Sri Pratik K Mehta vs State By
2022 Latest Caselaw 3799 Kant

                             1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.6849/2020

BETWEEN

1.    SRI. PRATIK K MEHTA,
      S/O KIRTI K MEHTA,
      AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

2.    SRI. KIRTI K MEHTA,
      S/O KANTILAL MEHTA,
      AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

3.    SRI. VINAY K MEHTA,
      S/O KIRTI K MEHTA,
      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

      1 TO 3 ARE RESIDING AT NO.6,
      MOUDGAL HOMES,
      3RD FLOOR, UPPER PIPELINE ROAD,
      KUMAR PARK WEST,
      BENGALURU - 560 020.
                                          ... PETITIONERS

[BY SRI.G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE]


AND

1.    STATE BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE,
      VIJAYANAGAR,
      BANGALORE - 560 040.
      REPRESENTED BY
                             2



     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     BENGALURU - 560 001.

2.   M/S EXCEL SECURITY SERVICES,
     A PROPRIETARY CONCERN,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
     SRI. P M KALAPPA,
     S/O MANDANNA,
     AGE 78 YEARS,
     NO. 1174/31, GROUND FLOOR,
     1ST FLOOR, A MAIN ROAD,
     VIJAYANAGAR,
     BENGALURU - 560 040.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

[BY SMT.YASHODA K.P., HCGP FOR R1;
    SRI.BRIJESH KALAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2]


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO a. QUASH THE COMPLAINT/FIR FILED IN
CR.NO.231/2020 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.120-B, 384, 420, 406,
447, 448, 506 OF IPC BEFORE THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE - A
AND B RESPECTIVELY AND ETC.


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question

proceedings in Crime No.231/2020 registered for offences

punishable under Sections 120B, 384, 420, 406, 447, 448 and

506 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri. G.S. Venkat Subbarao, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Yashoda K.P., learned HCGP

appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Brijesh Kalappa, learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition, as

borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

The petitioners are in the business of development of

immovable properties in and around Bangalore City taking those

properties either by sale or by joint venture in the name and

style of 'M/s Unishire Developers Private Limited'. It is the case

of the petitioners that some of the projects of the entity to which

they were attached, the services of the 2nd respondent had been

availed for security personnel day and night to safeguard the

construction site. It is, therefore, a service agreement that was

entered into between the petitioners and the complainant. The

petitioners who had undertaken services had made all payments

to all concerned including payment to the 2nd respondent who

was running a security service. Certain dispute arose between

the petitioner and the 2nd respondent which was undertaking

security services of all the projects of the petitioners. With regard

to one particular project, financial transaction between the

petitioners and the 2nd respondent led to exchange of notices

between them concerning demand of certain amount which was

Rs.17,12,613/-. The second claim that was outstanding was the

amount that the petitioners had to pay in furtherance of the

agreement that was entered in to between the parties. When the

said amount was not paid despite repeated requests, the 2nd

respondent registers a private complaint invoking Section 200 of

the Cr.P.C. in PCR No.10427 of 2020 which is later registered as

FIR for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 384, 420, 406,

447, 448 and 506 of the IPC. On the registration of the

complaint, the learned Magistrate directs investigation to be

conducted by the Police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on

07-10-2020. It is at that juncture the petitioners knocked the

doors of this Court in the subject petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would submit that the entire transaction between the petitioners

and the 2nd respondent was for deployment of security personnel

in the construction undertaken by the petitioners. The claim of

the 2nd respondent/complainant is that certain amounts are due

to him for which criminal law is sought to be set in motion by

registration of the crime for the aforesaid offences. He would

submit that criminal law cannot be used for recovery of money.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for

the 2nd respondent would vehemently refute the submissions

and contends that the petitioners have cheated the complainant

by not adhering to the terms of the contract which resulted in

non-payment of dues in furtherance of the said contract. He

would submit that charge sheet is ready to be filed before the

Court and this Court should not interfere at this stage of the

proceedings.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for respondent No.1 would toe the lines of the learned

