SMT. KIRAN KUMAR P vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10705 OF 2026
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10794 OF 2026
IN CRL.P No. 10705/2026
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHILPA ARAVALI,
W/O KIRAN KUMAR P,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO. 22183,
B-2, TOWER 2 PFESTIGE JINDAL CITY,
BENGALURU-560073.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANANDA RAMACHANDRA DASS, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE HCGP),
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMITA PRASAD,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
C/O RAJEEV RANJAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT M 179, BRIGADE MEADOWS,
PLUMERIA, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA -560082.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER HEREIN CR NO.220/2026 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE COURT OF III ADDL.C.J.M. BENGALURU CITY
REGISTERED BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE BASED ON THE
COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 420 AND 34 OF THE IPC, 1860.
IN CRL.P NO. 10794/2026
BETWEEN:
KIRAN KUMAR P,
S/O P.N.PARAMASHIVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT FLAT NO.22183, B-2,
TOWER 2 PRESTIGE JINDAL CITY,
BENGALURU 560073.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ANANDA RAMACHANDRA DASS, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION,
CHICKAMAGALURU DISTRICT.
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR),
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
HIGH COURT OR KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-01.
2. SMITA PRASAD,
C/O. RAJEEV RANJAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/A M 179, BRIGADE MEADOWS,
PLUMERIA, KANAKAPURA ROAD,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560082.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
PETITIONER HEREIN THE CR NO.220/2026 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE III ADDL.CJM, BENGAURU
CITY REGISTERED BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE BASED ON
THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT FOR
THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 420 AND 34 OF THE IPC 1860.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners in these cases are accused Nos.1 and 2 in
Crime No.220 of 2026 registered for offences punishable under
Sections 406, 420 and 34 of the IPC, which is pending before
the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
2. Since facts and grounds are common in both the
petitions, they are taken up together and heard.
3. Heard Sri Ananda Ramachandra Dass, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri K. Nageshwarappa,
st
learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the 1
respondent.
4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -
Accused No.1 is the petitioner in Crl.P.No.10705 of 2026
and her husband - accused No.2 is the petitioner in
Crl.P.No.10794 of 2026. The accused stand before the Court
nd
on a complaint registered by the 2 respondent/complainant.
It is the case of the complainant that she is employed with
Himalaya Wellness Company and her husband is an Assistant
General Manager in Canara Bank. The complainant has an
th
elder daughter who has just passed 12 standard examination
and had appeared for the NEET examination in the year 2023
but did not secure appropriate ranking. However, the desire of
her daughter to do medicine continued. It is then during the
month of February, 2023 the complainant had visited Prakriya
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
Hospital for consultation and comes in contact with accused
No.1 who was working in the said Hospital. It is the case of the
complainant that accused No.1 after learning about the
disappointment of the daughter of the complainant not getting
into medicine had represented that she and her
husband/accused No.2 have contacts with influential people
and were capable of securing a medical seat to the
complainant’s daughter. Relying on the said assurance, the
complainant and her husband are said to have agreed to pay
`
the accused the demanded amount of 35,00,000/- initially and
accordingly, paid the said sum in cash at the hospital. The
accused went on assuring that the admission process was going
on and had reached a successful stage at a particular point in
time and accused No.1 had instructed the complainant to
`
transfer additional amount of 1,05,00,000/- to the bank
account of accused No.2. The complainant then by five
`
different transactions transferred 1,05,00,000/- and totally
`
1,40,00,000/- is paid by the complainant to the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 all for securing a medical seat,
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
which the petitioners represented that it was allotted. All the
documents were directed to be gathered and send them to
accused No.2. The complainant is said to have done all that.
After receipt of the amount, the accused began to dodge the
complainant. It is then, the complainant went to Kaggalipura
Police Station and registers a crime. The Police register a zero
FIR and transferred it to Bagalagunte Police Station. The
registration of the crime on 07-06-2026 has driven the
petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions.
5. The learned counsel Sri Ananda Ramachandra Dass,
appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that it
is a plain and simple money transaction between the parties.
