IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9721 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SMT.VANAJAKSHI W/O LATE ANANTHACHAR, AGED ABOUT YEARS, RESDING AT NO.16/106, 2ND MAIN, S.R.COMPOUND, SOUTH CITY ROAD, ARAKERE, MICO LAYOUT, BENGALURU 560 045. PETITIONER (BY SRI M.P.VISHWANATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
RAMAKRISHNA RAO, S/O HANUMANTHA RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, NO.4/76, PAPER TOWN BHADRAVATHI – 577 301. RESPONDENT (BY SRI SRIDHARA.K., ADVOCATE – ABSENT-) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3859/2015 ON THE FILE OF PRL.C.J. AND J.M.F.C., BHADRAVATHI FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 409, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner has sought to quash the proceedings filed against her in C.C.No.3859 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Based on the private complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner (accused No.1) and others, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 409, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and issued summons to the petitioner to face trial for the said accusations. At that stage, the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegations made against the petitioner in the complaint are purely civil in nature. The grievance of the petitioner is that the amount lent by the respondent was not repaid by the petitioner. The said dispute, even if accepted as true does not furnish a cause of action for the respondent to initiate criminal action against the petitioner muchless for the offence under Section 420 of I.P.C. There are not even remote allegations in the complaint that the petitioner had any intention to cheat and deceive the complainant. Hence, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner being illegal and an abuse of process of court are liable to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent is absent and has not addressed any arguments .
5. I have perused the private complaint lodged by the respondent. Specific averments made in the complaint are that the complainant was in search of employment to his sons. The accused persons introduced themselves that they were having intimacy with Sri D.K.Shivakumar, a Congress leader, the then Minister and assured to procure job to his sons. The accused made the complainant to believe and created good faith and on the basis of good faith, the complainant paid Rs.2,20,000/- to the accused. The accused failed to procure the job and when the complainant sought to refund the amount from the accused, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.993919 dated 10.09.2004 drawn on M/s.Canara Bank, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-. The said cheque when presented for encashment was dishonored for having insufficient funds. It is further alleged that after several requests made by the complainant, the accused told the complainant that they are going to repay the money in four installments but the accused failed to abide by the promise and hence, the petitioner has sought to action against the petitioner for the above offences.
6. Though it is alleged that the complainant has paid Rs.2,20,000/- on the promise made by the accused that the accused would secure a job to his sons, it is not clear from the averments in the complaint as to when the said amount was paid and to which of the accused, the amount was paid. Likewise, averments in the complaint that when the accused failed to procure a job, the accused issued a cheque bearing No.993919 dated 10.09.2004 drawn on M/s.Canara Bank, Bengaluru for a sum of Rs.2,20,000/-. It is not clear as to which of the accused issued the said cheque and why the complainant could not initiate any action for dishonor of the said cheque. A reading of the complaint indicate that the real grouse of the complainant relates recovery of the amount of Rs.2,20,000/- said to have been paid by her to the accused. The said transaction even if accepted as true would amount to a civil dispute which could not be converted into a criminal offence. The allegations made in the complaint even if accepted as true do not make out the ingredients of Section 420 and Section 409 of I.P.C. There are no averments whatsoever attracting any of these offences. Hence, in my view, the prosecution of the petitioner is nothing but an abuse of process of Court and therefore cannot be sustained. As a result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.3859 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 409, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE dh