RAVIKUMAR G vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
R
Reserved on : 29.08.2026
Pronounced on : 16.10.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12007 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
RAVIKUMAR G.,
S/O SRI GOVINDA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 701/B
TH TH
7 MAIN, 8 CROSS,
NEAR BOMBAY DYEING SHOW ROOM
ST ND
1 STAGE, 2 PHASE
GOKUL EXTENSION
YESWANTHAPURA
BENGALURU – 560 022.
…PETITIONER
Digitally
signed by
CHETAN B C
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
(BY SMT KEERTHI REDDY, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI PADMANATHA J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SAKALESHPURA RURAL POLICE STATION
HASSAN DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY SPP
- 2 -
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SMT.DEEPTHI ALVA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI M.S.HARINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CRIME NO.198/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
SAKALESHPURA RURAL POLICE AND FILED BEFORE THE HON’BLE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SAKALESHPURA FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES P/U/S 468, 471, 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC BY
ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.08.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The petitioner-accused is before the Court calling in question
registration of a crime in Crime No.198 of 2024 registered for the
- 3 -
offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 34 of the
IPC.
2. Heard Smt. Keerthi Reddy , learned counsel appearing for
petitioner, Smt. Deepthi Alva , learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.S.Harinath ,
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
nd
The 2 respondent is the complainant. A registered
agreement of sale is entered into between the complainant and the
petitioner-accused. Two years thereafter, the complainant issues a
notice to the petitioner that he is wanting to forfeit the advance
amount of Rs.35 lakhs that was the consideration that had passed
through the agreement executed on 26-02-2022. The notice also
indicated that the sale agreement would automatically stand
cancelled and the amount forfeited. The petitioner replies to the
said notice on 28-03-2024. The petitioner then files a Civil
Miscellaneous Petition No.357 of 2024 seeking appointment of an
Arbitrator in the light of the clause of arbitration being the mode of
- 4 -
resolution of the dispute between the parties. The moment the
petitioner files the said petition, the complaint comes to be
registered before the jurisdictional police by the complainant
alleging that the petitioner along with 4 others has forged the
signature of the complainant for obtaining a 11E sketch to the
property which was the part of the sale agreement. The police then
registers the crime in Crime No.198 of 2024 for the afore-quoted
offences. The registration of the crime is what has driven the
petitioner to this Court in the subject petition. A coordinate bench
of this Court, in terms of its order dated 13-10-2025, grants an
interim order of stay and further investigation in Crime No.198 of
2024. The interim order so granted is in subsistence even today.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Smt Keerthi Reddy would vehemently contend that the complaint
is registered on an issue which is on the face of it civil in nature. It
is registered for wreaking vengeance against the petitioner for the
petitioner invoking the dispute resolution clause i.e., arbitration for
recovery of the amount of Rs.35 lakhs that was paid at the time of
execution of the agreement. Learned counsel would thus contend
- 5 -
that the complaint is registered only to stop the petitioner from
taking steps to recover Rs.35 lakhs, the amount that was paid while
executing the agreement of sale. The learned counsel would further
contend that the allegation is forging a 11E sketch. The 11E sketch
is already mentioned in the agreement of sale and was appended to
it. Therefore, there was no question of furnishing the said 11E
sketch, as the 11E sketch is furnished by the complainant itself. In
all, the learned counsel would seek quashment of the crime.
nd
5. The learned counsel for the 2 respondent-complainant
Sri M.S.Harinath would however refute the submission contending
that the police have registered the crime for the purpose of forgery
and therefore, this Court must permit investigation atleast in the
case at hand. The issue may seem civil in nature in the first blush,
but on a deeper delving, it would clearly indicate that the 11E
sketch which though was a part of the agreement, was in fact
obtained by forging the signature of the complainant. He would
seek dismissal of the petition.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. Deepthi
Alva would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for
- 6 -
nd
the 2 respondent/complainant in contending that the police must
be permitted to investigate into the matter, as the matter is said to
be at the stage of investigation.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts, dates and events are all borne
out by the record and admit of little dispute. The genesis of the
controversy lies in an agreement of sale executed between the
petitioner and the complainant on 26-02-2022, concerning the
property described in the schedule appended thereto. Nearly two
years after the execution of the agreement, the complainant causes
a legal notice to be issued, asserting that time was the essence of
the contract and, on that premise, seeks to forfeit the entire
advance sale consideration received under the agreement and bring
the agreement to an end. The petitioner responds to the said
notice, disputing the stand of the complainant. The petitioner does
not rest at merely repudiating the allegations in the notice, but
- 7 -
proceeds to initiate legal proceedings for recovery of Rs.35,00,000/-
paid to the complainant, by instituting Civil Miscellaneous Petition
No.357 of 2024.
9. It is at this juncture that the sequence of events assumes
significance. No sooner is notice issued in the aforesaid Civil
Miscellaneous Petition than the complainant sets the criminal law in
motion by registering a complaint before the jurisdictional police.
