PRAKYATH EDIFICE PVT LTD., vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
Reserved on : 20.08.2026
Pronounced on : 16.10.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9293 OF 2026
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9116 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10300 OF 2025
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10323 OF 2025
IN CRL.P No. 9293/2026
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI PAVAN PRAKYATH V.,
S/O CHALAPATHI VUPPARAPATI
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.31601,
NIKOO HOMES, BHARATIYA CITY,
THANISANDRA, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU – 560 064.
2. SMT.SINCHANA RAJ H.D.,
W/O PAVAN PRAKAYATH V.,
C/O L.N.DEVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
TH TH
NO.240, 6 CROSS, 5 MAIN,
CANARA BANK LAYOUT,
VIDYARANAYAPURA,
BENGALURU – 560 097.
…PETITIONERS
Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B C
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
- 2 -
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HEBBAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SMT.KAVITHA G.C.,
S/O V.P. NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 24298,
PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY
TUMAKURU MAIN ROAD,
TH
7 CROSS, MANJUNATHNAGAR,
BAGALGUNTE, BENGALURU – 560 100.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION IN
CRIME NO.192/2025 AGAINST THE PETITIONER (WHO ARE
ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NOS.1 AND 2) FOR THE OFFENCES
TH
P/U/S 420, 506 AND 34 OF IPC (i.e., ANNEXURE A) AND 8
ADDL. CMM COURT NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGLAURU
nd
PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HEBBAL POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.192/2025 i.e., ANNEXURE B.
- 3 -
IN CRL.P NO. 9116/2025
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI PAVAN PRAKYATH V.,
S/O CHALAPATHI VUPPARAPATI,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.31601
NIKOO HOMES, BHARATIYA CITY
THANISANDRA, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU – 560 064.
2. SMT.SINCHANA RAJ H.D.,
W/O PAVAN PRAKYATH V,
C/O L.N.DEVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
TH TH
NO.240, 6 CROSS, 5 MAIN,
CANARA BANK LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA,
BENGALURU – 560 097.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
HEBBAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
VIDHANA VEEDHI,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SRI PRATHAP N.B.,
S/O V.P.NAGARAJA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.C 406,
MAHAVEER TURQUOISE APT.,
- 4 -
BASAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 100.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI RAGHAVENDRA K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS PETITIONER
PRAYING TO (1) TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY
HEBBAL POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO. 39/2025 AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS (WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NOS.
1 AND 2) FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 318 (i.e., ANNEXURE- A); PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE HON’BLE VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT
ND
/PCR FILED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT BEFORE THE
HON’BLE VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.39/2025 (P.C.R. NO.
15942/2024) I.E. ANNEXURE-A; (2) TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 26.12.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
HON’BLE VIII ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.39/2025 (P.C.R. NO.
15942/2024) WHEREUNDER, THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE
HAS REFERRED THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE
ND
2 RESPONDENT IN P.C.R. 15942/2024 TO THE HEBBAL
P.S., FOR IVESTIGATION i.e., ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,
IN CRL.P NO. 10300/2025
BETWEEN:
1. PRAKYATH EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,
NO.195, BALAJI SADAN
TH
9 CROSS, CIL LAYOUT
C.N.HALLI, HEBBAL
BENGALURU – 560 032
REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR
MR.PAVAN PRAKYATH V.,
2. SRI PAVAN PRAKYATH V.,
S/O CHALAPATHI VUPPARAPATI
- 5 -
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.31601
NIKOO HOMES, BHARATIYA CITY,
THANISANDRA, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU – 560 064.
3.
SMT.SINCHANA RAJ H.D.,
W/O PAVAN PRAKYATH V.,
C/O L.N.DEVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
TH TH
NO.240, 6 CROSS, 5 MAIN,
CANARA BANK LAYOUT,
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU – 560 097.
4. SMT.V. SUKANYA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
W/O CHALAPATHI
RESIDING AT NO.195
TH
BALAJI SADAN, 9 CROSS
CIL LAYOUT
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI
NEAR NARAYANA SCHOOL
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU – 560 032.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HEBBAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
VIDHANA VEEDHI
- 6 -
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. SMT.SHATAMITA GOSH
W/O NIKHIL BHASKAR
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.65,
ND
2 CROSS,
CHIKKA RAMAIAH LAYOUT,
AKSHAYA NAGAR,
VARANASI MAIN ROAD,
T.C.PALYA, RAMAMURTHYNAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 036.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI M.R.C.MANOHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO A.
QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY HEBBAL POLICE STATION
IN CRIME NO.35/2025 AGAINST THE PETITIONER (WHO
ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NO.1,2,3 AND 4) FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 318 (THAT IS ANNEXURE- A) PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE VIII ACJM BENGLAURU
nd
PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT/PCR FILED BY THE 2
RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE VIII ACJM BENGALURU
IN CRIME NO.35/2025 (PCR NO.15948/2024) THAT IS
ANNEXURE A; B. SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
26.12.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE HON’BLE VIII
ACJM BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.35/2025 (PCR
NO.15948/2024) WHERE UNDER, THE LEARNED
MAGISTRATE HAS REFERRED THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT
nd
FILED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT IN PCR NO.15948/2024 TO
THE HEBBAL POLICE STATION FOR INVESTIGATION THAT
IS ANNEXURE C.
IN CRL.P NO. 10323/2025
BETWEEN:
1. PRAKYATH EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,
NO.95, BALAJI SADAN
- 7 -
TH
9 CROSS, CIL LAYOUT
C.N.HALLI, HEBBAL
BENGALURU – 560 032
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.
2. SRI PAVAN PRAKYATH V.,
S/O CHALALPATHI VUPARAPATI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 31601
NIKOO HOMES, BHARATIYA CITY
THANISANDRA, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU – 560 064.
3.
SMT. SINCHANA RAJ H.D.,
W/O PAVANPRAKYATH V.,
C/O L.N.DEVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
TH TH
NO.240, 6 CROSS, 5 MAIN
CANARA BANK LAYOUT
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU – 560 097.
