M/S ANANYA COLLEGE OF NURSING vs DR SUDEEP KUMAR D
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
R
Reserved on : 25.08.2026
Pronounced on : 02.09.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ND
DATED THIS THE 02 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8032 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
M/S. ANANYA COLLEGE OF NURSING
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI PRASANTH KUMAR K.N.,
RESIDING AT CHAKKANATTU,
VECHOOR, KOTTAYAM,
KERALA - 686 144
PRESENT AT No.101
GOLDEN HEIGHTS
ANNAYA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 100,
KARNATAKA.
…PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B C
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
(BY MS. ANAGHA S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR.SUDEEP KUMAR D.,
S/O DORESWAMY G.R.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
- 2 -
RESIDING AT NO. 174,
DADDY'S GARDEN,
ST
PHASE I, 1 MAIN ROAD,
ND
2 CROSS, KAMMASANDRA,
BENGALURU - 562 106.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 528 OF BNNS
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.20318/2026 INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 316, 318, 319, 336, 337, 338 AND 125 OF THE
BNS, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III A.C.J.M BENGALURU
CITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.08.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner is before the Court calling in question
proceedings in C. C. No.20318 of 2026 pending before the III Addl.
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, initiated for the offences
- 3 -
punishable under Sections 316, 318, 319, 336, 337, 338 and 125 of
the BNS.
2. Heard Ms. Anagha S.Desai, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Sri Manjunath B.R., learned counsel appearing
for the respondent.
3. Facts, adumbrated, are as follows: -
3.1. The respondent is the owner of Sacred Oak Hospital
situated in Electronic City, an Allopathy Level-2 service providing
healthcare facility. The allegation is that under the Rules pertaining
to Nursing Colleges, any institution must be affiliated with a
functional hospital. The petitioner/institution is running a Nursing
College under the MSM Foundation Trust in the name and style of
M/s Ananya College of Nursing ('the College' for short). The
allegation is that the College has created fake fee receipt and a
fraudulent memorandum of understanding to hold that the College
has a valid tie-up with the complainant’s hospital. It is the further
allegation that the petitioner uploaded these documents for
compliance verification before the Karnataka Nursing Council and
thereby committed acts of forgery, cheating and misrepresentation.
- 4 -
3.2. The complainant on 24-01-2025 approached the
Parapana Agrahara Police Station and the police refusing to register
a crime rendered an NCR on the score that the issue was purely
civil in nature. It is later the complainant approaches the
concerned Court invoking Section 223 of the BNSS in
P.C.R.No.8310 of 2025. The concerned Court does not refer the
matter for investigation, but takes cognizance of the offences
against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences and registers
C.C.No.20318 of 2026.
SUBMISSIONS :
PETITIONER:
4. The learned counsel Ms. Anagha S. Desai appearing for the
petitioner would vehemently contend that the concerned Court has
taken cognizance of documents produced by the respondent which
are not even visible. The petitioner had filed objections to the
complaint in P.C.R.No.8310 of 2025, which the concerned Court has
completely ignored. The complaint was not supported by a detailed
affidavit as contemplated in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA
- 5 -
v. STATE OF U.P. reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. She would
further contend that the respondent is not even a 100 bedded
hospital. An affiliation under statutory rules to run a nursing
hospital can be only with a 100 bedded hospital. The respondent
not being a 100 bedded hospital cannot claim that the petitioner
has forged a memorandum of understanding with the respondent
from which they would not make any benefit. The basic ingredients
necessary to prove criminal breach of trust and cheating are
completely absent, much less the other offences upon which
cognizance is taken.
RESPONDENT-COMPLAINANT:
5. Contrariwise, the learned counsel Sri Manjunath B.R,
appearing for the respondent would vehemently submit contending
that the private complaint completely captures entire fulcrum of
allegations against the petitioner. The learned counsel would further
contend that the documents available are indicative of the fact that
the petitioner has sought to run the College claiming affiliation with
the respondent on a forged memorandum of understanding. No
memorandum of understanding is executed by the respondent with
- 6 -
the petitioner. Therefore, it is a clear case of cheating and forgery.
The Court has appropriately taken cognizance of the offence,
therefore, the matter must be permitted to be tried is the
submission of the learned counsel. He would admit that the
respondent is not a 100 bedded hospital, but only a 28 bedded
hospital and has applied for increase to 100 beds, which is yet to be
considered by the authorities. He would submit that the Court at
the first instance took cognizance on the documents available
before it. All the documents are now produced before the Court. If
the Court is now wanting to obliterate the order of taking
cognizance upon alleged blank documents, the matter be remitted
back to the hands of the concerned Court.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would join issue in
contending that the matter need not be remitted back for reason of
order of taking cognizance, as none of the allegations made in the
complaint would meet the basic threshold of ingredients as is
necessary in law. Therefore, a wisely drafted complaint would not
mean that the petitioner must face trial for an allegation that does
not make out any offence.
- 7 -
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
CONSIDERATION:
8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record, either
averred or admitted. The complainant initially approaches the
jurisdictional police seeking to register a crime. The police refuse to
register the crime and render a non-cognizable report. The non-
cognizable report reads as follows:
/Acknowledgement.
" ೕಕೃ
ನ.ಸಂ.76ಎ ಮೂಲ ಪ
/ Reference No: DP NO.150/2025
ಉ ೇಖ ಸಂ ೆ
( GSC No ) : P01800250600173 /Date: 24/01/2025
ಎ ಸಂ ೆ ಾಂಕ
Miscellenious
ಅ " ನಮೂ ೆ :
:
1. / / DR SUDEEP KUMAR
ಸಂದಶ"ಕರ '(ಾ"ದು*ಾರರ ಆ,ಾ -ಸಾದ ಸೂಚಕರ ,ೆಸರ
2. Father/Husband Name : DORESWAMY G R
3. Address : NO. 174 DADDYS GARDEN
ST ND
PHASE 1 1 MAIN 2 CROSS
KAMMASANDRA
Bengaluru City
Kamataka. 562106
- 8 -
4. Mobile
5.
ಸಂದಶ"ನದ ಉ*ೆ/ೕಶ :
ದೂರುಾರರು 0ಾ1ೆ2ೆ ಬಂದು -ೕ4ದ ದೂ5ನ 6ಾ7ಾಂಶ8ೆ ೆಂದ7ೆ ದೂರುಾರ7ಾದ ಸು ೕ9 ಕು:ಾ;
SACRED OAK
HEALTHCARE PVT LTD
ರವರು =ೈ7ೆಕ?; ಆ@ದು/ ಸದ5ಯವರು
HOSPITAL
ನುB ನ=ೆಸು Cದು/ 5 6ೆDೕಶE :ಾ4 Fೊಂ4ರುGಾC7ೆ Hೕ@ರು8ಾಗ ಅನ ಾ Fಾ ೇJ
ಆ9 ನರ ಂK ರವರು ಸದ5 ,ಾ LಟN Oೈ ಆ9 ಆ@ೆ ಎಂದು ,ೇP ದೂರುಾರರ ಆಸLGೆ ಯ
75000/-
,ೆಸ5ನQ ರೂ ಹಣದ ರTೕ -ೕ4ರುGಾC7ೆ ಮತುC ದೂರು*ಾರರ ಆಸLGೆ ಯ
ಬVಂ ಯಂGೆWೕ ಸದ5 Fಾ ೇ ನ X*ಾ Y"ಗP2ೆ ಬOೆ?ಯನುB -ೕ4ರುGಾC7ೆ Hೕ2ೆ
ದೂರುಾರ7ೊಂ 2ೆ (ಾವZೇ ಸಂಬಂದXಲ ದ/ರು ಸದ5 Fಾ ೇ ನವರು ದೂರು*ಾರರ ಆಸLGೆ ಯ
,ೆಸ5ನQ Gೊಂದ7ೆ -ೕಡು Cಾ/7ೆ ಆದ/5ಂದ ಸದ5ಯವರನುB 0ಾ1ೆ2ೆ ಕ7ೆ\ ಇನುB ಮುಂೆ ಈ 5ೕ
:ಾಡದಂGೆ ಸೂಕC ಳ`ವPFೆ -ೕ4 ದೂರುಾರರ ಆಸLGೆ ಯ ತಂOೆ2ೆ aಾರದಂGೆ ಸೂಕC ಬಂೊಬಸC
...
:ಾ4ಸaೇFೆಂದು Fೊಟ? ದೂರು ಇGಾ
6. Counter Party Details :
Name : ANANYA COLLEGE OF NURSING, S/o
Address: NO
Bengaluru City
Karnataka "
It is then the respondent approaches the concerned Court by filing
a private complaint as obtaining under Section 223 of the BNSS.
The concerned Court registers the complaint as P.C.R.No.8310 of
2025. The grounds are set out seeking a reference or taking of
cognizance as the case would be. Since the entire issue is triggered
from registration of the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice
the complaint. It reads as follows:
"…. …. ….
