Allowed¶46

Sri Arvind P v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2026CRL.P/6459/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Arvind P. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.; CRL.P No.6459 of 2019; High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Ravi V Hosmani J.; decided 15.06.2026; quashing of FIR; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 420 IPC; essential ingredients; dishonest inducement to deliver property; Section 138 NI Act; cheque dishonour complaint; second complaint on same allegations; verbatim complaints PCR No.13645/2018 and PCR No.9928/2019; CC No.802/2019; Crime No.161/2019 Hanumanthanagar Police Station; private complaint without prior approach to police; XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru.

What did the court decide?

FIR/proceedings in Crime No.161/2019 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station quashed insofar as petitioner is concerned; pending interlocutory applications dismissed as unnecessary. ¶46

Sri Arvind P Vs State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR/proceedings in Crime No.161/2019 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station quashed insofar as petitioner is concerned; pending interlocutory applications dismissed as unnecessary.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the private complaint (PCR No.9928/2019) and consequent FIR (Crime No.161/2019) disclose the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC, namely dishonest inducement to deliver property. +1 more

¶40

Court's answer

To set criminal law in motion, a complaint must contain the essential ingredients of the offence alleged; for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC the essential ingredient is dishonest inducement to deliver property.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Neither paragraph-8 nor the entire complaint alleged that the accused, with dishonest intention or with intent to cheat, had obtained the cheque or induced the complainant to part with property; hence the complaint lacks the essential ingredients of Section 420 IPC.

¶45

Key takeaways

There was also no assertion that the complainant approached the jurisdictional police or higher authorities and met with refusal to register the complaint before resorting to the private complaint.ratio¶45
On both grounds the petition succeeds: the petition is allowed and proceedings in Crime No.161/2019 registered by Hanumanthanagar Police Station are quashed.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. allowed, quashing FIR in Crime No.161/2019 of Hanumanthanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, registered in pursuance of a private complaint (PCR No.9928/2019 before XXIV Addl. CMM) alleging offence under Section 420 IPC. The second complaint was filed on the very same allegations as an earlier complaint (PCR No.13645/2018, XVI Addl. CJM) alleging cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act, registered as CC No.802/2019 (contents stated to be verbatim). Held: (i) a complaint must contain the essential ingredients of the offence alleged, and for Section 420 IPC the essential ingredient is dishonest inducement to deliver property; (ii) neither paragraph-8 nor the entire complaint alleged dishonest intention, intent to cheat, obtaining of the cheque or inducement to part with property; and (iii) there was no assertion that the complainant first approached jurisdictional police/higher authorities and was refused registration. On both grounds, proceedings were quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned; pending IAs dismissed as unnecessary.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28909 CRL.P No. 6459 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6459 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI ARVIND P., S/O PRABHAKAR, R/A NO.328, 9^TH MAIN, C-CROSS, 1^ST STAGE, J.P.NAGAR, MYSURU - 570 008.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI T PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HANUMANTH NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU. REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶12

SMT V BHAVANI D/O S.VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/A NO.908, 7^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, R.V.BLOCK, SRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 050.

¶13

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

[BY SRI M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. BRINDA A.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)]

¶16

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR VIDE ANNEXURE-A REGISTERED IN PURSUANCE OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT, IN CR.NO.161/2019

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:28909 CRL.P No. 6459 of 2019

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

OF HANUMANTHA NAGAR P.S., FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 420 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 24^TH A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Challenging registration of FIR in Crime no.161/2019 in pursuance of order passed by learned Magistrate in PCR no.9928/2019, this petition is filed.

¶25

Sri T. Prakash, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted that on 23.10.2018 a private complaint in PCR no.13645/2018 on file of XVI Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru was filed against petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (' NI Act '). Same was registered as CC no.802/2019. On very same allegations, another private complaint was filed in PCR no.9928/2019 before XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:28909 CRL.P No. 6459 of 2019

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

(' IPC ') against petitioner and for referring matter for investigation etc. It was submitted, contents of both private complaints were verbatim.

¶30

It was submitted, there were no averments of complainant having approached jurisdictional police, about failure or refusal to register complaint or about approaching higher officials before resorting to filing of private complaint. It was secondly submitted, there were no assertion about ingredients constituting offence alleged. Only material averment was in paragraph-8 was that accused knowing fully well had issued cheque and failed to honour same, which would be insufficient and sought for quashing of proceedings. Apart from above, learned counsel produced along with memo judgment on other private complaint which came to be dismissed with a finding that complainant failed to prove issuance of cheque by accused. Even on this account, offence under Section 420 of IPC would be untenable.

¶31

Sri M.R. Patil, learned HCGP for respondent no.1 on other hand opposed petition. It was submitted that matter was

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:28909 CRL.P No. 6459 of 2019

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

at stage of investigation and filing of petition for quashing at this stage would not be justified.

¶35

There is no appearance on behalf of respondent no.2 - complainant.

¶36

Since matter is of year 2019, it is taken up for

¶37

disposal.

¶38

Heard learned counsel, perused order and material

¶39

available on record.

¶40

At outset, requirement of law is that in order to set criminal law in motion for particular offence, complaint would require to contain essential ingredients of offence alleged. Essential ingredients of offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC would be dishonest inducement to deliver property. Paragraph-8 of complaint reads as follows.

¶41

"8. The Complainant submits that, knowing full well the accused got issued above said cheque in favour of the complainant towards the payment and failed to honour the same twice and thus committed offence under section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860."

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:28909 CRL.P No. 6459 of 2019

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Neither above paragraph nor entire complaint would contain allegation that with dishonest intention or with intent to cheat complainant, accused had obtained cheque or induced complainant to part with property. That apart there is also no assertion about complainant having approached jurisdictional police, higher authorities and about their refusal to register complaint before filing private complaint. On both grounds, petition would succeed.

¶46

Hence, petition is allowed , proceedings in Crime no.161/2019 registered by Hanumanthanagar Police Station are quashed . In view of above, pending IAs stands dismissed as unnecessary.

¶47

Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶48

GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri Arvind P v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Arvind P v. 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

Ramanna Vs Station House Officer

Meharaj Khan @ Miraj Khan @ Bihari Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashwin S Akki Vs State by

Kumaraswamy H T Vs Manjunatha

Srinivasa Hunsikatti Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Gopikumar Vs Smt. Girija