counsel for the 2nd respondent and submits that it is for the

petitioners to come out clean in the proceedings.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and

perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated agreement between the parties is

not in dispute. A memorandum of agreement for deployment of

certain service personnel was entered into between the

petitioners and the 2nd respondent/company. A dispute with

regard to payment arose between the parties. According to the

complaint a sum of Rs.17,12,613/- had to be paid to the

complainant by the petitioners. A legal notice is caused by the

complainant on 14-05-2019 on the said demand. The notice

insofar as it is necessary to be noticed is extracted hereunder for

the purpose of quick reference:

"Under the circumstances I am instructed to call upon you to pay my client the aforesaid sum of Rs.17,12,613/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Twelve Thousand Six Hundred and Thirteen only) together

with interest at 12% P.A. from August 2017 within 10 days from the date of receipt of this notice, failing which, my client will be constrained to initiate appropriate proceedings against you which may be civil and as well as criminal proceedings for cheating, for misrepresentation, Breach of Contract and Breach of Trust, and in such an event you will be held responsible for all the costs and consequences thereof. You are hereby called upon to pay the above said sum with interest at 18% P.A. from the date of receipt of this notice.

The Charges of this notice is Rs.5,00,000/- and is payable by you to my client."

In reply, the petitioners denied the claim and contended

that they are not due in any amount. The reply insofar as it is

germane to be noticed is extracted hereunder for the purpose of

quick reference:

"10. My clients instruct me to state that under these circumstances the notice issued by your client claiming a sum of Rs.17,12,613/- is redundant and my client is not obligated to pay the same.

11. My clients instruct me to state that since my client is not due to your client any amount as alleged, your client cannot allege that it was the intention of my client to dishonestly induce your client and the said averments are made only to create and concoct false case against my clients.

12. My clients instruct me to state that your clients also cannot threaten my clients of filing of criminal proceedings for cheating, misrepresentation, breach of contract and breach of trust as alleged. The transaction between my clients and your clients being one borne out of contract, your client cannot threaten my client of criminal action and think of extracting the money which your client otherwise are not entitled.

13. My clients instruct me to state that under these circumstances you are requested to advise your client suitably in the matter and withdraw the allegations made in the notice.

WHEREFORE under the circumstances, I hereby call upon you on behalf of my clients to withdraw the notice under reply and desist your clients from reaching to the court of law as threatened. In spite of your advice, if your clients were to rush to the court of law as threatened, I have all the instructions from my clients to defend my clients suitably in the matter holding your client liable for all costs and consequences thereon.

On exchange of aforesaid notices when the amount still

remained to be paid, the complainant registers a private

complaint. The narration in the complaint insofar as it is

germane is also extracted hereunder for the purpose of ready

reference:

"12. The Complainant submits that after a strong reminder from Complainant, finally on 18- 05-2018 Accused Company had approached the Complainant and entered into Memorandum of Agreement to clear the outstanding amount which was due from their end. The Accused No.1 agreed to execute a memorandum of agreement offering one of their apartments as collateral security to the said investment made by Complainant and to clear the outstanding amount which was due from their end.

13. The Complainant further submits that in Clause 5 of Memorandum of Agreement which is clearly stated by Accused No.1 that all Accused are ready to dispose off the flat with all due diligence and efforts within a period of 15 months or 12 months, in the event of failure to sell the flat within the stipulated period, the Accused No.1 shall make the payments to Complainant within a period of 30 days from the failure to sell the flat in favour of third parties. In the event any of the parties to the said Memorandum of Agreement failing to comply with the terms and conditions the same shall be considered as breach of said Memorandum of Agreement and the same shall be dealt with the provisions of law. A copy of Memorandum of Agreement dated 18-05-2018 is herewith produced as DOCUMENT No.7 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

14. The Complainant submits that as per said Memorandum of Agreement it clearly shows that owing to lack of bona fides from Accused end and all Accused have failed to comply with the said condition and neither all Accused disposed off the flat nor they have cleared the outstanding amount

which is due from their end. And as per the accounts they were found due in a sum of Rs.17,12,613/- from August 2017 to Complainant, (the amount mentioned above is after deducting the TDS of 2%).

