Manish Prakash Vs the Station House Officer

THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.17333/2024 OF K.R.PURAM POLICE STATION FILED AGAINST THE PETITONER FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:45652 CRL.P No. 4002 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The criminal petition is filed with the following prayers:

¶32

"(a) Quash the Charge sheet in C.C.17333/2024 of K.R.Puram police station filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code which is pending before the Hon'ble III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru.

¶33

(b) Quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.17333/2024 of K.R.Puram police station filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under section 406, 420 of Indian Penal Code which is pending before the Hon'ble III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru.

¶34

(b) To grant such other relief/s that this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶35

The case of the petitioner is that he and

¶36

respondent No.2 have known each other and that the petitioner had invested a sum of Rs.65,75,000/-

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:45652 CRL.P No. 4002 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

(Rs.25,00,000/- paid by way of bank transfer and the rest by way of cash) in a company floated by respondent No.2. It is submitted that he made the said payments during the years 2016 and 2017. It is further submitted that thereafter respondent No.2 closed the company and sought time from the petitioner to repay the amounts and repaid the same back in the year 2021 by way of bank transfer, to the accounts as desired by the petitioner. However, respondent No.2 without initiating any civil proceedings to recover the same, has given a false criminal complaint, which has culminated in C.C.No.17333/2024. It is submitted that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 is purely a civil case which is given a criminal colour and on the said grounds, it is prayed that the criminal petition be allowed.

¶41

Per contra , the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner had initially invested a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- in the company floated by respondent No.2 and not Rs.65,00,000/- as submitted by

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45652 CRL.P No. 4002 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

the petitioner. Further, he submits that the money was invested as an equity and the company went into a loss and was struck off from the rolls by the Registrar of Companies, the investment made by the petitioner was wiped out along with the investment of respondent No.2 himself. It is further submitted that thereafter again they met in the year 2021 and as they had a good relationship, upon the submissions made by the petitioner, respondent No.2 paid a sum of Rs.65,75,000/- to the account as directed by the petitioner. It is categorically submitted that this was a loan borrowed by the petitioner and it was done by the petitioner with intent to defraud respondent No.2 and without any intention of repayment, but unfortunately respondent No.2 did not realize the same, at the time of disbursing the money and realized about the dishonest intention of the petitioner only thereafter. It is categorically submitted that the element of deception was there at the time of inducing respondent No.2 to part with the money and it was not misappropriation after receipt of

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:45652 CRL.P No. 4002 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the money in a legitimate manner. Reliance is placed upon

¶49

the WhatsApp chats between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and it is submitted that reading of the same proves the case of respondent No.2.

¶50

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State adopts the arguments of learned counsel for respondent No.2 and prays for dismissal of the criminal petition.

¶51

It is seen from the police report that the petitioner herein is accused of offences under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC, 1860 (420-Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property; 406-Punishment for criminal breach of trust.). They are mutually self-destructive, because in cheating there is a dishonest intention at the time of receipt of the money itself and in criminal breach of trust, mens rea arises after the receipt of money and while misappropriating the amounts. It is the case of both the State and respondent No.2 that the petitioner had dishonest intentions while inducing respondent No.2 to

¶52

7 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:45652 CRL.P No. 4002 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

part with the money. For that reason, the charge against the petitioner under Section 406 of the IPC will have to be quashed.

¶56

Insofar as it relates to the offence under

¶57

Section 420 of the IPC, though the transaction looks civil in nature on the face of it, it is a commercial transaction, where, offences pertaining to cheating normally take place. A single act can give rise to both civil and criminal cause of action.

¶58

Whether the money paid by respondent No.2 to the petitioner in the year 2021 was towards repayment of the amount borrowed by respondent No.2 or whether the amounts had nothing to do with the earlier financial transaction between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and respondent No.2 parted with the amount of Rs.65,75,000/- due to the dishonest inducement made by

¶59

the petitioner, is a matter of trial. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and the material produced for the reference of this Court, it is possible to interpret both

¶60

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45652 CRL.P No. 4002 of 2024

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

ways. It is only after a full-fledged trial that one can know the truth. On the basis of the complaint and the materials gathered by the prosecution during the investigation, if believed to be true, I am of the opinion that this Court

¶63

cannot conclude that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence. Hence, under the said circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to interfere by exercising the inherent powers of the Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶64

For the aforementioned reasons, the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No. 17333/2024, pending on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru insofar as it relates to Section 406 of the IPC stand quashed and shall continue in respect of the offence under Section 420 of the IPC. It is also made

¶65

clear that the trial Court shall decide the case based on merits, taking into consideration the evidence placed before it, without being influenced by any of the observations made herein above.

¶66