- 9 -
(3) The Complainant submits that, the complainant named
Dr.Sudeep Kumar, is the director of Somideep Healthcare pvt
ltd, which mans the Sacred Oak Hospital, a healthcare facility
located near Royal Oak Furniture, Phase-2, Electronic City,
Hosur Main Road, Bangalore. My hospital is duly registered
under the Karnataka Private Medical Establishment (Amended)
Act 2018 and Rules 2018, bearing Certificate of Registration No.
BLU02222ALHL2. Sacred Oak Hospital is a recognized Level 2
facility, providing medical services under the Allopathy system
of medicine. The complainant has a good reputation for
providing quality services to our patients.
(4) The Complainant further submits that, as per the
rules pertaining to Nursing College, each college have to
get themselves affiliated with a hospital. Ananya college
of nursing states that they have a tie up with the Scared
Oak Multi-Specialty Hospital, which is not true. Ananya
college also makes false claim of having made a payment
of Rs.75,000 on 27.02.2024 by providing fake receipt of
my hospital. This has not been received by our Hospital,
Ananya college of Nursing has also uploaded certain
documents like a Memorandum of Understanding and
some other documents, which are not legible and claimed
Sacred Oak Hospital as their parent hospital with
Karnataka State Nursing Council. The Complainant
further submits that, neither the complainant nor anyone
connected or associated with our organization has either
signed nor consented to such an arrangement.
(5) That the complainant filed an RTI application seeking
the documents uploaded by Ananya College of Nursing to
know it's veracity. After receipt of the said documents,
the Complainant realized that all the documents attached
were fake and the complainant signature was forged in
the document. And now the complainant hospital is not in
position to take on any other nursing college as false
proof have been submitted on affiliation. The nursing
students of Ananya College of Nursing have been
provided with uniforms identical to those of Sacred Oak
Hospital staff, further perpetuating their false claims of
affiliation.
- 10 -
(6) The Complainant further submit that, the aforementioned
acts by Ananya College of Nursing amount to criminal offenses
such as Endangering the life or personal safety of other,
cheating, acts of misappropriation and fraudulent claims and
Forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. These
fraudulent actions have severely impacted the reputation and
operations of Sacred Oak Hospital. Furthermore, they have
jeopardized our ability to enter into genuine affiliations with
other nursing colleges due to the false records submitted to the
Karnataka State Nursing Council.
(7) The Complainant further submits that, the said Ananya
College of Nursing further has adopted the mischievous tactic of
using the same uniform as our staff for their trainee nurses thus
trying to bring confusion in the minds of the patients and other
stake holders.
(8) the Complainant further submits that, In light of the above,
the complainant hereby request the accused to investigate into
the fraudulent activities of Ananya College of Nursing, by taking
appropriate legal action against the perpetrators for forgery,
cheating, misrepresentation and to ensure the immediate
withdrawal of any false claims or affiliations made by Ananya
College of Nursing using Sacred Oak Hospital's name.
(9) the Complainant submits that, the complainant hereby lodge
this complaint against Ananya College of Nursing for engaging in
fraudulent activities, misrepresentation, cheating and forgery
that have caused serious harm to my institution's reputation
and operations. It further does not allow me to align our
hospital with any nursing college as this has been locked
fraudulently by the said Ananya College of Nursing.
GROUNDS
10) These are the false documents which have been
submitted the fake of affiliation letter by Ananya College
of Nursing with Sacred Oak Hospital. Forgery of
signatures on fake documents (like Memorandum of
Understanding)by Ananya College of Nursing. Fake
receipts claiming a payment of ` 75,000 to the hospital
has been uploaded, which the hospital never received.
Uploading fraudulent documents to Karnataka State
- 11 -
Nursing Council. Unauthorized use of hospital's name and
staff uniform designs to mislead spatients and
authorities.
11) It is further submitted that, there was harm caused to
reputation and operations of Sacred Oak Hospital. Inability to
form genuine affiliations with other nursing colleges due to false
records already being submitted.
12) The complainant is also requesting that justice be served to
the complainant for which the complaint lodged a police
complaint before the concerned Jurisdictional police and be
provided with appropriate necessary action against the accused,
but no use or purpose served for justice even though the
accused confessed to the above mentioned crime in front of the
police officer. However the NCR Acknowledgement was issued
on 24.01.2025 stating the reason of the matter is
MISCELLANEOUS.
13) The complainant submits that, the complainant then
escalated the matter to The Commissioner of Police on
12.02.2024 and also on 11.04.2025 who ordered with a
direction to the police officer for the Registration of an FIR.
Instead of complying, the police officer recorded the
complainant's statement and sent them away back to home.
The Complainant was forced to approach the court, which
ordered for the registration of the FIR.
14) It is further submitted that, till date, no legal action has
been taken and that they were instructed to move the
concerned court and obtain permission as per the column of
155(1) of CR.P.C. Later, the complainant forwarded the same
complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru city but the
concerned police officials failed to take action against the
accused persons.
15) The complainant submits that, the above said transaction
took place within the limits of Parapana Agrahara police station
which comes under the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
court.
16) The complainant submits that, from the attitude of accused
persons, it is very clear that, the accused persons have
- 12 -
committed offences under relevant sections invoked Section 316
for cheating, 319 -cheating by personation, 318 - Cheating and
dishonesty, 336 and 337 for forgery, 338 for using forged
documents as genuine, 125 for endangering life or personal
safety, Covered under cheating and fraud related sections for
mispresentation.
17). The complainant submits that, the complainant has not
filed any other complaint before any other authorities for the
same relief.
18) The complainant submits that, for the reasons explained
herein above, the complainant could not approach the police for
relief earlier.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, the complainant above named prays that this this
Hon'ble court may be pleased to :-
(1) Refer the matter u/s 175 (3) of CR.P.C. to Register a proper
FIR against the Accused under relevant sections of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) punishable under section 316, ,
318, 319, 336, 337, 338, 125, of B.N.S. Act
(2). Investigate the incident fairly and transparently to ensure
justice for the complainant and hold the guilty accountable.
(3) To file FIR against the accused and initiate legal proceedings
against those responsible for filing the false complaint."
The concerned Court does not refer the matter for investigation.
The petitioner was issued a notice at pre-cognizance stage, at
which point in time the objections filed by the petitioner are as
follows:
"The Accused in the above case respectfully submits as follows:
- 13 -
1. The accused most respectfully submits that, the
complainant had filed a complaint under section 223 OF
THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023,
against the accused for alleged offences punishable under
section 318, 319, 336, 337, 338, 125. Of B.N.S Act which
is false, frivolous and baseless vexatious allegations and it
is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is
liable to be dismissed in limine.
2. The accused most respectfully submits that, the
complainant as alleged to state in his complaint that, he is
a Doctor, and he is the Director of Somideep Healthcare
Pvt Ltd which runs the Sacred oak Hospital, a healthcare
facility located near Royal Oak Hospital Furniture, Phase-2
Electronic City, Hosur Main Road, Bangalore and his
Hospital is duly registered under the Karnataka Private
Medical Establishment (Amended) Act 2018 and Rules
2018, bearing Certificate of Registration No:
BLU02222ALHL2, SACRED OAK HOSPITAL is a recognized
Level 2 facility, providing medical services under the
Allopathy system of medicine. The complainant has a
good reputation for providing quality services to our
patients.
3. The accused most respectfully submits that, the
complainant as alleged to state in his complaint that, as
per the rules pertaining to Nursing College, each college
has to get themselves affiliated with a hospital. Ananya
college of nursing states that they have a tie up with the
Scared Oak Multi-Specialty Hospital, which is not true.
Ananya college also makes false claim of having made a
payment of Rs. 75,000/- on 27.02.2024 by providing fake
receipt of the complainant's hospital. This has not been
received by their hospital. Ananya college of Nursing has
also uploaded certain documents like Memorandum of
Understanding and some other documents, which are not
legible and claimed Sacred Oak Hospital as their parent
hospital with Karnataka State Nursing Council. The
Complainant further submits that, neither the complainant
nor anyone connected or associated with their
organization has either signed nor consented to such an
arrangement. Further he filed an RTI application seeking
- 14 -
the documents uploaded by the Ananya College of
Nursing to know its veracity. After receipt of the said
documents, the Complainant realized that, all the
documents attached were fake and the complainant's
signature was forged in the document. And now the
complainant hospital is not in position to take on any
other nursing college as false proof have been submitted
on affiliation. The nursing students of Ananya College of
Nursing have been provided with uniforms identical to
those of Sacred Oak Hospital staff. Further, perpetuating
their false claims of affiliation, Further the complaint
alleged that, the aforementioned acts by Ananya College
of Nursing amount to criminal offenses such as
Endangering the life or personal safety of other, cheating,
acts of misappropriation and fraudulent claims and
fraudulent claims and forgery under the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, these fraudulent actions have severely
impacted the reputation and operations of Sacred Oak.