The criminal law is set into motion for the purpose of recovery
of the money. It is at best a civil transaction between the two,
which has happened three years ago. The complainant has
taken three years to register the crime of an incident that has
nd
never taken place. The 2 respondent’s brother and the
petitioner/accused No.2 are known to each other and have
several transactions. This is being used to arm twist accused
No.2 in the subject transaction.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader
st
Sri K. Nageshwarappa appearing for the 1 respondent on the
other hand would submit that crime is registered eight weeks
ago. The investigation is on. This is a clear case where an
investigation is necessary as the offences are clearly made out
in the complaint. He would seek dismissal of the petitions.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have
perused the material on record.
nd
8. The transaction between the petitioners and the 2
respondent/complainant forms the very substratum of the
complaint. Since the entire criminal process is set in motion on
the registration of the said complaint, it becomes apposite to
notice the complaint itself. It reads as follows:
"To,
The Station House Officer,
Kaggalipura Police Station,
Bangalore South District.
From,
Ms. Smita Prasad,
W/o Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Kumar,
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
Aged 49 years,
Residing at:
M 179, Brigade Meadows Plumeria,
Kanakapura Road, Bengaluru.
Subject: Complaint regarding fraudulent inducement and
cheating in the name of securing MBBS admission.
Respected Sir/Madam,
I, Ms. Smita Prasad, hereby submit this complaint to bring
to your attnetion a case of fraudulent inducement,
cheating and criminal breach of trust committed by the
below named accused persons under the pretext of
securing an MBBS seat for my elder daughter.
Details of the Accused:
1. Dr. Shilpa Aravali,
W/o Mr.P Kiran Kumar,
Flat No. 22183, B-2, Tower-2,
Prestige Jindal City, Tumkur Road,
Manjunath, Bengaluru.
Mobile: 9480234093/9886038041
2. Mr. P Kiran Kumar
Flat No.22183, B-2, Tower 2,
Prestige Jindal City, Tumkur Road,
Manjunath, Bengaluru.
Mobile:7019646061.
Brief facts of the Case:
I am currently employed with Himalayan Wellness
Company, Makali, Bengaluru. My husband, Mr. Rajeev
Ranjan Kumar, is employed as an Assistant General
Manager with Canara Bank. We have two daughters, and
my elder daughter, Ms. Arushi Ranjan, passed her Class
12 examinations and appeared for the NEET examination
in 2023.
Around February 2023 once I had visited my brother Dr.
Dwijendra Prasad, Physician at Prakriya Hospital then to
consult for my medical issue concerning my right fist. At
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
that time, I happened to meet Dr. Shilpa Aravali, who was
working in the same hospital.
Based on the NEET score of my daughter, she could not
secure admission in a Government Medical College.
Consequently, we began exploring opportunities for
admission in a private medical college under the
management quota.
During this period, Dr. Shilpa Aravali, who was
working at Prakriya Hospital (Tumkur Road)
approached me telephonically after learning of our
requirement. She represented that she and her
husband had strong contacts and influence in
private medical colleges and assured that they
could secure an MBBS seat for my daughter. Relying
on her representations and assurances, I agreed to
proceed further.
Payment Details:
Initially, the accused demanded a cash payment of
Rs. 35,00,000/-. For this the accused asked to meet
outside the Prakriya Hospital near the Parking lot.
Me and my husband went there to pay the cash
amount. Thereafter, I was informed that the
admission had been successfully arranged, and I
was instructed to transfer an additional amount of
Rs. 1,05,00,000/- to the bank account of Mr. P Kiran
Kumar.
Accused's Bank Details:
•
Name: P Kiran Kumar
•
Account No.: 10103784165
•
IFSC: IDFB0081101
•
Bank: IDFC First Bank, Basaveshwaranagar
Branch.
My Bank Details:
•
Name: Smita Prasad
•
Account No: 1642101019193
•
Bank: Canara Bank, Koramangala Layout
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
RTGS Transactions Made:
•
24/07/2023-Rs 35,00,000/-.
•
05/08/2023 Rs. 35,00,000/-
•
29/08/2023-Rs. 20,00,000/-
•
20/09/2023-Rs. 15,00,000/-
Additionally, I had paid Rs. 35,00,000/-in cashin
June 2023 earlier as demanded by the accused.
