Deepika Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Deepika Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.23369/2022 pending on the file of XXXIX ACMM, Bangalore quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner/accused No.4; trial court to proceed against the other accused in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the allegations against the petitioner/accused No.4 - an employee who allegedly collected money and issued receipts - disclose the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. +1 more

Court's answer

The petitioner/accused No.4 is not a director of the company that received the advance sale consideration; the responsibility to complete the project and register the sale deed rests with the company's directors, and mere receipt of money paid toward the advance sale consideration and issuance of receipts by the petitioner, an employee, will not constitute the offence of cheating unless it is established that she, in collusion with the other accused, induced the complainant and charge-sheet witnesses with an intention to deceive.

Ratio / Principle

In the absence of the essential elements required to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, justifying quashing of the proceedings insofar as she is concerned.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 CrPC) - quashing - petitioner was accused No.4, an employee of Terrenum Homes India Pvt. Ltd., alleged to have collected money and issued receipts to respondent No.2 and two other charge-sheet witnesses - it was admitted she was not a director of the company - responsibility to complete the project and register the sale deed rested on the company's directors - mere receipt of money paid toward the advance sale consideration and issuance of receipts does not constitute cheating (Sections 420/34 IPC) unless it is established that the petitioner, in collusion with the other accused, induced the complainant and witnesses with an intention to deceive - in the absence of essential elements, continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process - criminal petition allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.23369/2022 qua petitioner quashed; trial court to proceed against other accused uninfluenced by the observations.

NC: 2025:KHC:10467 CRL.P No. 5903 of 2024

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5903 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

DEEPIKA, D/O MADHAV REDDY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/O NO. 437, 3RD CROSS, NEAR SCK HIGH SCHOOL, HOSUR ROAD, CHANNAKESHAV NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 100.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ROHAN S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORAMANGALA PS, BANGALORE DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

MANTHAN KUMAR @ MATHAN KUMAR, S/O SAKALDEV THAKUR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/A NO 161, BALAJI LAYAOUT DODANAGAMANGALA, ELECTRONIC CITY POST BANGALORE - 560 100.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR M.V, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. B. VENUGOPALA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10467 CRL.P No. 5903 of 2024

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO a. SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 21.07.2022 PASSED BY THE XXXIX ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.23369/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 R/W 34 OF IPC BASED ON THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1/KORAMANGALA P.S.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.4, who is facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 420 and 34 of the IPC, is before this Court seeking relief.

The prosecution alleges that accused Nos.1 and 2 are the directors of Terrenum Homes India Pvt. Ltd, a company engaged in real estate activities and property development in and around Bangalore. It is alleged that accused Nos. 1 and 2 induced respondent No. 2 and other charge-sheet witnesses to purchase flats in an ongoing project, and in lieu of this, respondent No. 2 and the other witnesses deposited money with the company for the purchase of the flats. Although the complainant was willing to purchase the flat by depositing the balance sale consideration amount, accused Nos. 1 and 2, as directors of the company, neither registered the sale deed nor returned the deposited amount. The allegation against accused No. 4 is that, while working

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10467 CRL.P No. 5903 of 2024

in the company’s office, she collected the money and issued receipts to respondent No.2 and two other charge-sheet witnesses.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent No.2, and the learned HCGP for the State.

It is admitted that the petitioner/accused No. 4 is not a director of the company that received the advance sale consideration from the complainant and the two other charge-sheet witnesses. The responsibility to complete the project and register the sale deed rests with the company’s directors, not with the petitioner, who is an employee. Mere receipt of money paid toward the advance sale consideration and the issuance of receipts will not constitute an offence of cheating unless it is established that the petitioner, in collusion with the other accused, induced the complainant and the other charge-sheet witnesses to invest with an intention to deceive.

In the absence of the essential elements required to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.23369/2022 pending on the file of XXXIX ACMM, Bangalore

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:10467 CRL.P No. 5903 of 2024

insofar it relates to the petitioner/accused No.4 is hereby quashed.

iii. The trial court to proceed against other accused in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order.

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 87 CT: BHK