The chronology is not without consequence. The civil proceedings
instituted by the petitioner for recovery of money are immediately
followed by the complainant invoking the machinery of criminal
investigation. It is this complaint that becomes the fulcrum of the
present controversy. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to notice the
complaint in its entirety. it reads as follows:
“
ರವ ೆ
ೕ ಉಪ ೕ ಕರು
ಸಕ ೇಶಪರ ಾಾಂತರ ಾೆ
.
ಸಕ ೇಶಪರ
ಇಂದ
. . ,
ೆ ೕಘ"ಾ# $ ಹು&ೆ'ೕ ೌಡ
83 , ,
ವಷ+ ಒಕ- ಗರು
ಸ/ಂತ ಊರು ಅ&ೆ'ನಹ34 ಾಮ
ಾನು6ಾಳ8 ೋಬ3 ಸಕ ೇಶಪರ ;ಾಲೂ=ಕು
- 8 -
: 7 , , CITY
ಾ >ಾಸ ?ೇ @ಾ ಭ>ಾ ನಗರ 6ೆಂಗಳBರು
7406022247, 944972 1908
?ಾನು ೕಲ-ಂಡ CDಾಸದ >ಾEFಾGದುH ನಮI J;ಾ K+ತ ಆEMFಾದ ಸಕ ೇಶಪರ
, , . 121/1 09 29
;ಾಲೂ=ಕು ಾನು6ಾಳ8 ೋಬ3 ಅ&ೆ'ನಹ34 ಾಮದ ಸ ನಂ ರ = ಎಕ"ೆ ಗುಂOೆ
( . . ) 26.02.2022
ಆP Q E ಪ @ಾರ ಜSೕನು ಇದುH ಸದ ಜSೕನನುT U?ಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಮVಾWಹT
12.00 04
ಸು ಾರು ಗಂOೆ ೆ ಆ Yೈ[ ಎಕ"ೆ ಜSೕನನುT \ೇವ ೆ ಟು^ ಉ3ದ ಜSೕನನುT
, 1,30,50,000/-
6ೆಂಗಳB ನ >ಾE ರCಕು ಾರ K ರವ ೆ ರೂಗ3 ೆ _ೇ` ಅG ಂa ಮೂಲಕ
25, 03
ಾ"ಾಟ ಾಡುವ ಉ\ೆHೕಶUಂದ ಮುಂಗಡ>ಾG ಲ ರೂ ಹಣವನುT ಪcೆದು dಂಗಳ ಒಳ ೆ
10,
?ೋಂದe ಾfE@ೊಳ4ಲು ಅG ಂa ಾfದುH ಸ/ಲg Uನದ ನಂತರ ಲ ರೂಗಳನುT ಹಣವನುT
.
ಸಹ ರCಕು ಾರ ರವ ಂದ @ಾWh ಮೂಲಕ ?ಾನು ಪcೆUರು;ೆMೕ?ೆ ಉ3@ೆ ಹಣವನುT ೕಡ\ೆ ನಮI
02 04
ಜSೕನನುT ವಷ+ಗಳ @ಾಲ ?ೋಂದ ೆ ಾfE@ೊಳ4\ೆ \ೇವ ೆ ಟ^ ಎಕ"ೆ ಜSೕನನುT
09 29
_ೇ E@ೊಂಡು ಒಟು^ ಎಕ"ೆ ಗುಂOೆ ಜSೕನನುT ಖ ೕU\ಾರ"ಾದ ನSIಂದ ಅG ಂa
06.06 05.01.2023
ಾfE@ೊಂಡ ರC ಕು ಾರ ರವರು ಗುಂOೆ ಜSೕನನುT U?ಾಂಕ ರಂದು
11 ( )
jದ ೆ ನನT ಾಜ"ಾd ಇಲ=\ೆ ನನT ಸkಯನುT mೕಜ+ ಸk ಾf ಇ ನnೆಯ =
1) , . .
;ೋ E@ೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ಖ ೕU\ಾರ"ಾದ ಸುಬ ಮಣW ಜ?ಾದ+$ ತಂd oೆ J ನಗರ 6ೆಂಗಳBರು
01 20 2) 02
ರವ ೆ ಎಕ"ೆ ಗುಂOೆ ಜSೕನು ಅpೆqೕಕ ಕು ಾರ @ಾಂrಪ ರಂ ತSಳ8?ಾಡು ರವ ೆ
3) . 03 10
ಎಕ"ೆ ಜSೕನು s ಮd ಮಂಜುಳ @ೆ ೆ6ಾtಳ 6ೆಂಗಳBರು ರವ ೆ ಎಕ"ೆ ಗುಂOೆ ಜSೕನು
4) 01 07 30
J Fಾಂಕ Sತ @ೊಣನಕುಂOೆ 6ೆಂಗಳBರು ರವ ೆ ಎಕ"ೆ ಒಟು^ ಎಕ"ೆ ಗುಂOೆ
11( )
ಜSೕ ನ= \ೇವ ೆ ಟ^ oಾಗವನುT _ೇ E ಸ>ೆ+ ಇ ಾuೆvಂದ ಇ _ೆ- ನ = ನನT ಾಜ"ಾd
ಇಲ=\ೆ ನನT ಸkಯನುT mೕಜ+ ಸk ಾf ನnೆಯನುT ತFಾ E ನನ ೆ jೕಸ ಾf
.