4. SMT. V. SUKANYA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
W/O CHALAPATHI
RESIDING AT NO.195
TH
BALAJI SADAN, 9 CROSS
CIL LAYOUT
CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI
NEAR NARAYANA SCHOOL
BENGALURU NORTH
BENGALURU – 560 032.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)
- 8 -
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
HEBBAL POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
VIDHANA VEEDHI
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2.
SRI BALA KUMAR KHADHIRVELAN
S/O KHADHIRVELAN A.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 31401
TOWER-3
NIKOO HOMES-1, BHARATIYA CITY
THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU – 560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO
A.QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY HEBBAL POLICE
STATION IN CRIME NO.38/2025 AGAINST THE PETITIONER
(WHO ARE ARRAYED AS ACCUSED NOS.1, 2, 3 AND 4) FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 318 (THAT IS ANNEXURE-A)
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE VIII ADDL. CJM
BENGALURU PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT /PCR FILED BY
nd
THE 2 RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON’BLE VIII
ADDL.CJM BENGALURU IN CRIME NO.38/2025 (PCR
NO.15940/2024) THAT IS ANNEXURE –A; B. SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 26.12.2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF
THE HON’BLE VIII ACJM BENGLAURU IN CRIME
NO.38/2025 (PCR NO.15940/2024) WHEREUNDER, THE
LEARNED MAGISTRATE HAS REFERRED THE PRIVATE
nd
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2 RESPONDENT IN PCR
NO.15940/2024 TO THE HEBBAL POLICE STATION, FOR
- 9 -
INVESTIGATION THAT IS ANNEXURE-C.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 20.08.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners in all these cases are common. They are
one of the accused in each of the cases. The
respondents/complainants are different. Petitioners 1 and 2 in
Criminal Petition Nos.9293 of 2026 and 9116 of 2025 are
accused Nos. 1 and 2, husband and wife. Petitioners 1 to 4 in
Criminal Petition Nos.10300 of 2025 and 10323 of 2025 are
accused Nos. 1 to 4 in both the cases.
2. Heard in all the cases Sri Siddharth Suman, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Patel, High
Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and
Sri Raghavendra K, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
- 10 -
One of the complainants Kavitha G.C. gets acquainted
with accused No.2, the wife of accused No.1 in the College.
Accused No.1 claims to be running a reputed real estate
development company and had just then introduced a project
in the name and style of ‘Prakyath Edifice’. It is said that
accused No.2 induced Kavitha G.C., the complainant to invest
in the said project. The investment goes wrong. Likewise, all
the complainants were persons who parted with valuable
consideration in the real estate development project of accused
Nos. 1 and 2. The complainants in other cases are also said to
have entered into agreements of sale with accused Nos. 1 to 4
by parting with valuable consideration. Alleging that neither the
amount nor the apartment was made available the complainant
registered a complaint before the jurisdictional Police which
becomes a crime in Crime No.192 of 2025 for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC. This is
the subject matter of Criminal Petition Nos.9293 of 2026 and
9116 of 2025.
4. Criminal Petition Nos. 10300 of 2025 and 10323 of
2025 are on the same fulcrum of facts. On 14-11-2018 it is the
case of the petitioners/accused that they have entered into a
Joint Development Agreement in favour of one Manjunath K.P.
- 11 -
for development of a property in Sy.No.29/2 at Kothnur Village,
K.R. Puram Hobli. On 06-07-2019 the complainant/Shatamita
Ghosh and the petitioner entered into an agreement of sale for
Rs.
valuable consideration of 65,46,595/- towards a flat bearing
No.G-11 in Prakyath Edifice Apartments. Rs. 63,04,053/- out of
the said amount was parted from the Bank through loan from
subvention scheme, through which the borrower-complainant
availed the loan and the amount is paid to the developer and
the developer would undertake to pay the equal monthly
installments. The Joint Development Agreement is said to have
been cancelled by execution of a cancellation deed later. This
forms the fulcrum of the crime in Crime No.35 of 2025
registered by the complainant Shatamita Ghosh. This is
impugned in Criminal Petition No.100300 of 2025. Crime No.38
of 2025 is registered on the same set of facts by the different
complainant one Bala Kumar Khadhirvelan which becomes
subject matter of Criminal Petition No.10323 of 2025.
5. The learned counsel Sri Siddharth Suman
appearing for the petitioners, in all these cases would submit
that, the transactions were undertaken in 2021-22. However,
the complaints are registered only in 2025 and the delay in
registration of complaints is completely unexplained. The
- 12 -
essential ingredient of cheating is not present in the case at
hand even to its semblance. The complaints are filed only to
wreak vengeance against the accused. The petitioners have
paid a portion of the dues and are willing to pay the rest.
Matters involving other properties on the same allegations have
been quashed on settlement. The petitioners plead that they
are unable to prove payments as their phone is still with the
Police.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents/
complainants would however vehemently refute the
submissions in contending that the petitioners/accused lured
these humble complainants to enter into the transactions of
agreement of sale and not sale deed as the case would be and
to-day the complainants have neither the apartments for which
they have paid substantial amount or complete amount nor the
amount in certain cases and the petitioners/accused have
cancelled Joint Development Agreement in some cases. The
fact remains that these complainants were lured by the
petitioners into the transactions which would clearly become
ingredients of criminal breach of trust and cheating.
- 13 -
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts, dates and link in the
chain of events are a matter of record. A real estate project is
notified by accused No.1, one Pavan Prakyath in the name and
style of Prakyath Edifice. Amounts are collected from the
complainants in the years 2021 and 2022 wherein agreement
th
of sale is entered into on 25 March, 2022 and sale
consideration of Rs. 1,55,00,000/- was made. Alleging neither
the apartment or the money is in the hands of the
complainants, the complainants register the complaints. The
complaint in Criminal Petition No.9293 of 2026 reads as
follows:
: 08/11/2025
ಾಂಕ
,
ರವ ೆ
ೕ ಇ ೆಕ
,
ೆಾಳ ೕ ಾೆ
.
