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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.416/2024 on the file of the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, quashed insofar as they relate to Accused No.2 (petitioner).

Issue for consideration

Whether the allegations and materials disclose the essential elements of the offence under Section 420 IPC so as to be held against the petitioner (Accused No.2), including whether she induced the complainants with an intention to deceive. +1 more

Court's answer

The demand draft of Rs.20,00,000/- allegedly towards compensation was issued by Accused No.1, and the stop payment instruction was also issued by Accused No.1, not by Accused No.2 (the petitioner).

Ratio / Principle

The registered cancellation deed of the agreement of sale contains no reference indicating that Accused Nos.1 and 2 issued the demand draft in favour of CWs.5 and 6 as compensation.

Key takeaways

There is no allegation, nor any material to substantiate, that Accused No.2 induced the complainant to enter into the registered deed of cancellation of the agreement of sale with an intention to deceive.ratio¶31
The non-payment of compensation, in the absence of the essential elements required to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC, cannot be held against Accused No.2.ratio¶33

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 CrPC (filed under S.528 BNSS) by Accused No.2 (Smt. Veena) seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.416/2024 (Crime No.281/2023, Amruthahalli Police Station) before the XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for offences under Sections 420 and 34 IPC. Prosecution case: the owners of the land entered a registered agreement of sale dated 11.05.2020 for Rs.75,00,000/-, received Rs.55,00,000/- as advance, thereafter sold the land to a third party, and later executed a registered cancellation deed returning the advance; Accused No.1 subsequently issued a demand draft of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation, on presentation of which the bank issued a 'stop payment' endorsement. Held: the demand draft and the stop payment were attributable solely to Accused No.1 and not to Accused No.2; the cancellation deed contained no reference to the demand draft as compensation; there was neither allegation nor material that Accused No.2 induced the complainant to enter the cancellation deed with an intention to deceive; the essential elements of cheating under Section 420 IPC were therefore absent, and continuation of proceedings against Accused No.2 would be an abuse of the process of law. Petition allowed; proceedings quashed insofar as they relate to Accused No.2.

NC: 2025:KHC:13771 CRL.P No. 9242 of 2024

1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9242 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SMT. VEENA, W/O JANARDHAN D.V., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.325, GOOLAPPA GOWDA LAYOUT, H.A. FARM POST, DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 024.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA, AMRUTHAHALLY POLICE STATION, SANOUGEGHALLI SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

SRI. RAGHU M., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O MARISWAMY @ MARIYAPPA, R/AT NO.216/2, 10^TH CROSS, F-BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 092.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.YUKTHA N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13771 CRL.P No. 9242 of 2024

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS OF C.C.NO.416/2024 (CR.NO.281/2023) OF AMRUTHAHALLI P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420 AND 34 IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONOURABLE XLI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.

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.2, who has been chargesheeted for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC, is before this Court seeking relief.

The prosecution alleges that Accused Nos.1 and 2, who are the owners of the subject land, entered into a registered agreement of sale dated 11.05.2020 with CWs.1 and 4 for a total sale consideration of Rs.75,00,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs.55,00,000/- was paid as advance sale consideration. After receiving the advance sale consideration, Accused Nos.1 and 2 sold the said land to a third party. When CWs.1 and 4 demanded repayment of the advance sale consideration, Accused Nos.1 and 2 executed a registered cancellation deed of the agreement of sale, under which the complainants received a sum of Rs.55,00,000/-.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:13771 CRL.P No. 9242 of 2024

When the complainant insisted that Accused Nos.1 and 2 compensate them for having utilized the advance sale consideration of Rs.55,00,000/-, Accused No.1 issued a demand draft for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- in favor of CWs.5 and 6. When the demand draft issued by Accused No.1 was presented for realization, the bank issued an endorsement stating “stop payment.”

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Accused No.2 is before this Court, and the demand draft for a sum of Rs.20,00,000/-, allegedly towards compensation, was issued by Accused No.1 in favor of CWs.5 and 6. The stop payment was allegedly issued by Accused No.1 and not by Accused No.2.

There is no reference in the registered cancellation deed of the agreement of sale indicating that Accused Nos.1 and 2 issued the demand draft in favor of CWs.5 and 6 as compensation to CWs.1 and 4 for allegedly utilizing an amount of Rs.55,00,000/- for a period of three years.

Furthermore, there is no allegation, nor any material to substantiate, that Accused No.2 induced the complainant to enter into a registered deed of cancellation of the agreement of sale with an intention to deceive.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13771 CRL.P No. 9242 of 2024

The non-payment of compensation, in the absence of any essential elements required to constitute the commission of an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, cannot be held against Accused No.2. Admittedly, the demand draft was issued by Accused No.1, and the stop payment was made by Accused No.1.

Therefore, in the absence of any allegation satisfying the essential elements necessary to constitute the commission of an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, the continuation of the criminal proceedings against Accused No.2 would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, I pass the following order.

ORDER

(i) The appeal is allowed .

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.416/2024 on the file of XLI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to accused No.2 is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

GH, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6