Dr. Shilpa Aravali also collected my daughter's
academic and personal documents via WhatsApp on
24/07/2023 and 25/09/2023, under the pretext of
completing admission formalities.
Subsequent Events:
After receiving the entire amount, the accused
persons began delaying the confirmation process on
various false and misleading grounds. On
28/12/2023, Dr. Shilpa Aravali informed me that
she was unable to secure the MBBS seat and
requested additional time.
However, I declined any further delay and
demanded a full refund of the amount paid.
On 23/03/2024, I personally visited her at Prakriya
Hospital and demanded repayment. Despite
repeated follow-ups and several meetings, including
discussions with her husband, the accused persons
have failed to return the money. They have
continuously given false assurances including
claims of arranging funds through property sales,
but no amount has been repaid to date
Nature of Offence:
The accused persons have
•
Dishonestly induced me to part with a substantial
sum of money under false promises
•
Misrepresented their ability to secure an MBBS seat
•
Misappropriated by hard earned life savings
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
•
Explanted my trust and emotional vulnerability as a
parent
Total Amount Involved:
Rs. 1,40,00,000/-(Rupees One Crore Forty Lakhs Only)
Evidence Available:
•
Bank transaction records (RTGS receipts)
•
WhatsApp communication records
•
Document sharing history
•
Potential witnesses to meetings and discussions
Prayer:
In view of the above facts and circumstances. [humbly
request you to:
1. Register an FIR against the accused persons under
appropriate sections of law.
2. Conduct a thorough and impartial investigation into the
matter
3. Take strict legal action against the accused persons.
4. Initiate necessary steps to recover the amount
fraudulently obtained from me.
5. Take preventive measures to ensure that the accused
do not cheat other innocent individuals in a similar
manner.
I trust that justice will be served at the earliest.
Date: 06.06 2026
Place: Bengaluru
Complainant:
(Signature)
Ms. Smita Prasad"
(Emphasis added)
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
If the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face
value, what emerges is, not a mere case of money advanced
and money remaining unpaid simpliciter. It is an allegation of
a mother's aspiration for her daughter's medical
education being converted into an instrument of
exploitation . The complainant alleges that she was induced to
`
part with 1.40/- crore on a representation which never
translated into reality and, despite the passage of nearly two
years, neither the object for which the money was paid nor the
money itself came back to the complainant.
9. What stares at the Court from the complaint is a stark
circumstance— there is neither the medical seat nor the
money . The seat promised never fructified; the money paid
never returned. It is in this backdrop that the issue now falls
for consideration is: whether the crime should be
obliterated at its very threshold, merely on the plea that
the criminal proceedings have been instituted as a
device for recovery of money.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
10. It is on this factual canvas that the offences alleged
against the petitioners, which are punishable under Sections
406 and 420 of the IPC, will have to be examined. Whether the
allegations would ultimately withstand the rigour of trial is a
matter altogether different; but, to interdict the criminal
process at its very inception by branding the transaction as a
mere money-recovery dispute, would require this Court to turn
a blind eye to the allegations of inducement, entrustment and
deception that run through the complaint. The cloak of a
monetary transaction cannot, in every circumstance, be
permitted to become a sanctuary for an allegation of
criminality, if the ingredients of the offences alleged are
otherwise prima facie discernible.
11. Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, read as follows:
“ 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.—
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
… … …
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
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
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.”
Their ingredients are found in Sections 405 and 415 of
the IPC. They read as follows:
“ 405. Criminal breach of trust.—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
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
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
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 Calcutta, 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 a 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 the last illustration, 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 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.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
… … …
415. Cheating. — 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
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
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
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 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.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are juxtaposed
with the ingredients of the offences alleged, what emerges is,
even at the very threshold, is that the allegations prima facie
travel through every ingredient necessary to constitute the
offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.