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ
,
ರವ ಂದ
. . , 33 ,
ಕ !ಾ " # $ೋಂ ಪ'!ಾ( ಎ * ವಷ,
: 24298, , ,
-ಾಸ ನಂ ೆ'#/ "ಂ0ಾ1 #2 ತುಮಕೂರು ಮುಖ6 ರ7ೆ8
- 14 -
7 , ,
ೇ $ಾ' ಮಂಜು ಾಥ ನಗರ ಾಗಲಗುಂ<ೆ
-560073. . . 7406084673.
ೆಂಗಳ ರು ನಗರ = ನಂ
: , - - [email protected]
>ಾ? ಒಕA ಗ " Bೕ1
,
Cಾನ6Dೇ
: .
ಷಯ ಪ ಚಯಸGDಾದ * ಪವ ಪ'Hಾ6I ಮತು8 ಅವರ ೆಂಡ? #ಂಚ ಾ
ರವರು ತಮL ಪ'Hಾ6I ಎMNೈ ಕಂಪPಯ ಾ'>ೆQಗಳ R ಒಂದು
25,69,000/-
NಾRSಅನುT $ೊಡುವU0ಾV ೇW ನPTಂದ ಒಟು ರೂ
ಹಣವನುT ಪ[ೆದು$ೊಂಡು -ಾಪಸು $ೊಡ0ೇ =ೕಸ CಾMರುವ ಬ ೆ]
.
$ಾನೂನು ಕ'ಮ$ಾAV ದೂರು
*
,
ಾನು BೕಲAಂಡ ಾM ೆ _ಾಸದ R -ಾಸ-ಾVದು`$ೊಂಡು 7ಾa -ೇ
.
ಇಂ"Pಯ ಆV $ೆಲಸ CಾM$ೊಂMರು!ೆ8ೕ ೆ ನನT ಗಂಡ ಪ'!ಾ( ರವರು
.
7ಾa -ೇ ಇಂ"Pಯ ಆV $ೆಲಸ CಾM$ೊಂMರು!ಾ8Dೆ ನಮL ಸcಂತ
, ,
ಊರು ಏಗುಡುಗನಹWf ಾ'ಮ ಅಂಬು ಾ ಅಂgೆ hಾಂ? ಾ'ಮ ೋಬW ಾಸನ
.
"iೆR ಆVರುತ80ೆ
2015
ೇ 7ಾ Pಂದ ನನ ೆ #ಂಚ ಾ ರವರು $ಾiೇಜು 0ಾ6jಾ6ಸದ
. 2022
ಸಮಯ ಂದ ಪ ಚಯಸGDಾVರು!ಾ8Dೆ ನಂತರ ೇ 7ಾ ನ R #ಂಚ ಾ
, ,
ರವರು ಅವರ ಗಂಡ ಪವ ಪ'Hಾ6I ರವರು ೆಾಳ ಆನಂದನಗರ ಎ"ಎ
, 1 . .,
$ಾiೋP ೇ BೖನT Rರುವ ಪ'Hಾ6I ಎMNೈ ೆk ಕಂಪP ೆ ನನTನುT
, ,
ಕDೆl#$ೊಂಡು #ಂಚ ಾ ಮತು8 ಅವರ ಗಂಡ ನನ ೆ ?W#0ೆ`ೕ ೆಂದDೆ ಾವU
ನಮL ಕಂಪP ಮೂಲಕ ಸcಂತ ಾಗೂ ೕಜmೕನುಗಳ R ಯ1ಎ7ೇS
.
[ೆವಲ(BಂS $ಾಯ,ಚಟುವ2$ೆಗಳನುT Cಾಡು?8ರು!ೆ8ೕ-ೆ ೆಂಗಳ ನ
.
ಹಲ-ಾರು ಕ[ೆಗಳ R ನಮL ಾ'>ೆQ ನ[ೆಯು?80ೆ PೕವU ಒಂದು NಾRS ಅನುT
, ,
ಖ ೕ# ಮುಂ ನ ಭ ಷ6$ೆA ಒ_ೆfಯದು ಆಗುತ80ೆ ಎಂದು ?W# ನಮL
.
ಮನo #ದರು ಇವ ಬರ CಾತುಗಳನುT ನಂ* ಾನು ಇದ$ೆA ಒpq0ಾಗ
, ,
$ಾr ೋs, iೇಔS 0ಾಸರಹWf ಾ'ಮ ೆಂಗಳ ರು ಇ R ನಮL ಾ'>ೆQ
,
ಈಗ ಾ'ರಂಭ-ಾಗು?80ೆ ಎಂದು 7ೈS ಬW ಕDೆದು$ೊಂಡು ೋV PೕವU
ಈಗiೇ ಬುQ CಾM ಹಣವನುT $ೊಟ Dೆ ಾವU Pಮ ೆ ಾ'>ೆQ ಮುVದ
- 15 -
,
Bೕiೆ ಒಂದು NಾRಟನುT ಕMB ದರದ R $ೊಡು!ೆ8ೕ-ೆ ಎಂದು ಅಲR0ೇ iೋ
.
CಾMಸಲು ಾ-ೇ ಸ ಾವನುT CಾಡುವU0ಾV ?W#ದ`ರು ನಂತರ ಪವ
ಪ'Hಾ6Iಮತು8 ಅವರ ೆಂಡ? #ಂಚ ಾ ರವರು iೋ ೆ ೇ$ಾದ ಎiಾR
0ಾಖiಾ?ಗಳನುT ನPTಂದ ಪ[ೆದು$ೊಂಡು iೋ ಮಂಜೂರು
.
CಾM#ರು!ಾ8Dೆ
;
ಆರು ಾ6ಂQ Hಾ!ೆಗಳ ವರ
Bank Loan Number Net Date of
amount disbursement
Incred
Financial
service
LXBNG18922235259774 3,38,387/- 21.05.2022
rs.