Hospital, Furthermore, they have jeopardized their ability
to enter into genuine affiliations with other nursing
colleges due to the false records submitted to the
Karnataka State Nursing Council. Further the said Ananya
College of Nursing further has adopted the mischievous
tactic of using the same uniform as their staff for their
trainee nurses thus trying to bring confusion in the minds
of the patients and other stake holders. Thus, in light of
the above, the complainant request the accused to
investigate into the fraudulent activities of Ananaya
College of Nursing, by taking appropriate legal action
against the perpetrators for forgery, cheating,
misrepresentation and to ensure the immediate
withdrawal of any false claims or affiliations made by
Ananaya college of Nursing Using Sacred Oak Hospital's
Name. The above allegations are totally false and faraway
from the truth and the allegations made by the
complainant is imaginary and baseless allegations,
without proper, evidence/documents he is trying to file
the false case against to the accused only to harass the
accused damage the reputation of the Accused's college
reputation in the society.
4. The accused respectfully submit that, the accused is
director of the Ananya College of Nursing which running
- 15 -
under the M.S.M foundation Trust ®, the said accused is
the president of the said trust and the said college was
obtained a permission from the Karnataka state
government in the year 2004-2005 to run the nursing
college in name and style "Ananya College of Nursing".
After obtaining permission the said college was running
and conducting the Nursing courses. With following all the
rules and regulation of the government.
5. The accused respectfully submit that, the accused's
college was established before the 2013-2014, hence
there is no necessary to establish get themselves
affiliated or parent Hospital to run the nursing courses as
per the INDIAN NURSING COUNCIL Letter No. F.No. 1-
5/2014-INC. which is also mentioned in the Inspection
proforma for Nursing. Thus the rules pertaining to Nursing
College have to get themselves affiliated with a parental
Hospital will not be applicable to this Accused's college.
Hence there is no necessary to send the parent Hospital
details.
6. The accused respectfully submits that, Moreover,
the accused did not upload/submited any
documents in the name of Sacred Oak Multi-
Specialty Hospital and the accused did not make
false claim of having made a Payment of Rs.
75,000/- (Rupees Seventy-Five Thousand only) and
provided the fake receipt of Scared Oak Multi-
Specialty Hospital. It is further submitted that, the
accused never-ever uploaded/submited any
Memorandum of Understanding and some other
Documents as stated by the complaint in his
complaint, the allegation made against accused is
totally false and faraway from the truth and
concocted. This complaint has created the
documents which are stated by the complaint in his
complaint and he filed this false complaint before
this Hon'ble court only to Harass the accused with a
Mala-fide intention.
7. The Accused respectfully submits that, has created
the false and concocted story that, he filed an RTI
application seeking the Documents uploaded by
- 16 -
Ananya College of Nursing to know its's veracity.
After receipt of the said documents is totally false
and moreover, the entire plain reading of the
complaint which is filed by the complainant, he
never told that from where he obtained the
documents and when he it was applied and where
he got the documents, it is clearly shows that, the
complainant created the false documents and filed
this false complaint against to this accused.
8. The Accused respectfully submits that, the complainant's
wife by name Dr. Somi Solomon, she is also working with
complainant in the Sacred Oak Hospital and the Accused
have sent a requesting letter to the Complainant's college
i.e., Sacred Oak Hospital on: 03/07/2022 through their
letter Ref: No. ANCON/HOSPITAL/NSG-25/2022-23 and
requested the Complainant to sending their BSc Nursing
Students to Clinical practice in the complainant's Hospital
for that the complaint had given the permission to the
accused to send their students to complainant's Hospital.
Further, the complainant and his wife are made wats
up chats with accused regarding the students'
requirements and attendance and other things. Now
this complaint is stated in his complaint that, the
complaint Hospital neither the complainant nor
anyone connected or associated with their
organization it's totally false and suppressing the
complaint suppressing the real facts, and created
this false case against to this accused.
9. The accused respectfully submits that, the accused
have submitted the genuine documents to the
Karnataka State Nursing council arid he never
uploaded the documents which are stated in the
complaint by the complainant anywhere.
10. The accused respectfully submits that, the accused's
nursing college was tie-up with the Neo True North
Hospitals, No. 01, Sy No. 110/4 Electronic City phase -1
Bengaluru-560 100 and Kauvery Hospital, Konappana
Agrahara, Electronic City, Bengaluru 560 100 and made
Memorandum of Understanding with both colleges for
Entrepreneurial Skill Development Hospital trainings,
- 17 -
research, placement and related services and the said
MOU's and other related documents are submitted before
the Karnataka Nursing council.
11. The accused respectfully submits that, as per the
Indian Nursing Council's Resolutions approved by
governing body for improvement of nursing
educational standards, the nursing institute shall
have 100 bedded parent hospital for opening new
GNM/B.Sc. (N)- programme. But the complaint
Hospital did not have 100 beds. Thus, the accused
stopped to send his college for students and to the
complainant's hospital, thus he created this false
complaint and documents against to the accused.
Moreover, the accused did not give the same
uniform of complainant's hospital as stated by the
complainant, which is totally false.
12. The accused respectfully submits that, on 24/01/2025 he
lodged the false complaint before the Parappana Agrahara
police station, the said police have registered the same
has GSC No. PO1800250600173. After that the compliant
filed this false complaint, after receiving of the
notice/summons from this Hon'ble court, the accused filed
the RTI and obtained the documents which are received
by the police from the Karnataka state nursing council. In
the said documents there is no documents as mentioned
by the complainant in his complaint. Moreover, the
complaint never made any forgery, cheating,
misrepresentation with complaint or with his Hospital.
Moreover the complaint is one of the director of the
Somideep Healthcare Pvt Ltd, and which runs the Sacred
Oak Hospital. He did not obtained any authorization file
this complaint against to this accused. Hence, this
complaint is liable to be dismissed.
13. The accused respectfully submits that, the complaint filed
this false case against to this accused with malafide
intention and creates the false documents against to this
accused and filed this false complaint without material
and merits. The complainant filed this complaint against
to this accused's college to damage the reputation and
respect of the college. The complaint did not filed a prima
- 18 -
facie against to this accused. The complaint filed false
case only to harass the accused and gave threat to him
and he filed this case with mala-fide intention. Thus, this
complaint liable to be dismissed."
The concerned Court takes cognizance of the offence and registers
C.C.No.20318 of 2026 by the following order:
"ORDER
The complainant has filed this complaint under section
223 of BNSS, 2023 against the accused person for the offences
punishable under section 316, 318, 319, 336, 337, 338, 125 of
BNS, 2023.
2. Further the sworn statement of complainant
recorded as CW-1 and documents got marked as per Ex.C-1 to
Ex.C-8.
3. It is pertinent to note that as per the Section 223
Proviso stated that no cognizance of an offence shall be taken
by the Magistrate without giving the accused an opportunity of
being heard. Hence, before taking cognizance this Curt given an
opportunity to the accused person for hearing/submission under
section 223 Proviso of BNSS. After summons received by the
accused person appeared before the court through his counsel
and filed the objections to the complainant case and also filed
the written arguments and some xerox documents.
4. The learned counsel for accused person filed
objection, where in it is contended that he is a Doctor, and he is
the Director of Somideep Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., which runs the
Sacred Oak Hospital, a healthcare facility located near Royal
Oak Furniture, Phase-2, Electronic City, Hosur Main Road,
Bangalore and his hospital duly registered under the Karnataka
Private Medical Establishment (Amended) Act 2018- and Rules
2018, is a recognized Level 2 facility, providing medical services
under the Allopathy System of Medicine. The complainant has a
good reputation for providing quality services to our patients. It
is further contended that Ananya College of Nursing states that
they have a tie up with the Scared Oak Multi-Specialty Hospital,
- 19 -
which is not true. Ananya College also make false claim of
having made a payment of Rs.75,000/- on 27.02.2024 by
providing fake receipt of the complainant's hospital. This has not
been received by their hospital. Ananya College of Nursing
also uploaded certain documents which are not legible
and claimed Sacred Oak Hospital as their parent hospital
with Karnataka State Nursing Council. Further he claimed
RTI application seeking the documents uploaded by the
Ananya College of Nursing to know its veracity. After
receipt of the said documents complainant realize that all
the documents attached were fake and forged signature
in the documents . The complainant hospital is not in a position
to take on any other nursing college as false proof have been
submitted on affiliation. The allegations made by the
complainant is imaginary and baseless allegations, without
proper evidence/documents he is trying to file the false case
against the accused only to harass the accused damage the
reputation of the accused college reputation in the society. The
accused is a Director of the Ananya College of Nursing which
running under the M.S.M. Foundation Trust ®, the said accused
is the President of the said trust and the said college was
obtained a permission from the-Karnataka State Government in
the year 2004-05 to run the Nursing College in the name and
style Ananya College of Nursing and running the college with
following all the rules and regulation of the Government. After
the false complaint registered by the Parappana Agrahara PS he
received the summons from this Hon'ble court, the accused filed
the RTI and obtained the documents which are received by the
Police from the Karnataka State nursing council. There is no
documents as mentioned by the complainant in his complaint.
