayasarathy, this Court held that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., a High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Recently, in Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680, this Court held that courts have to be vigilant to ensure that the machinery of criminal justice is not misused for achieving oblique motives and agendas. Tacitly endorsing such misuse only unnecessarily burdens the courts and the criminal justice system. In Anand Kumar Mohatta, this Court, whilst quashing the FIR and chargesheet therein, highlighted the following words of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, that describe the fundamental principle for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.: “7. … In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6608 WP No. 7042 of 2024 harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.” (underlining by us) 9. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against the accused-appellants herein are made out. The instant case is just another one in a string of cases filed in recent years that seek to disguise a civil dispute as criminal. The complaint case against the accused-appellants has been pending for over two decades and its continuation would not serve any purpose. The observations made by this Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia inform our decision and the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub-paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102 extracted above, squarely apply to the facts of this case. In our view, it is in the interest of justice that present proceedings be quashed.” 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. The first information report in Crime No.10/2024 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, are quashed, qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66