Axis Bank PPR000907501961 4,86,099/- 23.05.2022
rs.
Yes Bank -- 4,81,974/- 23.05.2022
rs.
Hero fincorp 27093234 4,81,733/- 23.05.2022
rs,
Fulltron 7202211089375 5,85,820/- 24.05.2022
rs.
Muthoot PLBLR00003514 2,87,561/- 26.05.2022
finance rs.
BೕಲAಂಡ ಾ6ಂQಗWಂದ ನನ ೆ ಮಂಜೂDಾದ iೋ ಹಣದ ೈv ಒಟು
25,69,000/- : 21.05.2022
ಸುCಾರು ರೂ iೋ ಹಣವನುT ಾಂಕ ಂದ
16.06.2022 . . . .
ರವDೆ ೆ ನನT ೆw M ಎa # ಾ6ಂQ Hಾ!ೆ ನಂ
50100148045186
lಂದ ಪವ ಪ'Hಾ6I ರವರು ?W#ದಂ!ೆ ಅವನ ಆv
. 914010019111411
ಾ6ಂQ Hಾ!ೆ ನಂ ೆ ಸಂಪxಣ, ಹಣವನುT ವ ಾ,ವೆ
.
CಾM0ೆನು ನಂತರ ಅV'BಂS CಾM$ೊಡುವಂ!ೆ ಾನು $ೇW0ಾಗ ಅವರು
. 2-3
$ೆಲವU ನಗಳ R CಾM$ೊಡುವU0ಾV ?W#ದರು ಸುCಾರು
?ಂಗ_ಾದರೂ ಅV'BಂS ಅಥ-ಾ NಾRSಅನುT "ಸ CಾM$ೊಡ0ೇ
.
ಸ!ಾlಸು?8ದ`ರು yೕVರು-ಾಗ ಒಂದು ನ ಾನು ಅವರ ಆrೕ ಹ?8ರ
ೋV NಾRSಅನುT "ಸ CಾM$ೊM ಇಲR-ಾದDೆ ನನT ಹಣವನುT -ಾಪಸು
,
$ೊM ಎಂದು #ಂಚ ಾ ರವರನುT $ೇW0ಾಗ ನನT ಗಂಡ ದು ೈ ೆ ೋV0ಾ`Dೆ
,
ಅವರು ಬರುವವDೆಗೂ ಸುಮLPರ ೇಕು ಪ0ೇ ಪ0ೇ ಆrೕ ಹ?8ರ ಬಂದDೆ
,
PನTನುT ಸುಮL ೆ *ಡುವU ಲR ಏನು Cಾಡು?8ೕzಾ CಾM$ೋ ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ
.
ೆದ$ೆ ಾvದಳ{
- 16 -
ಾನು ಆ ಸಮಯದ R ಗ|,}zಾVದ` ಂದ zಾವU0ೇ ಕಂ ೆRೕಂS
$ೊಡ0ೇ ಅವರು ನನT ಹಣವನುT -ಾಪಸು $ೊಡಬಹುದು ಎಂದು ಇ RಯವDೆ ೆ
,
ಸುಮLP0ೆ`ನು ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ಅವರು ನನ ೆ zಾವU0ೇ $ೊಡ0ೇ ನನT
.
ಸಂಪಕ,ಕೂA #ಗ0ೇ ತiೆ ಮDೆ#$ೊಂMರು!ಾ8Dೆ
ಆದ` ಂದ ಈ =ದiೇ $ಾiೇಜು ಸಹ ಾ~zಾVದ` #ಂಚ ಾ ರವರು ನನ ೆ
=ೕಸ Cಾಡುವ ಉ0ೆ`ೕಶ ಂದ ಅV'BಂS CಾM$ೊಡುವU0ಾV ಭರವ7ೆ PೕM
zಾವU0ೇ ಅV'BಂS CಾM$ೊಡ0ೇ ತಮL ಪ'Hಾ6I ಎMNೈ ಕಂಪPಯ
ಾ'>ೆQಗಳ R ಒಂದು NಾRSಅನುT $ೊಡುವU0ಾV ೇW ನPTಂದ ಒಟು
25,69,000/-
ರೂ ಹಣವನುT ಪ[ೆದು$ೊಂಡು -ಾಪಸು $ೊಡ0ೇ =ೕಸ
.
CಾMರುವ * ಪವ ಪ'Hಾ6I ಮತು8 ಅವರ ೆಂಡ? #ಂಚ ಾ ರವರ ರುದ•
$ಾನೂನು ಕ'ಮ $ೈ ೊಂಡು ನಮL ಹಣವನುT -ಾಪಸು $ೊM#$ೊಡ ೇ$ೆಂದು
.
$ೋರು!ೆ8ೕ ೆ
”
ತಮL hಾc#
This becomes a crime in Crime No.192 of 2025 for offences
punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC. This is
called in question in Criminal Petition No.9293 of 2026.
nd
9. In Criminal Petition No.10300 of 2025 the 2
respondent complainant registers a private complaint invoking
Section 200 of the CrPC against the petitioners for offences
punishable under Sections 316 and 318 of the BNS and seeks
reference to the hands of the jurisdictional Police under Section
175(3) of the BNS. Thereafter, it appears that a crime in Crime
No.35 of 2025 comes to be registered. The complaint before
- 17 -
the learned Magistrate invoking Section 223 of the BNSS is in
great detail. The relevant paragraphs thereof are as follows:
“ …. …. ….
6. The complainant submits that, in all total the
complainant paid sum of Rs.65.46.595/- (Sixty-Five lakhs
Forty-Six thousand five hundred ninety-five Rupees only)
on various dates from different bank accounts and
financial institutions accounts by raising loans facilitated
by the accused.
7. The complainant submits that, the duration is fixed 36
months to complete construction of apartment and to
hand over the same and by executing the sale
proceedings and further time can be extended on
understanding of both parties. Copy of the Sale
agreement and Bank statements are herewith produced at
ANNEXURE-C and D .