15. The Complainant submits that despite Complainant granting sufficient time, all Accused have failed and ignored to pay the amount due to Complainant.

16. The Complainant submits that inspite of several oral requests accused had agreed to return back the amount which is paid by Complainant. But still accused was postponing by giving one or other reasons to complainant. Late after someday complainant again approached the accused to return them money back.

17. The Complainant further submits that it is crystal clear that Accused have no intention of ever clearing the dues of the Complainant and that from the very beginning Accused intention was to dishonestly induce the Complainant, to cheat the Complainant in order to materially benefit from such transaction.

18. The Complainant further submits that on 14-05-2019, Complainant issued a legal notice through their Counsel to Accused Complainant to pay the dues within ten days from the date of the receipt of the said legal notice. The said demand notice was sent to the address of the accused by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) and the notice was served on the Accused Company on 15-05-2019. The Copy of the Legal Notice dated 14- 05-2019 along with postal receipts and the Copy of

the postal Receipt and Acknowledgement are herewith produced as DOCUMENT NO.8 AND 8(a) to 8(d) and DOCUMENT NO.9 respectively for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

19. The Complainant submits that, based on the Legal notice served on the Company the Accused have given reply to the Complainant's notice on 27-06-2019 through their counsel which was duly served on the Complainant. The Copy of the Reply Notice dated 27-06-2019 is herewith produced as DOCUMENT No.10 for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.

20. The complainant submits that, complainant was fed up of accused behavior and frustrated for running behind of accused. Hence on 18-06-2019 complainant gave complaint against the accused before the Ashok Nagar Police Station and Joint Commissioner of Police seeking relief for return of complainant amount from accused. The Ashok Nagar Police Station Officer directed complainant to ask directly to accused and to approach jurisdictional Police Station. Again complainant approached the accused, they refused to do so then Accused threatened with dire consequences and warned Complainant that they will never return the amount and started using abusive vulgar language to the complainant. A copy of complaint dated 18-06-2019 is produced as DOCUMENT NO.11.

21. The complainant further submits that after waiting for some days that accused may return amount. Once again finally complainant approached accused. However the response from accused was same, there was no change in their

approach and started threatening to complainant and used vulgar language. Hence complainant was constrained to take action against them and again Complainant Lodged complaint on 17-03-2020 before jurisdictional police station to take action against all the Accused before Vijayanagar police station. The Copy of the Complaint and acknowledgement of given complaint against Accused is herewith produced as DOCUMENT NO.12 and 13 respectively for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court."

9. A perusal at the notices exchanged between the

parties and the complaint registered, the purpose for which the

complaint is registered would become unmistakably clear that it

is an effort of the complainant to recover the amount of

Rs.17,12,613/- by setting the criminal law in motion as the

complaint also demands the said amount. The narration in the

complaint is that the complainant is fed up of the behavior of the

accused despite him running behind them for payment of the

said money. Therefore, a money claim is sought to be agitated by

the complainant by way of registration of the subject crime.

Criminal law cannot be used against financial claims arising out

of an agreement or otherwise. If further proceedings in the case

at hand are permitted to continue against the petitioners, it

would without doubt be an abuse of the process of the law and

fall foul of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case

of MITESH KUMAR J. SHA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

OTHERS1, wherein it has held as follows:

"27. In order to ascertain the veracity of contentions made by the parties herein, it is imperative to firstly examine whether the relevant ingredients of offences which the appellants herein had been charged with, are prima facie made out. The relevant sections read as follows:--

"405. Criminal breach of trust--Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits "criminal breach of trust".

