In Crl.P.No.2390/2025, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

2. In Crl.P.No.2246/2025, the petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and perused the material on record.

4. Respondent No.2/de-facto complainant having been served with notice of the petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petitions.

NC: 2025:KHC:20658 CRL.P No. 2390 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2246 of 2025 HC-KAR

5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4 in the impugned FIR registered as Cr.No.2/2025 dated 03.01.2025 filed by respondent No.2-defacto complainant against the petitioner/accused No.2 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 506 , 504 , 34 and Section 420 of IPC.

6. In this context, it is relevant to state that the period for which the allegations are made by respondent No.2 are between 2015-2022 and in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in CHANCHALPATI DAS Vs. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANOTHER reported in (2023) 20 SCC 120, the long unexplained inordinate delay in filing the complaint would vitiate the impugned proceedings.

7. A perusal of the impugned material on record comprising of the complaint and FIR would also indicate that insofar as petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned, there are no allegations in relation to offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and the only allegation is restricted to Section 420 of IPC and consequently, it cannot be said that the petitioners are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of -6- NC: 2025:KHC:20658 CRL.P No. 2390 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2246 of 2025 HC-KAR IPC and the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed on this ground also.

8. Insofar as the allegation made against the petitioners for alleged offences under Section 420 of IPC is concerned, apart from the fact that the bare perusal of the complaint allegations do no disclose the commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioners, under identical circumstances, the Apex Court has held that purely civil/commercial dispute between the parties which is predominantly, essentially and overwhelmingly of a civil character/nature cannot be given a criminal colour/texture and in the case of SATISHCHANDRA RATANLAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2019 SC 1538, it is held as under:

NC: 2025:KHC:20658 CRL.P No. 2390 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2246 of 2025 HC-KAR contracts, the distinction between mere breach of contract and cheating would depend upon the fraudulent inducement and mens rea. (See Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar [Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar, (2000) 4 SCC 168 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 786] .) In the case before us, admittedly the appellant was trapped in economic crisis and therefore, he had approached Respondent 2 to ameliorate the situation of crisis. Further, in order to recover the aforesaid amount, Respondent 2 had instituted a summary civil suit seeking recovery of the loan amount which is still pending adjudication. The mere inability of the appellant to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction, as it is this mens rea which is the crux of the offence. Even if all the facts in the complaint and material are taken on their face value, no such dishonest representation or inducement could be found or inferred.

14. Moreover, this Court in a number of cases has usually cautioned against criminalising civil disputes, such as breach of contractual obligations (refer to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] ). The legislature intended to criminalise only those breaches which are accompanied by fraudulent, dishonest or deceptive inducements, which resulted in involuntary and inefficient transfers, under Section 415 IPC.

15. However, the High Court appears to have been carried away by the moral element involved in the breach of promise and made certain observations. Being a policy consideration, such suggestions need to be restricted. The aforementioned observations of the High Court were not only

NC: 2025:KHC:20658 CRL.P No. 2390 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2246 of 2025 HC-KAR unnecessary for the adjudication of this matter, but the same could have been understood as casting some kind of aspersions on the accused. This clearly reflected a loaded dice situation against the appellant herein.

16. In our considered opinion, the High Court should have maintained judicial restraint and desisted from making such general observations at this stage of the criminal proceeding, as they may have had a bearing on the adjudication of the trial. Therefore, the observations made in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the impugned judgment stand expunged.

17. In view of the above, we are unable to uphold the impugned order passed by the High Court in Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat [Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 3329] and the same is hereby set aside. The application filed by the appellant under Section 482 CrPC is allowed and the proceedings initiated based on the FIR instituted at the instance of Respondent 2 are hereby quashed.

18. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms."

9. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court in the case of Mr.V.Deepak Kumar Vs. State By Halasur Police Station and Another disposed of on 24.05.2023 and it reads as under:

NC: 2025:KHC:20658 CRL.P No. 2390 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2246 of 2025 HC-KAR this Court and therefore, the Investigation Officer must be permitted to continue and conclude the investigation and take the issue to its logical conclusion. Learned HCGP seeks dismissal of the petition.

6. Respondent No.2 though served, has remained unrepresented before the Court.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not being in dispute are not reiterated. The entire issue now triggers from a complaint registered by respondent No.2 against the petitioner. The complaint is not registered before the jurisdictional police under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. It goes before the then Home Minister. The complaint, insofar it's germane, reads as follow:

A perusal at the complaint which forms foundation of registration of the crime does not indicate any ingredient of Section 415 being met in the case at hand.

9. Therefore, finding the proceedings instituted with an intention to recover the money, permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioner would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

NC: 2025:KHC:20658 CRL.P No. 2390 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 2246 of 2025 HC-KAR Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru, qua petitioners (accused Nos.2 and 4) are hereby quashed.

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT: BHK