8. The complainant submits that, after completion of time
fixed in agreement of sale when complainant tried to
approach accused she learnt that the following cases were
registered against accused persons are
a. Crime No.215/2023 was registered against
accused for the offences punishable under section
406, 420, 506, 34 of IPC on the file of Hebbal police
station.
b. Crime No.329/2023 was registered against
accused for the offences punishable under section
420, 34. of IPC on the file of Kodigehalli police
station.
c. Crime No.433/2023 was registered against
accused for the offences punishable under section
420 of IPC on the file of Banaswadi police station.
Copies of the FIR's are herewith produced at
ANNEXURE-E to G .
9. The complainant submits that, on enquiry the
accused was cheated many persons , the accused was
executed agreement of sale in favour of complainant, by
receiving sum of Rs.65.46.595/- (Sixty Five lakhs Forty
Six thousand five hundred ninety five Rupees only)
thereby the accused cheated complainant also, for their
wrongful gain induced/lured complainant to invest his
- 18 -
hard earned monies and made complainant to raise
monies under various loans for their fraudulent activities
thereby causing huge loss to the complainant. Thereby
the accused dishonestly violated trust of complainant
wilfully made suffer from criminal breach of trust.
10. The complainant submits that, after knowing she was
cheated the tune of Rs.65.46.595/- (Sixty Five lakhs Forty
Six thousand five hundred ninety five Rupees only) in the
hands of accused she tried repeatedly to approach
accused but all her efforts are went in vein. Without
alternative remedy left she approached Jurisdictional
Hebbala police with written complaint but they denied to
take complaint and register in FIR, hence the complainant
sent his complaint under RPAD to the Hebbala police
station the same is served on police but, the police
instead of registering FIR they issued endorsement
bearing No.B2/PS/Ne.Aa/20/2024 dated: 29.08.2024.
11. The complainant submits that, she approached
Commissioner of Police Bengaluru City through complaint
under RPAD praying issue direction to Hebbal police to
register her complaint in FIR but as on this day no action
was taken by the police authorities to register her
complaint in FIR. Hence this private complaint before this
Hon'ble court. Copy of the complaint and Postal Track
Consignment are herewith produced at ANNEXURE- H
and I . Thereby complainant fulfilled/followed the dictum
passed by Hon'ble Apex court in Priyanka Srivatsava Vs
State of U.P reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.
12. Viewed from any angle the Jurisdictional police have
failed to register his complaint under FIR against accused
for the offence punishable under section 316, 318 of BNS
Act-2023. Hence this private complaint.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the complainant most humbly prays
that, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to refer the
complainant under section 175(3) of BNSS Act-2023 to
Jurisdictional Hebbal Police Station to investigate the
matter and to submit report, in the ends of law and
justice.
Complainant
Advocate for Complainant
Bengaluru
Dated: 07.12.2024.”
- 19 -
This is called in question by the petitioners/accused. The
respondent/complainant has filed statement of objections
indicating the element of cheating and fraud by the petitioners.
The transactions are brought about in the affidavit. The
relevant paragraphs are as follows:
“ …. …. ….
3. The Respondent No.2/De-facto Complainant submits
that the Petitioners/Accused approached the Complainant
through various means and sources and explained about
developing a project under the name "Prakyath Edifice".
The Petitioner No.1/Accused. No. 1 claims to be a reputed
real estate which development company, which is
registered & primarily involved in the business of real
estate activities with own & leased properties, which
would be developed in 1 Acre 10 Guntas of land in
Kothanur, K.R Puram, Benglauru. The project would be
completed within a period of 36 months & promised
to provide with several civic amenities.
4. The R-2 states that, the Petitioner Nos. 1 to 4 played
active role by entering into Agreements with the general
public including the R-2 & also engaged in availing &
facilitating to obtain loan against the property. The
Petitioners/Accused promised R-2 & the other buyers of
timely & quality construction of flats. The main modus
operandi of the Petitioners was to target young
professionals/middle class families under the subvention
schemes, that was offered by the Builder in association
with certain Banks. Under this scheme the
builder/promoter promises to underwrite the interest
obligation of the home-buyer till the date of possession or
until the time the flat was ready to use. Accordingly, the
Accused/Petitioners facilitated bank loans with sole
intention of defrauding the Complainant/R-2.
- 20 -
5. In the normal course, no individual can avail personal
loan from various banks on the same day but the same
has been achieved In the instant case since the banks and
the Accused/Petitioners colluded together. The R-2 was
working in Capegemini Technologies as a Software
Engineer. The Petitioners to facilitate her loan, asked the
R-2 to provide her pay-slip & 6 months Bank Statements
& other required documents. Accordingly the R-2 has
provided all the documents. However, to the utter dismay
& shock, the Petitioners have created fake pay-slips based
on the original pay-slip provided by the R-2 & applied for
Loan in 8 Private Banks in collusion with the Bank
Officials, without the knowledge of the Respondent No.2 &
all the 8 Banks have Sanctioned Loans, totally amounting
to Rs.65,46,595/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lakhs Forty Six
Thousand & Five Hundred & Ninety Five Only), within as
span of 1 week i.e., from the following Banks:
Sl.No. Date Name of the Loan Loan
Bank sanctioned Disbursed
1. 27/06/2019 ICICI 10,00,000/- 9,62,546/-
2. 27/06/2019 CITI/AXIS 6,20,000/- 6,11,301/-
3. 28/06/2019 IDFC First 12,00,000/- 11,83,923/-
4. 28/06/2019 HDFC 10,00,000/- 9,11,227/-
5. 28/06/2019 Tata Capital 5,30,000/- 5,16,935/-
6. 28/06/2019 YES Bank 6,89,000/- 6,66,577/-
7. 04/07/2019 Aditya Bank 10,00,000/- 9,65,047/-
8. 02/07/2019 CLIX 5,07,595/- 4,86,497/-
TOTAL 65,46,595/- 63,04,053/-
6. The above table depicts the way the Loans have been
sanctioned, within a period of 1 week, 8 Banks have
sanctioned Loans to the Respondent No.2, on the pay-slip
& 6 months Bank statement of the R-2 & the entire
amount mentioned in the above table has been
transferred through net-banking to the Bank A/c of
the Petitioners', which clearly demonstrates the
Petitioner/Accused since the inception have induced the
Respondent No.2 to invest the huge amount referred
above with a promise that the Petitioners will provide her
a FLAT & further have cheated & played a fraud in
collusion with the Bank officials to defraud the R-2. The
above table clearly shows the time gap between sanction
- 21 -
of each loan amount, which is in clear & absolute violation
of the KYC norms, SEBI norms & Banking safeguards
norms. That, no Banks in the country grant multiple.