The complaint never made any forgery, cheating,
misrepresentation with complaint or with his hospital. The
complaint is one of the Director of the Somideep Healthcare Pvt.
Ltd., and which runs the Sacred Oak Hospital. He did not
obtained any authorization to file this complaint against to this
accused and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. It is pertinent to note that the documents marked
by the complainant as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8. These documents
clearly shows that there is a prima facie case in favour of the
complainant.
- 20 -
6. At this stage on plain reading of the complaint and
perusal of the materials available on record and sworn
statement of the complainant has made out prima facie case.
Hence, cognizance is taken against the accused person for the
offences punishable under section 316, 318, 319, 336, 337,
338, 125 of BNS. There are sufficient materials to prosecute the
accused person for the offences punishable under sections 316,
318, 319, 336, 337, 338, 125 of BNS. Hence, I proceed to pass
the following;
ORDER
Office is hereby directed to register this
case in calendar case Register No.III against
the accused person for the offences
punishable under section 316, 318, 319, 336,
337, 338, 125 of BNS and issue summons to
the accused person and compelling his
appearance on 24.04.2026 ."
(Emphasis added at each instance)
9. The issue that now falls for consideration is, whether
the narrative of the complainant bears even a semblance of
truth, or whether it crumbles when tested against admitted
and incontrovertible circumstances. The answer to this issue
lies in the documents placed on record by the petitioner, which
speak louder than the allegations in the complaint.
10. The petitioner has placed before the Court copies of the
Memoranda of Understanding entered into by the petitioner–College
- 21 -
with different hospitals, for the very purpose for which the
complainant now alleges that a Memorandum of Understanding had
been entered into with his hospital. For the academic year 2023-
2024, the petitioner had entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with Mathru Hospital. This was followed by a
Memorandum of Understanding with Neo TrueNorth Hospitals and,
later, with Kauvery Hospital. What assumes significance, and indeed
strikes at the very root of the allegation, is that all these hospitals
are hospitals having a bed strength of 100 beds or more.
11. The respondent–complainant, Sacred Oak Hospital,
presents an altogether different picture. Its certificate of
registration was valid up to 18-08-2026. The information available
in the public domain on the website of the Department of Health
and Family Welfare depicts the hospital of the complainant to be a
28-bedded hospital and not a 100-bedded hospital . This is not
even seriously in dispute. The respondent himself admits that his
hospital has only 28 beds. This admitted circumstance assumes
overwhelming significance in the light of the statutory prescription
governing nursing colleges. The statutory regime mandates that,
- 22 -
for a nursing college to conduct the course in question, it must have
the requisite affiliation or clinical tie-up with a hospital possessing a
minimum bed strength of 100 beds. The respondent's hospital,
admittedly possessing only 28 beds, could never have satisfied this
statutory requirement. Therefore, any Memorandum of
Understanding with the respondent's hospital would be of no
statutory utility whatsoever to the petitioner.
12. A pointed query was, therefore, posed by the Court: why
would the petitioner fabricate a Memorandum of
Understanding with a 28-bedded hospital, when such a
document could confer no advantage, statutory recognition
or benefit upon the petitioner? The query cuts at the very
foundation of the complaint. No plausible answer emerges.
13. Forgery, like every other offence, must have a purpose or
an object sought to be achieved. A person may fabricate a
document to secure a benefit, evade a liability, create a right,
extinguish an obligation or otherwise gain an advantage, which the
genuine state of affairs would not confer upon him. But to allege
that a person fabricated a document, which even if accepted as
- 23 -
genuine, would be wholly useless to him, is to attribute criminality
without either motive or consequence. A fabrication that
fabricates no advantage is, in the peculiar facts of the case,
an allegation that defeats itself.
14. The allegation of the complainant, therefore, runs
headlong into an insurmountable circumstance: the petitioner could
gain absolutely nothing by entering into, much less fabricating a
Memorandum of Understanding with the respondent. When the
admitted bed strength of the respondent's hospital rendered it
statutorily incapable of serving the very purpose for which such
Memoranda of Understanding are entered into, the theory of
fabrication becomes inherently improbable.
15. There is yet another circumstance which cannot be
brushed aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner–College and the hospital of the
complainant are situated cheek by jowl. According to him,
professional and commercial rivalry between the two
establishments has supplied the genesis for the complaint. Viewed
in the backdrop of the admitted circumstances narrated
- 24 -
hereinabove, the submission does not appear to be without
substance. The complaint appears to be the product of a
rivalry dressed in the apparel of criminal law. What therefore
emerges is that the respondent has twined a tale, clothed it
as a complaint and sought to set the criminal law in motion
as an instrument of vengeance .
16. Criminal law cannot be permitted to become a weapon in
the hands of a business rival to settle professional scores. The
coercive machinery of criminal prosecution cannot be activated
merely by adorning a commercial or professional dispute with
expressions of cheating, fabrication or forgery. If the petitioner
could derive no statutory benefit from an association with a 28
bedded hospital; if the statutory requirement was a tie-up with a
100-bedded hospital; if the petitioner had, in fact, entered into
Memoranda of Understanding with hospitals satisfying that
requirement; and if the respondent admittedly did not satisfy it, the
substratum on which the complaint is constructed disappears. What
then remains is an allegation bereft of probability and a prosecution
bereft of foundation. Therefore, neither the ingredients of the
- 25 -
offences alleged under Sections 316 and 318 of the BNS nor those
relating to forgery can, prima facie , be said to be met in the case at
hand. Since these are the offences that are now pressed into
service to sustain the impugned proceedings, I deem it appropriate
to notice the provisions and their ingredients. They read as
follows:-
“ 316. Criminal breach of trust.—(1) Whoever, being
in any manner entrusted with property, or with any
dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or
converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly
uses or disposes of that property in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust
is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or
implied, which he has made touching the discharge of
such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do,
commits criminal breach of trust.
Explanation 1.—A person, being an employer of an
establishment whether exempted under Section 17 of
the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) or not who deducts the employee's
contribution from the wages payable to the employee for credit
to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any
law for the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been
entrusted with the amount of the contribution so deducted by
him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution
to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to
have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in
violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Explanation 2.—A person, being an employer, who
deducts the employees' contribution from the wages payable to
the employee for credit to the Employees' State Insurance Fund
held and administered by the Employees' State Insurance
- 26 -
Corporation established under the Employees' State Insurance
Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) shall be deemed to have been entrusted
with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if
he makes default in the payment of such contribution to the
said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to have
dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation
of a direction of law as aforesaid.
Illustrations
( a ) A, being executor to the will of a deceased person,
dishonestly disobeys the law which directs him to divide
the effects according to the will, and appropriates them to
his own use. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
( b ) A is a warehouse-keeper Z going on a journey, entrusts
his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be
returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse
room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed
criminal breach of trust.
( c ) A, residing in Kolkata, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi.
There is an express or implied contract between A and Z,
that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A,
according to Z's direction. Z remits one lakh of rupees to
A, with directions to A to invest the same in company's
paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs
the money in his own business. A has committed criminal
breach of trust.
( d ) But if A, in illustration ( c ), not dishonestly but in good
faith, believing that it will be more for Z's advantage to
hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys Z's
directions, and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z,
instead of buying company's paper, here, though Z
should suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil
action against A, on account of that loss, yet A, not
having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal
breach of trust.
( e ) A, a revenue officer, is entrusted with public money and
is either directed by law, or bound by a contract, express
or implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain
treasury all the public money which he holds. A
- 27 -
dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed
criminal breach of trust.
( f ) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried
by land or by water. A dishonestly misappropriates the
property. A has committed criminal breach of trust.
(2) Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier,
wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, commits criminal breach of
trust in respect of such property, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a
clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such
capacity with property, or with any dominion over property,
commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable
to fine.
(5) Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with
property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of
a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker,
merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent commits criminal
breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished
with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
… … …
318. Cheating.—(1) Whoever, by deceiving any
person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes
- 28 -
or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat.
Explanation .—A dishonest concealment of facts is a
deception within the meaning of this section.
Illustrations
( a ) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service,
intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z
to let him have on credit goods for which he does not
mean to pay. A cheats.
( b ) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article,
intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was
made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus
dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A
cheats.
( c ) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article
intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article
corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly
induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
( d ) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house
with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects
that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z,
and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article,
intending not to pay for it. A cheats.
( e ) A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows are
not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby
dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.
( f ) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to
repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby
dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending
to repay it. A cheats.
( g ) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to
deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he
does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly
induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such
- 29 -
delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the
money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and
afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he
does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for
breach of contract.