12. For an offence of criminal breach of trust, the
foundational requirement is entrustment of property or
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
dominion over it. Entrustment, in the case at hand, is not
a matter shrouded in ambiguity. The allegation is that, a
`
staggering sum of 1,40,00,000/- came to be entrusted
to accused Nos.1 and 2 for one singular and specific
purpose—to secure a medical seat for the daughter of
the complainant. The seat never came; neither did the
money return. The allegation is that, the amount so
entrusted was dishonestly appropriated by the accused
to themselves. If these allegations are taken at their
face value, as they must be at this nascent stage of
investigation, the ingredients of Section 405 of the IPC
prima facie stand attracted, thereby warranting
investigation into the offence punishable under Section
406 of the IPC.
13. The other offence alleged is the one punishable
under Section 420 of the IPC, the ingredients of which
are housed in Section 415 of the IPC, extracted supra .
The sine qua non for the offence of cheating is deception
coupled with dishonest intention at the inception of the
transaction, which induces the person deceived to part
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
with property. The complaint paints precisely such a
picture. The complainant, nurturing the natural aspiration of a
parent to see her daughter don the mantle of a doctor, is
`
alleged to have been lured into parting with 1,40,00,000/- on
the solemn assurance that a medical seat would be secured for
her daughter. The allegation is not of a mere promise
subsequently gone awry. It is that the petitioners held
themselves out as persons possessing influential contacts and
the ability to secure the coveted medical seat, induced the
complainant to part with an enormous sum of money on the
strength of that representation, and thereafter neither secured
the seat nor returned the money.
14. If the petitioners were, from the very inception,
conscious that the assurance held out by them was one
incapable of fulfilment, the representation ceases to be an
innocent promise and prima facie assumes the colour of
deception. The dishonest intention would then be embedded in
the very genesis of the transaction. Therefore, the ingredients
of Section 415 of the IPC prima facie , emerge from the
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
complaint, making out an offence punishable under Section 420
of the IPC. These are matters which necessarily require the
probe of investigation and cannot be throttled at its threshold.
15. At first blush, two features may appear to lend some
colour to the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners—one, the delay in registration of the crime; and the
other, the contention that criminal law has been set in motion
merely as an instrument for recovery of money. But these are
only impressions on the periphery. A deeper gaze into the
allegations, unfolds an altogether different picture. What is
alleged is not a simple commercial transaction that has soured
with the passage of time, nor a mere breach of promise sought
to be dressed in criminal colours. The allegation is of a
calculated inducement: the aspiration of a parent to secure a
medical seat for her daughter being tapped, an assurance of
`
influence being held out, a colossal sum of 1,40,00,000/- being
extracted on the strength of that assurance, and thereafter,
both the promised seat and the money vanishing from the
complainant's reach.
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
16. The submission that the proceedings are merely
a coercive device for recovery of money, therefore,
cannot become a talisman by the mere utterance of the
expression “civil dispute”. Every transaction involving
money does not, by that circumstance alone, shed its
criminal complexion. Where the very foundation of the
transaction is alleged to have been laid in deception and
the victim is induced to part with property on a
representation which, from its inception, is alleged to
have been dishonest, the cloak of a civil transaction
cannot be permitted to smother a legitimate criminal
investigation.
17. The delay in approaching the Police would likewise
not, at this stage, efface the allegations in the complaint. The
allegation itself is that, the petitioners continued to hold out
assurances and dodged the complainant, either in securing the
promised medical seat or in returning the money, for close to
two years. Whether that explanation is ultimately worthy of
acceptance is a matter that investigation may unravel; it
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:43059
CRL.P No. 10705 of 2026
C/W CRL.P No. 10794 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010491682026
cannot become a ground to guillotine the crime at its very
inception.
18. Therefore, what appears on the surface as a delayed
complaint concerning recovery of money, on a deeper delving,
prima facie reveals the contours of a calculated act of cheating
alleged against accused Nos.1 and 2. The criminal law, having
only just been set in motion, cannot be commanded to halt
before the investigating agency is afforded an opportunity to
separate the grain from the chaff. To obliterate the crime at
this embryonic stage would amount to stifling an investigation
into allegations which, on their face, disclose cognizable
offences. The petitions, therefore, cannot merit acceptance
merely on the plea of delay or on the attempted
characterization of the transaction as one purely civil in nature.
19. Finding no merit in the petitions, the petitions stand
rejected.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
Nvj/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38