Loans to a single individual based on one single
document, in the above case, the pay-slip of the R-2,
which goes to show the modus-operandi of the Petitioners
in collusion with the Bank. (The copy of the Bank
statement of the R-2 is produced herewith as Document
No.1 ).”
nd
10. In Criminal Petition No.10323 of 2025 the 2
respondent is the complainant who registers a complaint before
the learned Magistrate invoking Section 223 of the BNSS. The
relevant paragraphs of the complaint read as follows:
“ …. …. ….
6. It is submitted, that, it is trite to state that, Accused
No's 2 to 4 played active role by entering into agreements
with the general public including complainant and also by
engaging in availing and facilitating in getting the loan
against property. The accused promised of timely and
quality constructions of the flats. But the main factor of
attraction for the target market i.e., Young
professionals/Middle class families was the " subvention
schemes " that was offered by the builder in association
with the certain banks. Under this scheme the
builder/promoter promises to underwrite the interest
obligation of the homebuyer till the date of possession or
the flat was ready to use. Accordingly, the accused
facilitated bank loans with sole intention of defrauding the
complainant. In the normal course, no individual can
avail personal loan from various banks on the same
day but the same has been achieved in the instant
case since the banks and the accused working in
collusion. After facilitating bank loans the accused
executed registered agreement of sale bearing No KRI-1-
09338-2020-21-stored in KRID1172 dated: 17.02.2021
before Senior Sub-Registrar, K.R Puram, Bengaluru to sell
property bearing Flat bearing No.213, measuring Super
built-up 1095 Square feet, " M/s. Prakyath Edifice "
apartments, consisting Three bed rooms together with
- 22 -
RCC roofing, Ceramic/Vitrified flooring together with one
covered car parking space including proportionate share
in common area such as passage, lobbies, stair case etc.,
in the multi-storied residential building constructed at
Sy.No.29/2 measuring 1 acer 1.8 guntas out of 1 acre 10
guntas situated at Kothanur Village, K.R. Puram Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, now within the limits of BBMP
ward No.25 Bangalore for valuable. sale consideration
During sale proceeding talks the accused were promised
that they will handover sale agreement schedule property
as agreed in time. As per the agreement of sale the
accused ought to have been given possession of the flat in
the year 2023, therefore the accused failed to meet the
deadline and there is no progress at all.
7. The complainant submits that, in all total the
complainant paid sum of Rs.35.16.940/- (Thirty-Five
lakhs Sixteen thousand nine hundred forty Rupees only)
on various dates from his bank accounts by raising loans
facilitated by the accused.
8. The complainant submits that, the duration is fixed 36
months to complete construction of apartment and to
hand over the same and by executing the sale
proceedings and further time can be extended on
understanding of both parties. Copy of the Sale
agreement and Bank statements are herewith produced at
ANNEXURE-D and E.
9. The complainant submits that, after completion of time
fixed in agreement of sale when complainant tried to
approach accused she learnt that the below mentioned
cases are registered against accused are:-
a. Crime No.215/2023 was registered against
accused for the offences punishable under section
406, 420, 506, 34 of IPC on the file of Hebbal police
station.
b. Crime No.329/2023 was registered against
accused for the offences punishable under section
420, 34 of IPC on the file of Kodigehalli police
station.
c. Crime No.433/2023 was registered against
accused for the offences punishable under section
420 of IPC on the file of Banaswadi police station.
Copies of the FIR's are herewith produced at
ANNEXURE-F to H.
- 23 -
10. The complainant submits that, on enquiry the
accused was cheated many persons , the accused was
executed agreement of sale in favour of complainant by
receiving sum of Rs.35.16.940/- (Thirty Five lakhs
Sixteen thousand nine hundred forty Rupees only)
thereby the accused cheated complainant also, for their
wrongful gain induced/lured complainant to invest his
hard earned monies and made complainant to raise
monies under various loans for their fraudulent activities
thereby causing huge loss the complainant. Thereby the
accused dishonestly violated trust of complainant wilfully
made suffer from criminal breach of trust.
11. The complainant submits that, after knowing she was
cheated to the tune of Rs.35.16.940/- (Thirty-Five lakhs
Sixteen thousand nine hundred forty Rupees only) in the
hands of accused he tried repeatedly to approach accused
but all his efforts are went in vein. Without alternative
remedy left he approached Jurisdictional Hebbala police
with written complaint but they denied to take complaint
and register in FIR, hence the complainant sent his
complaint under RPAD to the Hebbala police station the
same is served on police but, the police instead of
registering FIR they issued Endorsement dated
29.08.2024 bearing No.B2/PS/Ne.Aa/21/2024 and one
more endorsement dated 06.09.2024 bearing No.
B2/PS/Sa Aa/208/2024.
12. The complainant submits that, he approached
Commissioner of Police Bengaluru City through complaint
under RPAD praying issue direction to Hebbal police to
register her complaint in FIR but as on this day no action
was taken by the police authorities to register his
complaint in FIR. Hence this private complaint before this
Hon'ble court. Copy of the complaint and Postal Track
Consignment are herewith produced at ANNEXURE- I and
J. Thereby complainant fulfilled/followed the dictum
passed by Hon'ble Apex court in Priyanka Srivatsava Vs
State of U.P reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.