( h ) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has
performed A's part of a contract made with Z, which he
has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to
pay money. A cheats.
( i ) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in
consequence of such sale he has no right to the property,
sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the
fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and
receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A
cheats.
(2) Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely
thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the
transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound, either
by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to five years, or with fine, or with both.
(4) Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the
person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable
security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is
capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.
319. Cheating by personation.—(1) A person is said
to cheat by personation if he cheats by pretending to be
some other person, or by knowingly substituting one
person for or another, or representing that he or any
- 30 -
other person is a person other than he or such other
person really is.
Explanation .—The offence is committed whether the
individual personated is a real or imaginary person.
Illustrations
( a ) A cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the
same name. A cheats by personation.
( b ) A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is
deceased. A cheats by personation.
… … …
336. Forgery.—(1) Whoever makes any false
document or false electronic record or part of a document
or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or
injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any
claim or title, or to cause any person to part with
property, or to enter into any express or implied contract,
or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be
committed, commits forgery.
(2) Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(3) Whoever commits forgery, intending that the
document or electronic record forged shall be used for
the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(4) Whoever commits forgery, intending that the
document or electronic record forged shall harm the reputation
of any party, or knowing that it is likely to be used for that
purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, and
shall also be liable to fine.
337. Forgery of record of Court or of public register,
etc .—Whoever forges a document or an electronic record,
- 31 -
purporting to be a record or proceeding of or in a Court or an
identity document issued by Government including Voter
Identity Card or Aadhaar Card, or a Register of Birth, Marriage
or Burial, or a register kept by a public servant as such, or a
certificate or document purporting to be made by a public
servant in his official capacity, or an authority to institute or
defend a suit, or to take any proceedings therein, or to confess
judgment, or a power of attorney, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation .—For the purposes of this section, “register”
includes any list, data or record of any entries maintained in the
electronic form as defined in clause ( r ) of sub-section (1) of
Section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 (21 of 2000).
338. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc .—
Whoever forges a document which purports to be a
valuable security or a will, or an authority to adopt a son,
or which purports to give authority to any person to
make or transfer any valuable security, or to receive the
principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or
deliver any money, movable property, or valuable
security, or any document purporting to be an
acquittance or receipt acknowledging the payment of
money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery of
any movable property or valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
… … …
125. Act endangering life or personal safety of
others .—Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to
endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three months or with fine which may
extend to two thousand five hundred rupees, or with both, but—
( a ) where hurt is caused, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to
five thousand rupees, or with both;
- 32 -
( b ) where grievous hurt is caused, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine which may extend to
ten thousand rupees, or with both.”
A conspectus of the provisions alleged would reveal their distinct
ingredients.
Section 316 of the BNS deals with criminal breach of trust
and necessarily predicates entrustment of property or dominion
over property, followed by its dishonest misappropriation,
conversion, use or disposal contrary to law or the terms of such
entrustment. Thus, entrustment coupled with dishonest
misappropriation lies at the heart of the offence.
Section 318 of the BNS deals with cheating. Its essential
foundation is deception , followed by fraudulent or dishonest
inducement causing a person to deliver or permit retention of
property, or intentionally inducing him to do or omit something,
which he would not otherwise have done or omitted, resulting in, or
being likely to result in, harm. Therefore, deception and
dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction
constitute the gravamen of the offence.
- 33 -
Section 319 of the BNS concerns cheating by personation.
The offence arises when cheating is committed by
pretending to be another person.
Section 336 of the BNS defines forgery. It requires making
of a false document or false electronic record with the requisite
intent - inter alia , to cause damage or injury, support a claim or
title, cause a person to part with property or enter into a contract,
or commit fraud. Sub-section (3) provides an enhanced punishment
where the forgery is intended to be used for cheating. Thus, mere
existence of a disputed document would not constitute
forgery; the making of a false document with the statutorily
prescribed intent is indispensable.
Section 337 of the BNS is an aggravated species of forgery
concerning records of Courts, public registers, Government identity
documents.
Section 338 of the BNS deals with forgery of documents of
particular legal or proprietary significance, such as valuable
securities, wills, documents authorising receipt or transfer of money
- 34 -
or property, and receipts or acquittances acknowledging payment
or delivery. Owing to the gravity of such documents, the provision
prescribes punishment extending even to imprisonment for life.
Section 125 of the BNS , standing on a different footing,
punishes a rash or negligent act which endangers human life or the
personal safety of others. The punishment becomes progressively
graver where such act results in hurt or grievous hurt. Therefore,
rashness or negligence endangering life or personal safety is
the sine qua non of the provision.
Thus, Sections 316 and 318 of the BNS require foundational
elements of entrustment/dishonest misappropriation and
deception/dishonest inducement respectively ; Sections 336 to
338 of the BNS revolve around the making of a false document
with the requisite fraudulent intent , with Sections 337 and 338
dealing with aggravated forms of forgery; Section 319 of the BNS
requires personation ; and Section 125 of the BNS requires a rash
or negligent act endangering human life or personal safety .
It is on the touchstone of these essential ingredients that the
- 35 -
allegations in the complaint and the order of cognizance must be
tested.
17. A juxtaposition of the allegations in the complaint and the
order of cognizance, with the ingredients necessary to constitute
the offences alleged, even at a prima facie stage, would reveal a
complete mismatch. The allegations simply do not travel anywhere
near the ingredients of the provisions invoked.
17.1. The first offence alleged is under Section 316 of the
BNS , which deals with criminal breach of trust. The very
substratum of criminal breach of trust is entrustment . There must
first be entrustment of property, or dominion over property, by the
complainant to the accused and thereafter dishonest
misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal of such property. In
the case at hand, entrustment is conspicuous by its absence. It is
not even the case of the complainant that any property was
entrusted to the petitioner, much less that such property
was dishonestly misappropriated. Therefore, Section 316
cannot even be prima facie laid at the door of the petitioner.
- 36 -
17.2. The next offence alleged is under Section 318 of the
BNS , which deals with cheating. For the offence of cheating to
emerge, deception and dishonest intention must exist at the
inception, pursuant to which the complainant should have been
induced to deliver property or to do or omit to do something which
he would not otherwise have done or omitted. There is not a
whisper in the complaint that the petitioner lured, deceived
or dishonestly induced the complainant at the inception of
any transaction. If there is no deception, there can be no
dishonest inducement; and if there is no dishonest
inducement, the offence of cheating cannot spring into
existence.
17.3. Section 319 of the BNS deals with cheating by
personation. It requires the accused to cheat by pretending to be
another person, knowingly substituting one person for another, or
representing himself or another to be someone other than who he
really is. No allegation remotely resembling personation is found in
the complaint. The invocation of Section 319 is, therefore, equally
inexplicable.
- 37 -
17.4. The remaining offences alleged are under Sections
336, 337 and 338 of the BNS , which concern forgery and its
aggravated forms. The fulcrum of the complainant's allegation
is the alleged Memorandum of Understanding. As noticed
hereinabove, an association with the respondent's 28-
bedded hospital could confer no statutory advantage
whatsoever upon the petitioner–College, when what was
required was an association with a hospital possessing the
prescribed bed strength. The petitioner had nothing to gain
by either entering into or fabricating such a Memorandum of
Understanding. The very purpose that could have supplied a
fraudulent intent is thus absent.
17.5. It becomes difficult to comprehend why the petitioner
would forge a document which, even if treated as genuine, would
be of no use to him. Forgery without a conceivable object,
benefit or fraudulent purpose, in the peculiar facts of the
case, becomes an allegation bereft of foundation. When the
alleged Memorandum of Understanding could neither secure
affiliation nor satisfy the statutory requirement nor confer any other
- 38 -
advantage upon the petitioner, the theory of its fabrication becomes
inherently improbable.
17.6. Therefore, there is neither criminal breach of trust, for
want of entrustment; nor cheating, for want of deception and
dishonest inducement; nor cheating by personation, for want of
personation; nor forgery, for want of the foundational ingredients
necessary to constitute the offence. The provisions appear
merely to have been arrayed in the complaint; their
ingredients are nowhere to be found in its narrative.
Criminal offences cannot be generated by the mere citation
of penal provisions, when the facts necessary to breathe life
into those provisions are themselves absent.
18. The case at hand, therefore, becomes a classic
illustration of a dispute resting entirely in the realm of civil
law being deliberately draped in the colour of crime . The
fulcrum of the controversy is nothing but a Memorandum of
Understanding, the very existence and genuineness of which is
disputed. Even assuming that a dispute concerning such
Memorandum of Understanding survives, it would remain one
- 39 -
concerning civil rights and obligations between the parties. The
criminal law cannot be permitted to be invoked merely to lend
coercive teeth to a dispute which is essentially civil in character. A
civil dispute does not metamorphose into a crime merely
because allegations of cheating, breach of trust and forgery
are sprinkled over the complaint. The facts must breathe life
into the ingredients of the offences alleged; where those
ingredients are absent, mere nomenclature cannot convert a civil
disagreement into a criminal prosecution.
