Dismissed¶64

Anitha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Aug 2025CRL.RP/580/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Discharge application S.227 CrPC rejected; revision dismissed - Karnataka HC, CRL.RP 580/2025, Anant Ramanath Hegde J., 04-08-2025. Private complaint alleging withdrawal of escrowed sale consideration Rs.3,36,00,000/- before/on execution of sale deed 31.03.2018; offences under IPC ss.406/420 alleged; concurrent civil and criminal remedies; existing S.138 NI Act complaint no bar to IPC prosecution; scope of S.227 enquiry limited to sufficiency of ingredients; contentions kept open.

What did the court decide?

None; the Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed and the Trial Court's order rejecting the discharge application was left undisturbed (the Court found no reason to interfere), with all contentions kept open for the final hearing. ¶64

Anitha Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶64

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint filed by respondent No.2 discloses commission of any offence such that the accused (petitioners) cannot be discharged under Section 227 CrPC, or whether the matter is merely a civil dispute attracting no penal provision. +1 more

¶41

Court's answer

At the stage of an application under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court is only required to see whether sufficient ingredients are present in the complaint and materials are placed to proceed further by taking cognizance; whether the accused committed an offence is a question of fact to be tried.

¶56

Ratio / Principle

Certain acts may attract both penal and civil consequences; the availability of a civil remedy does not take away the remedy under criminal law, and where it is a case of cheating or misappropriation the complainant can prosecute the accused if the ingredients of the criminal case are made out.

¶55

Key takeaways

Having gone through the contents of the complaint and certain undisputed facts, the complainant is justified in initiating the complaint; whether the offence is made out is a matter of fact to be considered by the Trial Court.ratio¶57
Merely because a complaint is also initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on account of dishonour of a cheque issued by the petitioners, it does not mean that a complaint under Sections 416 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (section numbers as printed in the order) does not lie.ratio¶58
The Trial Court is justified in dismissing the discharge application; this Court finds no reason to interfere with that order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.), CRL.RP No. 580 of 2025, decided 04-08-2025 - Criminal revision petition against the Trial Court's rejection (order dated 17.02.2025 in S.C.No.1271/2022) of the accused's discharge application under S.227 CrPC in a private complaint alleging that the accused withdrew the escrow-deposited sale consideration (Rs.3,36,00,000/-) a day before and on the date of executing a sale deed dated 31.03.2018, under inducement that the consideration would be transferred to the vendor. Held: acts may attract both penal and civil consequences and a civil remedy does not take away the criminal remedy; at the S.227 stage the Court need only see whether sufficient ingredients are disclosed in the complaint; whether an offence is made out is a matter of fact for trial; pendency of a S.138 NI Act complaint does not preclude an IPC complaint. Petition dismissed; no interference with the Trial Court's order; all contentions kept open and observations stated not to reflect on the merits.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:30126 CRL.RP No. 580 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 580 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ANITHA, W/O SATISH KASHYAP, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O NO 100, 10^TH C-MAIN, 1^ST N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560010.

¶9

SATHISHKKASHYAP, S/O JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED FROM SERVICE, R/O NO. 190, 19^TH C-MAIN, 1^ST N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.

¶10

Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

VIGNESHSHISHIR, S/O SATISHKASHYAP, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NO.190, 19^TH C-MAIN, 1^ST N BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010.

¶12

C.H.KALINGA RAO, S/O HANUMANTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O NO.4 SIDDA ENCLAVE, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, NEHRUNAGAR, BANGALORE-560020.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:30126 CRL.RP No. 580 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SANJAYANAGARA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶20

SMT AYAMMA M, W/O SRI RAJU MARI HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1419, 7^TH CROSS, 13^TH MAIN ROAD, HAL 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 008. (AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER ORDER DATED 28.7.2025)

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI A R SRINIVAS FOR IMPLEADING COMPLAINANT ON IA 2/2025)

¶23

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401(FILED U/S.438 R/W SEC.442 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED LVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY PASSED IN S.C.NO.1271/2022 THEREBY REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER SEEKING DISCHARGE.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:30126 CRL.RP No. 580 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

This petition is filed against the order rejecting the application under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code seeking discharge of the petitioners who are the accused before the Trial Court.

¶31

The proceeding is initiated pursuant to a Private Complaint filed by respondent No.2. The complainant/ respondent No.2 alleges that she offered to sell the property to the petitioner No.1 and as a part of the transaction, it was agreed that sale consideration amount is to be deposited in the escrow account in the name of the petitioner No.4 and the complainant.

¶32

It is further alleged in the complaint that on 31.03.2018 a sale deed is executed by the complainant in favour of accused No.1 for a consideration of Rs.3,36,00,000/-. Later, the complainant realised that the amount deposited in escrow account which was required to be withdrawn/ transferred to the account of the vendor/complainant was withdrawn by petitioners No.1 to 4,

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:30126 CRL.RP No. 580 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

a day before the execution of the sale deed and also on the date of execution of the sale deed.

¶37

The complaint is filed alleging that this withdrawal is not informed to the complainant when the sale deed was executed and the sale deed was executed under an inducement that the consideration amount will be transferred to the vendor.

¶38

The accused filed an application under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code to discharge the accused on

¶39

the premise that no offence is committed. Trial Court rejected the application. Hence, the present petition.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit

¶41

that the contents of the complaint filed by complainantrespondent No.2 do not disclose commission of any offence and the dispute is only a civil dispute and does not attract any penal provision.

¶42

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that

¶43

the ingredients of the offences under Sections 406 and 420

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:30126 CRL.RP No. 580 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

of Indian Penal Code are made out in the complaint and no

¶47

case is made out for discharge.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners by way of reply would contend that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute and entertaining a criminal complaint would lead to a multiplicity of litigation and the complainant, if he has

¶49

any grievance has to urge before the competent Civil Court. It is further submitted that the cheque issued by the petitioners is dishonored and complainant has already filed a complaint for an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

¶50

This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

¶51

It is well-settled position of law that certain acts may attract both penal and civil consequences. Merely because a remedy is available in a Civil Court, it does not mean that the remedy under criminal law is taken away. If it is a case of cheating or misappropriation, then notwithstanding the fact that the remedy is available in Civil

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:30126 CRL.RP No. 580 of 2025

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Court, the complainant can prosecute the accused if the ingredients of criminal case are made out.

¶56

Whether the accused has committed an offence or not is a question of fact which is required to be tried. At the stage of an application under Section 227 of Criminal Procedure Code, the Court is only required to see whether the sufficient ingredients are there in the complaint and materials are placed to proceed further by taking cognizance.

¶57

After having gone through the contents of the complaint and certain facts which are not in dispute, this Court is of the view that the complainant is justified in initiating the complaint. Whether the offence is made out or not is a matter of fact to be considered by the Trial Court.

¶58

Merely because the complaint is also initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act by the Complainant on account of dishonour of cheque issued by the petitioners, does not mean that a complaint under Sections 416 and 420 of Indian Penal Code does not lie.

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:30126 CRL.RP No. 580 of 2025

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

This Court having considered the order passed by

¶62

the Trial Court is of the view that Trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the said order.

¶63

Hence, the Criminal Revision Petition is

¶64

dismissed.

¶65

It is made clear that the observations made in this order should not be construed as a reflection on the merits of the contentions of the parties and all contentions kept open to be considered at final hearing.

¶66

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

¶67

CHS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Anitha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anitha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandrashekar .v Vs M/S Canfin Homes Limited

S.S. Shantha Hrudaya Vs Shivannagowda

Mubarak Pasha Vs Syed Safdar Bareed

Sri Lakshamana Vs Sri T Ramu

Silicon Technologies Vs D Rangappa

Lakshmipathi Vs G.R Channabasavanna