13. Viewed from any angle the Jurisdictional police have
failed to register his complaint under FIR against accused
for the offence punishable under section 318 of BNS Act-
2023. Hence this private complaint.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the complainant most humbly prays
that, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to refer the
complainant under section 175(3) of BNSS Act-2023 to
- 24 -
Jurisdictional Hebbal Police Station to investigate
the matter and to submit report, in the ends of law and
justice.
Complainant
Advocate for Complainant
Bengaluru
Dated: 09.12.2024.”
The learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation which
becomes a crime in Crime No.38 of 2025 for offences
punishable under Section 318 of the BNS.
nd
11. In Criminal Petition No.9116 of 2025, the 2
respondent who is the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of
the learned Magistrate seeking reference of investigation to the
hands of the jurisdictional Police. The fulcrum of the complaint
is as follows:
“ …. …. ….
3. The complainant approached jurisdictional Hebbala
Police station on 10.08.2024 with written complaint which
prima facie discloses that, the offences punishable under
section 318 of BNS Act-2023 having received the same
the jurisdictional Hebbala police denied to register his
complaint into FIR, without alternative remedy left the
complainant has forwarded his complaint under RPAD the
same was served on Hebbala police even after received
the same the police have not registered FIR against
accused instead of registering FIR issued Endorsement
dated: 29.08.2024 bearing No.B2/PS/Ne.Aa/16/2024.
Copy of the typed Complaint and Endorsement are
herewith produced as ANNEXURE A and B. and marked as
ANNEXURE-A and B.
FACTS OF THE CASE
- 25 -
4. The complainant submits that accused No. 1 and 2
were husband and wife, the accused approached the
complainant through various means and sources and
explained about developing a project under the name
" Prakyath Edifice " the Accused No.1 claims to be a
reputed real estate development company which is
registered one primarily involved in the business of real
estate activities with own and leased properties, wherein
the accused offered to sell his property bearing site
No.12, Khata No.455, Assessment No.38/1, Situated at
Dasarahalli Village, Krishnarajapura Hobli, Benglauru
South Taluk, measuring East to West 40 Feets, North to
South 40 Feets in all measuring 1600 Sq. Feets consisting
RCC roofed building Ground floor 16 Sq. First floor 16 Sq
and second floor 16 Sq along with granite flooring teak
wood doors for valuable sale consideration sum of Rs.
1.75.00.000/- (One Crore Seventy Five Lakhs Rupees
only) to complainant. During salė proceeding talks the
accused No's 1 and 2 were promised that the sale.
proceeding property is free from all encumbrances, hence
complainant agreed to purchase the same.
5. The complainant submits that, it is trite to state that,
Accused No's 1 and 2 played active role by entering into
areements with the general public including complainant
and also by engaging in availing and facilitating in getting
the loan against property. But the main factor of
attraction for the target market i.e., Young
Professionals/Middle Class families was the “ subvention
schemes” that was offered by the Accused in association
with the certain Banks. Accordingly, the accused
facilitated bank loans with sole intention of defrauding the
complainant. In the normal course, no individual can
avail personal loan from various banks on the same
day but the same has been achieved in the instant
case since the banks and the accused working in
collusion. After facilitating bank loans by the accused, in
all total the complainant paid sum of Rs.1.16.00.000/-
(One Crore Fifteen lakhs Rupees only) as part payment
towards sale proceeds as follows:-
a. On 21.03.2022 sum of Rs. 14,98,000/- by way of
RTGS.
b. On 21.03.2022 sum of Rs.8.80.000/ by way of
RTGS.
c. On 22.03.2022 sum of Rs.1.85.000/- by way of
IMPS.
- 26 -
d. On 22.03.2022 sum of Rs.22.45.000/- by way of
RTGS.
e. On 22.03.2022 sum of Rs. 19.64.000/ by way of
RTGS.
f. On 22.03.2022 sum of Rs.6.00.000/ by ways of
RTGS.
g. On 23.03.2022 sum of Rs.28.00.000/-by way of
RTGS.
h. On 23.03.2022 sum of Rs.10.00.000/-by way of
RTGS.
Thereafter the accused executed registered agreement of
sale vide document bearing No. BNS-1-00938-2022,23
dated: 19.04.2022 and fixed 15 months to complete the
sale proceeding in addition to that 3 months of grace
period is fixed to complete sale proceedings. Copy of the
Sale agreement and Bank statement are herewith
produced at ANNEXURE-C AND D.
6. The complainant submits that, in all total the
complainant paid sum of Rs.1.16.00.000/- (One Crore
Fifteen lakhs Rupees only) on various dates from his bank
account and financial institutions accounts by raising
loans facilitated by the accused.
7. The complainant submits that, after completion of time
fixed in agreement of sale when complainant tried to
approach accused he learnt that, the below mentioned
Cortes are registered against accused are:
a. Crime No.215/2023 was registered against
accused for the offences punishable under section
406, 420, 506, 34 of IPC on the file of Hebbal police
station.
b. Crime No.329/2023 was registered against
accused for the offences punishable under section
420, 34 of IPC on the file of Kodigehalli police
station.
c. Crime No.433/2023 was registered against
accused for the offences punishable under section
420 of IPC on the file of Banaswadi police station.
Copies of the FIR's are herewith produced at
ANNEXURE-E to G.
8. The complainant submits that, on enquiry the accused
was cheated many persons, the accused was executed
agreement of sale in favour of complainant by receiving
sum of Rs. 1.16.00.000/- (One Crore Fifteen lakhs Rupees
only) thereby the accused cheated complainant also, for
- 27 -
their wrongful gain induced/lured complainant to invest
his hard earned monies and made complainant to raise
monies under various loans for their fraudulent activities
thereby causing huge loss to the complainant to raise
monies under various loans for their fraudulent activites
thereby causing huge loss to the complainant. Thereby
the accused dishonestly violated trust of complainant
wilfully made suffer from criminal breach of trust.