[Explanation [1].--A person, being an employer [of an establishment whether exempted under section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), or not] who deducts the employee's contribution from the wages payable to the

2021 SCC OnLine SC 976

employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.] [Explanation 2.--A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.]

406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust-- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

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."

28. In the instant case, the complaint levelled against the Appellants herein is one which involves commission of offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating. While a criminal breach of trust as postulated under section 405 of the Penal Code, 1860, entails misappropriation or conversion of another's property for one's own use, with a dishonest intention, cheating too on the other hand as an offence defined under section 415 of the Penal Code, 1860, involves an ingredient of having a dishonest or fraudulent intention which is aimed at inducing the other party to deliver any property to a specific person. Both the sections clearly prescribed 'dishonest intention', as a pre-condition for even prima facie establishing the commission of said offences. Thus, in order to assess the relevant contentions made by the parties herein, the question whether actions of the Appellants were committed in furtherance of a dishonest or fraudulent scheme is one which requires scrutiny.

29. Coming to the facts of the case at hands, the contested contention between the

parties is that the builder company had sold four excess flats beyond its share, in terms of the JDA and supplementary agreement entered into between the parties. Respondent No. 2 contends that builder company which was entitled to sell only 9 flats in its favour, has instead executed sale deed for 13 flats in total. Thus, the company simply could not have sold the flats beyond 9 flats for which it was authorized and resultantly cannot evade criminal liability on a mere premise that a civil dispute is already pending between the parties.

30. The Appellants on the other hand contend that in terms of a subsequent MoU dated 19.02.15, it was mutually agreed between the parties, that partial payment for a loan amount borrowed by Respondent No. 2 from Religare Finvest Ltd., would be paid out from the sale proceeds of the said development project undertaken by both the parties. Pursuant to this MoU, the Appellants had agreed to get an NOC for 15 flats by making payment of Rs. 40,00,000/- for each flat.

31. The key contention, and also the central point of dispute, made by the Appellants is that, it was specifically agreed between the parties that the Appellants would be entitled to sell additional flats beyond their share, as adjustments for payment made to Religare Finvest Ltd. on behalf of Respondent No. 2. It is further contended that Respondent No. 2 had also agreed to execute a ratification deed to the JDA and GPA eventually, which would have formally authorised the Appellants to sell additional apartments.

32. Nonetheless, the ratification deed was never made and Respondent No. 2 subsequently even revoked the GPA unilaterally, contending that the terms of JDA were not followed.

33. It was only after revocation of GPA that the company filed an application for arbitration seeking interim orders to restrain the Respondent No. 2 from alienating the disputed property. Simultaneously, while this dispute was pending adjudication before the arbitrator Respondent No. 2 filed a criminal complaint against the Appellants.

34. At this juncture, it further becomes pertinent to mention that eventually though both the parties partly succeeded before the arbitrator, in terms of their respective claims, the arbitrator observed that GPA indeed could not have been revoked unilaterally at the instance of Respondent No. 2. Aggrieved, Respondent No. 2 thereafter even preferred a challenge to the award passed by the arbitrator. Moreover, pending arbitration proceedings issue regarding selling of excess flats at the instance of Appellants, was also withdrawn by Respondent No. 2 seeking liberty to pursue his claim with regard to selling of four excess flats in pending civil proceedings.

35. Upon a careful assessment of such facts, by no stretch can it be concluded that the Appellants herein have deceptively or intentionally tried to sell excess flats if any, as contended by Respondent No. 2. Here, it must also be borne in mind that subsequent to the revocation of GPA, it was the Appellants herein who had first resorted to arbitration proceedings on 02.03.16 for redressal of

dispute between the parties, to which Respondent No 2 had accordingly filed his statement of objections dated 09.03.16. It was only on 29.03.16 that Respondent No. 2 had filed the FIR in question bearing Crime No. 185/2016 against the Appellants. Moreover, it was Respondent No. 2 who had withdrawn his prayer with respect to selling of four excess flats by the Appellants, only to pursue the same in civil proceedings.