THE JUDICIAL LANDSCAPE:
19.1. The Apex Court in DEEPAK GABA v. STATE OF UTTAR
1
PRADESH , has held as follows:
"…. …. ….
29. In Thermax [ Thermax Ltd. v. K.M. Johny ,
(2011) 13 SCC 412: (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 650], it was
pointed out that the court should be watchful of the
difference between civil and criminal wrongs, though
there can be situations where the allegations may
constitute both civil and criminal wrongs. The court must
cautiously examine the facts to ascertain whether they
only constitute a civil wrong, as the ingredients of
criminal wrong are missing. A conscious application of
the said aspects is required by the Magistrate, as a
1
(2023) 3 SCC 423
- 40 -
summoning order has grave consequences of setting
criminal proceedings in motion.
30. Even though at the stage of issuing process to
the accused the Magistrate is not required to record
detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on
record to set the criminal proceedings into motion. The
requirement of Section 204 of the Code is that the Magistrate
should carefully scrutinise the evidence brought on record.
He/She may even put questions to complainant and his/her
witnesses when examined under Section 200 of the Code to
elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations. Only
upon being satisfied that there is sufficient ground for
summoning the accused to stand the trial, summons should be
issued. [ Birla Corpn. Ltd. v. Adventz Investments & Holdings
Ltd. , (2019) 16 SCC 610: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 828: (2020) 2
SCC (Civ) 713; Pepsi Foods Ltd. [ Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Judicial
Magistrate , (1998) 5 SCC 749: 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400];
and Mehmood Ul Rehman v. Khazir Mohammad Tunda , (2015)
12 SCC 420: (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 124.]
31. Summoning order is to be passed when the
complainant discloses the offence, and when there is
material that supports and constitutes essential
ingredients of the offence. It should not be passed lightly
or as a matter of course. When the violation of law
alleged is clearly debatable and doubtful, either on
account of paucity and lack of clarity of facts, or on
application of law to the facts, the Magistrate must
ensure clarification of the ambiguities. Summoning
without appreciation of the legal provisions and their
application to the facts may result in an innocent being
summoned to stand the prosecution/trial. Initiation of
prosecution and summoning of the accused to stand trial, apart
from monetary loss, sacrifice of time, and effort to prepare a
defence, also causes humiliation and disrepute in the society. It
results in anxiety of uncertain times.”
- 41 -
19.2. The Apex Court in JUPALLY LAKSHMIKANTHA
2
REDDY v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH has held as follows:
"…. …. ….
10. The gist of the accusation in the impugned
chargesheet is that the appellant had dishonestly used a
fake NOC from the Fire Department to obtain
recognition/renewal of affiliation to run the educational
institution. It is evident from the order passed in the writ
proceedings that NOC from the Fire Department was not
necessary for recognition/renewal of affiliation of
educational institutions which are imparting education
from the buildings having height below 15 metres.
11. Admittedly, the appellant's educational
institution is in a building having height of 14.20 metres
and no NOC affiliation from the Fire Department is
necessary for obtaining recognition/renewal.
12. The ingredients of the offence of cheating are
as follows:
1) Deception of a person by making false
representation which the maker knows or has
reason to believe is false and thereby
2)(a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing such
person:
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any
property, or
(b) Intentionally induces that person to do or omit to
do anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived, and which act or omission
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property.
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1950
- 42 -
13. The words ‘dishonestly’ and ‘fraudulently’ are defined
as follows:
“24. “Dishonestly”—
Whoever does anything with the intention of causing
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.
25. “Fraudulently”—
A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does
that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.”
Section 23 IPC defines wrongful loss/wrongful gain:
““Wrongful gain”: Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful
means of property to which the person gaining is not
legally entitled.
“Wrongful loss”: Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful
means of property to which the person losing it is legally
entitled.”
Reading the ingredients in the backdrop of these
definitions, it is evident in order to attract the offence of
cheating, a person must knowingly make a false
statement which would induce another to part with
property or to do or omit to do a thing which the latter
would not do or omit unless deceived and thereby is
likely to suffer damage/harm in body, mind, reputation
or property.
14. In Dr. Sharma's Nursing Home v. Delhi Admn. , this
Court held mere deception by itself would not constitute
cheating unless the other essential ingredient, i.e., dishonest
inducement is established. This Court held as follows:
“… both the learned courts have rested their
findings on deception only and did not go into the
question whether the complaint and its accompaniments
disclosed the other essential ingredient of the offence
under Section 420 IPC, namely, dishonest inducement.
“Dishonesty” has been defined in Section 24 IPC to
mean deliberate intention to cause wrongful gain or
wrongful loss; and when with such intention, deception
- 43 -
is practised and delivery of property is induced then the
offence under Section 420 IPC can be said to have been
committed…”
15. In Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma v. State of
6
Bihar , this Court reiterated that
Section 415 IPC contemplates two distinct situations; the
first where a person is dishonestly induced to deliver
property, and the second where a person is induced to do
or omit an act which, but for the deception, he would not
have done or omitted. In the former, the inducement
must be fraudulent or dishonest, whereas in the latter it
need only be intentional. Therefore, intention is the gist
of the offence.
16. It is strenuously argued the appellant had used
a fake NOC from the Fire Department and thereby held
out a false representation that he possessed a valid NOC
to obtain recognition/renewal of affiliation for his
institution. Uncontroverted allegations in the charge
sheet including the order in the writ proceedings,
unequivocally show NOC from the Fire Department was
not necessary for grant of such recognition/renewal of
affiliation as the height of the appellant's building was
below 15 metres. Given this situation, the representation
of the appellant that he possessed a valid NOC cannot be
said to have induced the Education Department to grant
recognition or renew the affiliation. To attract penal
consequences, it must be shown that the false
representation was of a material fact which had induced
the victim to either part with property or act in a manner
which they would not otherwise do but for such false
representation. In the absence of such vital link between
the alleged false representation and the issuance of
recognition/renewal of affiliation, the essential
ingredient of offence is not satisfied.
17. Ms. Prerna Singh has also argued that though the
chargesheet has been filed under Section 420, the contours of
the offence of forgery are evident as the appellant has
knowingly used a fake document.
- 44 -
18. We are unable to accept her submission on this
score too. There is nothing on record to show the
appellant had manufactured the alleged fake document
7
which is a sine qua non to attract Section 465 IPC. In
fact, the original fabricated document had not been
recovered.
19. In Sheila Sebastian v. R. Jawaharaj , this Court
held to attract Section 464 IPC, the prosecution must
establish that the accused had made the fake document.
No material connecting the appellant to the making of the
fake document has been adduced in the impugned charge
sheet.
20. Similarly, offences under Section 468 IPC and
Section 471 IPC are not attracted, as the requisite mens
rea , i.e., dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to the
Education Department and wrongful gain to himself has
not been demonstrated as the issuance of the recognition
was not dependent on the production of the alleged
forged NOC."
19.3. The Apex Court in INDER CHAND BAGRI v.
3
JAGADISH PRASAD BAGRI has held as follows:
"…. …. ….
17. The contents of the complaint would have to be read
in light of the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 of
the IPC and the law settled by this Court through various judicial
dicta. On perusal of the complaint dated 19.09.2013, it is noted
that the complainant/respondent No. 1 has filed the said
complaint invoking Sections 406/420 of the IPC. For ease of
reference, the aforesaid Sections are extracted as under:
“406. Punishment for criminal breach of
trust.— Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2529
- 45 -
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or
with both.
xxx
420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing
delivery of property.- Whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything
which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being
converted into a valuable security, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.”
18. In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of
Uttaranchal , (2007) 12 SCC 1 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri)
259 (“Inder Mohan Goswami”), while dealing with
Section 420 of the IPC, this Court observed thus:
“42. On a reading of the aforesaid section, it
is manifest that in the definition there are two
separate classes of acts which the person deceived
may be induced to do. In the first class of acts he
may be induced fraudulently or dishonestly to
deliver property to any person. The second class of
acts is the doing or omitting to do anything which
the person deceived would not do or omit to do if
he were not so deceived. In the first class of cases,
the inducement must be fraudulent or dishonest.
In the second class of acts, the inducing must be
intentional but need not be fraudulent or
dishonest. Therefore, it is the intention which is
the gist of the offence. To hold a person guilty of
cheating it is necessary to show that he had a
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of
making the promise. From his mere failure to
subsequently keep a promise, one cannot presume
that he all along had a culpable intention to break
the promise from the beginning.”