The complainant submits that, after knowing she was
cheated to the tune of Rs.1.16.00.000/- (One Crore
Fifteen lakhs Rupees only) in the hands of accused he
tried repeatedly to approach accused but all his efforts
are went in vein. Without alternative remedy left he
approached Jurisdictional Hebbala police with written
complaint but they denied to take complaint and register
in FIR, hence the complainant sent his complaint under
RPAD to the Hebbala police station the same is served on
police but, the police instead of registering FIR they
issued endorsement bearing No. B2/PS/Ne.Aa/16/2024
dated 29.08.2024.
The complainant submits that, he approached
Commissioner of Police Bengaluru City through complaint
under RPAD praying issue direction to Hebbal police to
register her complaint in FIR but as on this day no action
was taken by the police authorities to register her
complaint in FIR. Hence this private complaint before this
Hon'ble court. Copy of the complaint and Postal Track
Consignment are herewith produced at ANNEXURE- H and
I. Thereby complainant fulfilled/followed the dictum
passed by Hon'ble Apex court in Priyanka Srivatsava Vs
State of U.P reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287.
Viewed from any angle the Jurisdictional police have failed
to register his complaint under FIR against accused for
the offence punishable under section 318 of BNS Act-
2023.
Hence this private complaint.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE , the complainant most humbly prays
that, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to refer the
complainant under section 175(3) of BNSS Act-2023 to
Jurisdictional Hebbal Police Station to investigate the
matter to submit report, in the ends of law and justice.
Complainant
- 28 -
Advocate for Complainant
Bengaluru
Dated 09.12.2024.”
12. One common stream that runs through the afore-
quoted complaints is that the petitioners have lured the
complainants into transactions and have allegedly cheated
them. This Court interdicted the investigation in the cases at
hand. They are still at the stage of crime. Owing to the
complaints that are noted hereinabove, the matters would
require investigation in the least. It is trite law that a FIR is not
an encyclopedia of offences.
12.1. The Apex Court in the case of NEEHARIKA
1
INFRASTRUCTURE (P) LTD. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ,
has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
33.12. The first information report is not an
encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and
details relating to the offence reported. Therefore,
when the investigation by the police is in progress,
the court should not go into the merits of the
allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to
complete the investigation. It would be premature
to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts
that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be
investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process
of law. After investigation, if the investigating
officer finds that there is no substance in the
1
(2021) 19 SCC 401
- 29 -
application made by the complainant, the
investigating officer may file an appropriate
report/summary before the learned Magistrate
which may be considered by the learned Magistrate
in accordance with the known procedure .”
12.2. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA
2
PRADESH v. KUNWAR SINGH , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
8. Having heard the submissions of the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the
respondent, we are of the view that the High Court has
transgressed the limits of its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of CrPC by enquiring into the merits of the
allegations at the present stage. The fact that the
respondent was a signatory to the cheques is not in
dispute. This, in fact, has been adverted to in the
judgment of the High Court. The High Court has also
noted that a person who is required to approve a
financial proposal is duty bound to observe due care and
responsibility. There are specific allegations in regard to
the irregularities which have been committed in the
course of the work of the ‘Janani Mobility Express’ under
the National Rural Health Mission. At this stage, the
High Court ought not to be scrutinizing the material
in the manner in which the trial court would do in
the course of the criminal trial after evidence is
adduced. In doing so, the High Court has exceeded
the well-settled limits on the exercise of the
jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC. A detailed
enquiry into the merits of the allegations was not
warranted. The FIR is not expected to be an
encyclopedia, particularly, in a matter involving
financial irregularities in the course of the
administration of a public scheme. A final report
2
2021 SCC OnLine SC 3668
- 30 -
has been submitted under Section 173 of CrPC,
after investigation. ”
12.3. The Apex Court in the case of SOMJEET MALLICK
3
v. STATE OF JHARKHAND , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of
the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the
stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or
FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the
threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the
police report or the complaint, including the
materials collected during investigation or inquiry,
as the case may be, are to be taken at their face
value so as to determine whether a prima facie
case for investigation or proceeding against the
accused, as the case may be, is made out. The
correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at
this stage.
16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute
provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential
ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of
fact which may be inferred from the act in question
as well as the surrounding circumstances and
conduct of the accused . As a sequitur, when a party
alleges that the accused, despite taking possession
of the truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges
for months together, while making false promises
for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of
dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is
made out which may require investigation. In such
circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very
inception, it would be nothing short of an act which
thwarts a legitimate investigation.
3
(2024) 10 SCC 527
- 31 -
17. It is trite law that FIR is not an
encyclopaedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test
whether an FIR discloses commission of a
cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not
any omission in the accusations but the gravamen
of the accusations contained therein to find out
whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has
been committed or not. At this stage, the court is
not required to ascertain as to which specific
offence has been committed.
18. It is only after investigation, at the time
of framing charge, when materials collected during
investigation are before the court, the court has to
draw an opinion as to for commission of which
offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if
satisfied, the court may even discharge the accused.
Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on
the part of the accused which, if supported by
materials, would disclose commission of a
cognizable offence, investigation should not be
thwarted by quashing the FIR.
19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR
does not become infructuous on submission of a
police report under Section 173(2)CrPC, but when
a police report has been submitted, particularly
when there is no stay on the investigation, the
court must apply its mind to the materials
submitted in support of the police report before
taking a call whether the FIR and consequential
proceedings should be quashed or not. More so,
when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a
dishonest conduct of the accused. ”
(Emphasis supplied in each instance)
The Apex Court holds that FIR is not an encyclopedia of
offences and holds that High Courts must be circumspect while
entertaining petitions at the stage of crime except in
- 32 -
exceptional circumstances. Therefore, the entertainment would
be on a case to case basis. While it is true that several petitions
are allowed and those crimes are obliterated at the nascent
stages. It depends upon case to case. The subject crimes so
registered are not the ones that can be obliterated without ado.
They would require investigation in the least.
13. In that light the petitions stand rejected,
permitting investigation to continue against these petitioners
and reserving liberty to the petitioners to knock at the
appropriate fora in the event final report is filed and the final
report would go against them.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP