High Court allowed criminal petition to quash FIR regarding alleged cheating and criminal breach of trust. Court held allegations amounted to civil breach of contract lacking dishonest intention or entrustment.
Criminal petition allowed; FIR insofar as it relates to petitioner-accused No.2 is quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2904/2022
BETWEEN :
SRI.SAMARTHA RAGHAVA NAGABHUSHANAM S/O LATE KOLATHUR SOMASUNDRAIAH NAGABHUSHANAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OFFIE AT M/S. IVORYEDGE TECHNOLOGY SERVICE PVT. LTD., NO.1741, GROUND FLOOR, 9TH CROSS J.P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BENGALURU-560078 ALSO AT: R/AT NO.190, CLASSIC ORCHARDS BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU 560 078 ......PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANDEEP S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
5TH MAIN, 7TH SECTOR HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU
…..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ABHIJITH K.S., HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.3.2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU, QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 47/2022 DATED 12.3.2022 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT HSR LAYOUT POLICE FOR OFFENSES U/S 406,420 OF PC PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
FIR was lodged by the second respondentcomplainant alleging that the petitioner-accused No.2, who is the Managing Director of Ivoryedge Technology Services Pvt. Ltd., induced him to invest a sum of Rs.3 crores in the said Company and he would get double the amount invested by him in the said Company and in pursuance of the same, a memorandum of understanding was executed between accused No.1, complainant and the Company. However, as per the agreement, the amount was invested by the second respondent and when the accused was not
3
giving any information with regard to the investment made by him, he requested the accused to return the amount invested by him and the accused stating that due to COVID-19 the Company is suffering from loss and on the said pretext, kept postponing the payment of the said amount. The Police registered FIR against the accused for the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
4
5
the part of accused No.2 to cheat the second respondent. In the present case, there is no specific allegation that at the time of investment of money, there was a dishonest intention on the part of accused No.2 to cheat respondent No.2.
6
not satisfy the essential ingredient so as to constitute commission of the offences alleged against him and also dispute between the parties arises out of breach of memorandum of understanding which has been given a criminal texture so as to pressurize the petitioner-accused No.2.
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
JT/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether allegations in FIR regarding failure to return invested funds and give returns satisfy essential ingredients of criminal offences under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.
Whether dispute between parties arising from breach of memorandum of understanding falsely alleged to constitute criminal cheating and criminal breach of trust warrants criminal action.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and OthersRelied on¶23
Vijay Kumar Ghai and Others Vs. State of West Bengal and Others 2022 SCC OnLine SC 344 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Samartha Raghava Nagabhushanam
State of Karnataka
Kiran V
Hemant Chandangoudar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