36. At this stage, by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Priti Saraf v. State of NCT of Delhi (Supra) and Sri Krishna Agencies v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Supra), it has been further submitted by Respondent No. 2 that Appellants cannot evade a criminal case by merely contending that the person whose property has been sold has filed a civil suit for recovery of the property, or that the dispute had been referred to arbitration.

37. Although, there is perhaps not even an iota of doubt that a singular factual premise can give rise to a dispute which is both, of a civil as well as criminal nature, each of which could be pursued regardless of the other. In the instant case, the actual question which requires consideration is not whether a criminal case could be pursued in the presence of a civil suit, but whether the relevant ingredients for a criminal case are even prima facie made out. Relying on the facts as discussed in previous paragraphs, clearly no cogent case regarding a criminal breach of trust or cheating is made out.

38. The dispute between the parties, could at best be termed as one involving a

mere breach of contract. Now, whether and what, is the difference between a mere breach of contract and an offence of cheating has been discussed in the ensuing paragraphs.

Whether sale of excess flats even if made amounts to a mere breach of contract?

39. This Court in the case of Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar6, has observed:--

"15. ....that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time to inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. 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 fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise..."

40. Applying this dictum to the instant factual matrix where the key ingredient of having a dishonest or fraudulent intent under sections 405, 419 and 420 is not made out, the case at hand, in our considered opinion is a suitable case necessitating intervention of this Court.

Whether the dispute is one of entirely civil nature and therefore liable to be quashed?

41. Having considered the relevant arguments of the parties and decisions of this court we are of the considered view that existence of dishonest or fraudulent intention has not been made out against the Appellants. Though the instant dispute certainly involves determination of issues which are of civil nature, pursuant to which Respondent No. 2 has even instituted multiple civil suits, one can by no means stretch the dispute to an extent, so as to impart it a criminal colour. As has been rightly emphasised upon by this court, by way of an observation rendered in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.7, as under:--

"14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance should be prevented from seeking remedies available in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal proceedings, in accordance with law."

42. It was also observed:--

"13. 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....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."

43. On an earlier occasion, in case of G. Sagar Suri v. State of UP8, this Court has also observed:--

"8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."

44. Furthermore, in the landmark judgment of State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal9 regarding exercise of inherent powers under section 482 of CrPC, this Court has laid down following categories of instances wherein inherent powers of the can be exercised in order to secure the ends of justice. 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 F.I.R. 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;

(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 concerned Act (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 concerned Act,

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."

45. Applying this dictum to the instant factual matrix, it can be safely concluded that the present case clearly falls within the ambit of first, third and fifth category of the seven categories enlisted in the above said judgment. The case therefore warrants intervention by this Court, and the High Court has erred in dismissing the petition filed by the Appellants under section 482 CrPC. We find that there has been attempt to stretch the contours of a civil dispute and thereby essentially impart a criminal color to it.

46. Recently, this Court in case of Randheer Singh v. The State of U.P.10, has again reiterated the long standing principle that criminal proceedings must not be used as instruments of harassment. The court observed as under:--

"33. ....There can be no doubt that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should be used sparingly for the purpose of preventing abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses criminal offence or not depends on the nature of the

allegation and whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. There can be no doubt that a complaint disclosing civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. The High Court has, however, to see whether the dispute of a civil nature has been given colour of criminal offence. In such a situation, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings as held by this Court in Paramjeet Batra (supra) extracted above."

47. Moreover, this Court has at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal color to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute. Such an exercise is nothing but an abuse of the process of law which must be discouraged in its entirety."

(Emphasis supplied)

In the light of undisputed facts as narrated and quoted

hereinabove and the judgment of the Apex Court, the

proceedings pursuant to the complaint which is admittedly for

recovery of money cannot be permitted to continue and if

permitted, it would be an abuse of the process of law resulting in

miscarriage of justice.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

ii. Proceedings pending in Crime No.231/2020 before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stands quashed qua the petitioners.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SJK