19. In light of the facts and circumstances of the
present case, we find that the complainant/respondent
No. 1 has failed to make out a case that satisfies the
- 46 -
basic ingredients of the offence under Section 420 of
the IPC. We fail to understand as to how the allegations
against the appellant-accused herein could be brought
within the scope and ambit of the aforesaid section. On a
bare perusal of the complaint, we do not find that the
offence of cheating as defined under Section 420 of
the IPC is made out at all and we do not find that there is
any cheating and dishonest inducement to deliver any
property of a valuable security involved in the instant
case.
20. It is settled law that for establishing the offence
of cheating, the complainant/respondent No. 1 was
required to show that the appellant-accused had a
fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making a
promise or representation of not fulfilling the partnership
agreement. Such a culpable intention right at the
beginning cannot be presumed but has to be made out
with cogent facts. In the facts of the present case, there
is a clear absence of material on record to attribute any
dishonest and fraudulent intention to the appellant-
accused at the time of creation of partnership agreement.
We must hasten to add that there is no allegation in the
complaint indicating either expressly or impliedly any
intentional deception or fraudulent/dishonest intention
on the part of the appellant-accused right from the time
of formation of the partnership deed. Nothing has been
said on what the misrepresentations were and how the
appellant-accused intentionally deceived the
complainant/respondent No. 1. Mere allegations that the
appellant-accused dishonestly induced the
complainant/respondent No. 1 to part with the property
of the partnership firm and subsequently sold the
property to a third party does not satisfy the test of
dishonest inducement to deliver a property or part with a
valuable security as enshrined under Section 420 of
the IPC.
21. On perusal of the allegations contained in the
complaint, in the light of the ingredients of Section 406 of
the IPC, read in the context of Section 405 of the IPC, we again
fail to see how an offence of criminal breach of trust can be
- 47 -
made out . It is a trite law that every act of breach of trust
may not result in a penal offence unless there is evidence
of a manipulating act of fraudulent misappropriation of a
property entrusted to him. In the case of criminal breach
of trust, if a person comes into possession of the property
and receives it legally, but illegally retains it or converts
it to its own use against the terms of contract, then the
question whether such retention is with dishonest
intention or not and whether such retention involves
criminal breach of trust or only civil liability would
depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case.
22. In the present case, the
complainant/respondent No. 1 has failed to establish
ingredients essential to constitute an offence under
Section 406 of the IPC. The complainant/respondent No.
1 has failed to place any material on record to show us as
to how he had entrusted the subject property to the
appellant-accused. Furthermore, the
complaint/respondent No. 1 also omits to aver as to how
the property, so entrusted to the appellant-accused, was
dishonestly misappropriated or converted for his own
use, thereby committing a breach of trust. On the contrary,
the bare perusal of the partnership deed dated 01.10.1976
shows that the disputed property was solely owned and enjoyed
by the appellant-accused wherein as per Clause 4 of the said
agreement he agreed to bring into the partnership the said
disputed property. We must hasten to mention herein that upon
reading of the supplementary agreement dated 03.04.1981, it
becomes amply clear that all the partners including the
complainant/respondent No. 1 had agreed that upon expiry of
the lease period of 15 years with the Food Corporation of India
i.e. 01.06.1993, the said land would revert back to the
appellant-accused along with all the constructions erected upon
it. In the facts of the present case, the complainant/respondent
No. 1 cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold at the same time
wherein on one hand, through the supplementary deed, he has
agreed upon the reversion of the said disputed property back to
the original owner i.e. appellant-accused and yet on the other
hand has proceeded to file a complaint alleging cheating and
misappropriation of said disputed property against appellant-
accused.
- 48 -
23. Furthermore, it is pertinent to mention that if it
is the case of the complainant/respondent No. 1 that the
offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under
Section 405 of the IPC, punishable under Section 406 of
the IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same
breath it cannot be said that the accused has also
committed the offence of cheating as defined in Section
415, punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. This Court
in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar
Pradesh , (2024) 10 SCC 690 : (2025) 1 SCC (Cri)
281 observed that there is a distinction between criminal
breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal
intention is necessary at the time of making false or
misleading representation i.e. since inception. In criminal
breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient.
Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is
lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly
misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating,
the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person
by deceiving him to deliver a property. In such a
situation, both offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.
Consequently, the complaint cannot contain both the
offences that are independent and distinct. The said
offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of
facts as they are antithetical to each other.
24. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has an alternative
remedy of filing a civil suit to set aside the sale deed dated
20.06.2011 and claim damages for the alleged violation of his
contractual rights which he is already pursuing vide Title Suit
No. 160 of 2012 against the appellant-accused which is
currently pending adjudication and hence the route through
criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made
out, cannot be permitted . Criminal law ought not to become
a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle
personal scores and vendettas. The appellant-accused
therefore, in our view, could not be attributed any mens
rea and therefore, the allegations levelled by the
prosecution against the appellant-accused are
unsustainable.
- 49 -
25. Furthermore, in Inder Mohan Goswami , it was
held by this Court that the Court must ensure that
criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of
harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an
ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. It was further
held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable
to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the
exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and
for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion
that to continue the criminal proceedings against the
appellant-accused herein would cause undue harassment
to him because as observed hereinabove, no prima
facie case for the offence under Sections 406 or 420 of
the IPC is made out.
26. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the
judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 (“Bhajan Lal”) with
particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, where this Court
observed:
“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the
various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter
XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court
in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the
extraordinary power Under Article 226 or the inherent
powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the
following categories of cases by way of illustration
wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay
down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae
and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they are
taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR
- 50 -
do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of
the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within
the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in
support of the same do not disclose the commission of
any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-
cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on
the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the Accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted
in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is
maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to
spite him due to private and personal grudge.”
27. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned
judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against
the appellant-accused herein is made out. In fact, we find that
the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against
the appellant-accused herein have been made with a mala-
fide intent and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case
of Bhajan Lal extracted above, squarely applies to the facts of
these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice
to permit the present prosecution to continue.
- 51 -
28. At this juncture, we find it apposite to mention
the observations of this Court in Vishal Noble
Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2024) 14 SCC
112 wherein it was observed that in recent years the
machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain
persons for their vested interests and for achieving their
oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be
vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of
omission and commission having an adverse impact on
the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud. We
say so for the reason that while the
complainant/respondent No. 1 has made grave
allegations against the appellant herein, he has failed to
justify the same before this Court. Such actions would
create significant divisions and distrust among people,
while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial
system, particularly criminal courts. "
19.4. Again, the Apex Court in SUNISHA ANAND v. STATE
4
OF HARYANA has held as follows:
"…. …. ….
4. The allegation as seen from the first FIR is that the
appellant is the daughter of one Onkar Singh and Mohinder
Kaur, who are title holders to certain properties. Onkar Singh
having died, the appellant also obtained right over the said
property by way of succession. It is the allegation that the
mother of the appellant got fake GPAs executed and registered
on the strength of which lands were transferred to the accused
Pratap Singh and Prem Pal, who entered into further
conveyances with respect to the same properties. It was also
alleged that the appellant and her mother did not have title over
the entire properties, the title to a portion of which having been
divested by transfer to the Government. In the first FIR, the
first information statement refers to the appellant, but the
appellant was not made one of the accused. In the second FIR
4
2026 SCC OnLine SC 859
- 52 -
produced as Annexure P10 the very same allegations are
levelled and there is nothing unearthed to find the culpability of
the appellant herein but for a reference to a jamabandi having
been referred to in the document, which in fact does not exist.
5. As we see from the records, the de-facto
complainant, the second respondent is said to be in
possession of certain lands, which was the subject matter
of the transaction alleged. The appellant along with her
mother is said to have executed a GPA on the strength of
which and by a separate sale deed having conveyed
certain properties to the accused. We are unable to
comprehend how the GPA can be termed as fake or
fraudulent, when the very contention is that the GPAs
were executed by the mother and daughter. Further
the jamabandi having been noticed in the sale deed or
the vendors having conveyed more property than they
had title over cannot lead to any criminal liability as such;
which if at all alleged, should be by the purchasers. Here,
a person alleged to be in occupation of a land has filed
the complaint and we are unable to find any reason on
facts as disclosed from the FIR to even allege any
criminality on the appellant herein. Admittedly, there is a
civil suit pending as initiated by the de-facto complainant.
Criminal law cannot be used to further the cause in a purely civil
dispute."
19.5. The Apex Court in NARAYANA HEALTH v. STATE OF
5
WEST BENGAL has held as follows:
"…. …. ….
10. The appellants had approached the High Court
against issuance of process by the Magistrate by invoking its
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC. The
circumstances in which the High Court can exercise its power
and jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash criminal
proceedings is well articulated in a number of precedents,
5
2026 SCC OnLine SC 844
- 53 -
commencing with the celebrated decision of this Court in State
of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , the relevant excerpt of which is as
follows-
“1. Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused.
2. Where the allegations in the first information
report and other materials, if any, accompanying
the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,
justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
3. Where the uncontroverted allegations made in
the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected
in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of any offence and make out a case
against the accused.
4. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is
permitted by a police officer without an order of
a Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.
5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable, on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.
6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in
any of the provisions of the Code or the
concerned Act (under which a criminal
proceeding is instituted) to the institution and
continuance of the proceedings and/or where
there is a specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
- 54 -
7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.”
11. The complainant alleged commission of
offences under Sections 405, 420 and 120B, IPC in his
complaint. For criminal breach of trust under
Section 405, IPC, it is necessary that there must be
entrustment of property to the accused; such
entrustment must create a fiduciary obligation regarding
the handling or use of that property; and the accused
must have dishonestly misappropriated or converted the
entrusted property. Applying these principles to the
present case, the allegations in the complaint indicate
that the amount of Rs. 2,500/- was paid by the
complainant as part of the hospital bill towards charges
for an HRCT test, at the time of discharge of the patient.
The complaint does not contain any averment that the
amount in question was entrusted to the hospital to be
held or utilised for a fiduciary or trust-based purpose, nor
does it refer to any legal or contractual stipulation
governing the manner in which such amount was
required to be dealt with or any other averment to show
as to how Section 405, IPC is made out. Furthermore,
upon mistake being pointed out, the hospital had offered
to refund the amount wrongly charged. Thus, in the
absence of entrustment, dishonest misappropriation, or
violation of a fiduciary obligation, foundational
ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust as
enshrined in Section 405, IPC are not satisfied.
12. For the offence of cheating under
Section 420, IPC there must be deception on part of the
accused from the very beginning; such deception must
lead to fraudulent or dishonest inducement; and the
accused must have had dishonest intention at the time
the inducement was made. The allegation in the
complaint is merely that the bill issued by the hospital
reflected charge for a test that was not performed. Once
- 55 -
the issue of wrong charge was raised by the complainant,
the hospital communicated its decision to refund the
amount. The discrepancy in billing appears to be more of
an inadvertence, than a case of dishonest intention on
part of the hospital. We are of the opinion that the
allegation of cheating is completely misplaced. ”
19.6. A conspectus of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex
Court would yield a few unmistakable principles.
19.6.1. In DEEPAK GABA supra , the Apex Court cautions
that Courts must remain alive to the distinction between a civil
wrong and a criminal offence. Criminal process cannot be issued
merely because allegations are made; the material must disclose
the essential ingredients of the offence, as summoning an accused
carries grave consequences.
19.6.2. Most significantly, in JUPALLY LAKSHMIKANTHA
REDDY supra , the Apex Court deals with a situation strikingly akin
to the case at hand. The allegation concerned use of a fake
no-objection certificate for obtaining recognition/renewal of
affiliation of an educational institution. The Apex Court found that
the no-objection certificate itself was not necessary for obtaining
such recognition and, therefore, its alleged production could not
- 56 -
have induced the authority to grant any benefit. The Apex Court
holds that a false representation must concern a material fact
which actually induces the victim to act ; in the absence of that
vital link, cheating is not made out. Equally, forgery requires
material demonstrating that the accused had himself made the false
document, coupled with the requisite mens rea ; mere allegation
concerning a fake document would not suffice.
19.6.3. In INDER CHAND BAGRI supra , the Apex Court
sounds a further note of caution that criminal law ought not to
become a platform for vindictive proceedings intended to settle
personal scores or vendettas. Where the ingredients of the offences
are absent, continuation of criminal proceedings itself becomes
harassment, warranting interference by this Court.
19.6.4. In SUNISHA ANAND supra , the Apex Court
reiterates that criminal law cannot be pressed into service to further
the cause of a dispute which is essentially civil in character. A
transaction concerning property or contractual rights does not
acquire criminality merely because allegations of fraud are
appended to it.
- 57 -
19.6.5. In NARAYANA HEALTH supra , reiterating the
principles laid down in STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL
reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , the Apex Court holds that
criminal proceedings are liable to be interdicted where the
allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an
offence; where they are inherently improbable; or where the
prosecution is actuated by mala fides or instituted to wreak
vengeance. More importantly, criminal breach of trust necessarily
requires entrustment followed by dishonest misappropriation ,
while cheating requires deception and dishonest intention from
the very inception . In the absence of these foundational
ingredients, prosecution cannot be sustained.
19.7. Thus, the golden thread running through all the
judgments is that criminality must emerge from the
ingredients of the offence and not from the vocabulary
employed in the complaint. A civil dispute cannot be
transformed into a criminal prosecution by merely sprinkling
allegations of cheating, breach of trust or forgery. Where
there is no entrustment, no dishonest inducement, no
- 58 -
wrongful gain, no corresponding wrongful loss and no
material connecting the accused with the making of the
alleged forged document, continuation of the criminal
proceedings would become an abuse of the process of law.
19.8. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are tested on
the bedrock of the principles elucidated by the Apex Court in the
afore-quoted judgments, the inevitable conclusion is that permitting
further proceedings in C.C.No.20318 of 2026 would amount to
permitting an abuse of the process of law to continue and would, in
consequence, result in miscarriage of justice. Criminal law cannot
be allowed to remain in motion when the very allegations
that set it in motion do not make out the offences alleged.
20. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
respondent that, if this Court were to find fault with the order
taking cognizance, the matter should be remitted to the concerned
Court for reconsideration, is a submission that is noticed only to be
rejected.
- 59 -
21. The order taking cognizance, to say the least, does not
inspire confidence. What is more disquieting is that the certified
copies of the documents appended to the sworn statement and
maintained in the records of the concerned Court have been
produced before this Court. A perusal thereof reveals that several of
those documents are either blank or so illegible that they are
incapable of being read by the naked eye. If the documents forming
part of the very record before the concerned Court were
unreadable, it is unfathomable as to how those documents could
have furnished material for formation of an opinion that there
existed sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioner.
22. Taking cognizance of an offence is not an empty
formality, nor can it become a mechanical ritual of putting pen to
paper. The order must demonstrate, at the least, application of
mind to the allegations, the sworn statement and the material
placed in support thereof. An unreadable document cannot
become readable merely because it finds a place in a judicial
file; nor can illegible material supply a legible foundation for
setting the criminal law in motion. The manner in which
- 60 -
cognizance has been taken in the case at hand, baldly and
cryptically, therefore, cannot receive the imprimatur of this Court.
That, however, would not mean that the matter should be remitted
merely to enable the concerned Court to pass a better-worded
order of cognizance.
23. Remand is not a ritualistic consequence of every defective
order. If the defect were only in the manner of consideration,
remand may have been warranted. But the infirmity in the case at
hand travels much deeper. As noticed hereinabove, the
allegations themselves do not cross the threshold necessary
to constitute any of the offences alleged . If the substratum of
the complaint does not disclose an offence, remitting the matter for
reconsideration of cognizance would only breathe artificial life into a
prosecution that is otherwise stillborn. Therefore, while the manner
in which cognizance has been taken deserves to be deprecated, the
proceedings need not be remitted on that score. No purpose
known to law would be served by sending an inherently
untenable complaint on a needless journey from this Court
- 61 -
to the concerned Court and back again. The submission seeking
remand is, therefore, rejected.
24. Thus, the armoury of documents and the exposition
of law by the Apex Court marshalled by the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner Ms. Anagha S Desai, is so
overwhelming that it demolishes every submission urged on behalf
of the complainant/respondent and every contention projected in
the statement of objections. The allegations, when juxtaposed with
the admitted documents and tested on the touchstone of the law
laid down by the Apex Court, simply do not survive scrutiny.
25. It is in circumstances of this nature that the Apex Court
has repeatedly cautioned that, while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./Section 528 of the BNSS, the High Court
cannot remain a mute spectator to the weaponization of criminal
law. The Court is entitled, and indeed duty-bound in an appropriate
case, to look beyond the mere incantation of penal provisions and
examine whether the criminal proceeding is a bona fide prosecution
or a proceeding engineered to wreak vengeance, settle a personal
- 62 -
or professional score, or give a criminal complexion to an
essentially civil dispute.
26. What remains, therefore, is a criminal proceeding bereft
of the ingredients of the offences alleged, founded upon an
inherently improbable accusation and evidently employed to
give a criminal colour to a dispute otherwise civil in
character . To permit such a proceeding to continue would be to
allow the process of criminal law itself to become the punishment.
The jurisdiction of this Court cannot lend its imprimatur to such an
exercise. In that light, permitting further proceedings in the
criminal case would not merely amount to an abuse of the process
of law, but would result in manifest and patent injustice to the
petitioner . The proceedings, therefore, deserve to be obliterated.
27. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: -
O R D E R
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.20318 of 2026 arising out of
P.C.R.No.8310 of 2025 and pending before the III
- 63 -
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru stand
quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the
course of the order are only for the purpose of
consideration of the case of petitioner under Section
528 of the BNSS and the same shall not bind or
influence the proceedings before any other fora.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
bkp
CT:MJ