ವಂrEರು;ಾM"ೆ ಇವರುಗಳ Cರುದw @ಾನೂನು ೕd ಕ ಮಗಳನುT ಜರುGಸ6ೇ@ಾG ತಮI = ದೂರನುT
. .
ಸ =ಸುdM\ೆHೕ?ೆ ಇದ@ೆ- ಸಂಬಂದಪಟ^ \ಾಖ ಾdಗಳನುT ಲಗತುM ಾf\ೆ
: 23.11.2024
U?ಾಂಕ
ಸxಳ ಸಕ ೇಶಪದ
ತಮI Cpಾ/E
ಸk/-”
A careful perusal of the complaint would reveal that the gravamen
of the allegation is that the petitioner had secured an 11-E sketch
by allegedly forging the signature of the complainant and had
- 9 -
thereafter caused certain portions of the property to be reflected in
the sketch, including the land which, according to the complainant,
had been earmarked for religious purposes. The allegation, when
juxtaposed with the documents forming part of the transaction,
presents a rather curious picture. The 11-E sketch, which is now
sought to be portrayed as the product of forgery, was itself
appended to the agreement of sale and, as borne out by the
material on record, furnished by the complainant. If the very
document was part of the transaction at its inception and had
emanated from the complainant himself, the allegation that the
petitioner subsequently brought it into existence by forging the
complainant's signature becomes difficult to comprehend. A
document which forms part of the foundation of a consensual
transaction cannot, merely upon the relationship between the
contracting parties turning acrimonious, be branded as a forged
document without foundational allegations and material indicating
the act of forgery. The complaint is conspicuously wanting in such
particulars.
- 10 -
10. What further lends significance to the matter is the timing
of the complaint. The agreement is of 26-02-2022. The parties
thereafter exchange legal notices concerning the subsistence of the
agreement, forfeiture of the advance amount and the consequences
flowing from the alleged breach. The petitioner then approaches the
competent civil forum seeking recovery of Rs.35,00,000/-. It is only
upon issuance of notice in those proceedings that the complainant
chooses to allege forgery and cheating. The complaint, therefore,
cannot be viewed in isolation, divorced from the circumstances that
preceded its registration. The chronology of events speaks with a
clarity that the allegations in the complaint conspicuously lack.
11. The ingredients of cheating or forgery cannot be
presumed merely because a contractual relationship has soured or
because one contracting party seeks to retain the money paid by
the other. For an allegation of cheating to acquire the character of a
criminal offence, dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception
of the transaction must be discernible from the complaint. Equally,
an allegation of forgery must rest upon foundational facts indicating
the making of a false document with the requisite criminal intent.
- 11 -
Neither the mere assertion of forgery nor the employment of
expressions suggestive of deception can substitute the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged. Criminality must emerge
from the facts pleaded; it cannot be manufactured by the
vocabulary employed in the complaint.
12. In the case at hand, the complaint, read in its entirety and
in the light of the admitted antecedent circumstances, does not
disclose the foundational ingredients necessary to sustain the
allegations of cheating and forgery against the petitioner. What
emerges, instead, is a dispute arising from an agreement of sale,
the forfeiture of the advance consideration and the petitioner's
attempt to recover Rs.35,00,000/- through recourse to law. The
complainant, having received the said amount, appears to have
chosen the path of criminal prosecution only when called upon to
answer the claim for its recovery. The criminal complaint, in these
circumstances, bears the unmistakable imprint of a retaliatory
proceeding, intended to overawe the petitioner and frustrate the
pursuit of his civil remedy.
- 12 -
13. The criminal law cannot be permitted to become a
convenient refuge for a contracting party seeking to escape the
consequences of a civil obligation. Nor can the coercive machinery
of the State be placed at the disposal of a litigant as an instrument
of intimidation, merely because the opposite party has chosen to
enforce a contractual right before a competent forum. A civil dispute
does not metamorphose into a criminal offence by the mere
addition of allegations of cheating or forgery, when the essential
ingredients of those offences remain absent. To permit such a
prosecution to continue would be to allow the criminal
process to be employed, not in vindication of justice, but in
furtherance of private vengeance. The proceedings, on the
peculiar facts obtaining in the case at hand, bear the character of
an abuse of the process of law.
14. The Apex Court has time and again held that this
Court is entitled, within the well-defined parameters of its
jurisdiction, to examine the genesis of the complaint, the
sequence of events preceding its registration, the admitted
documents and the attending circumstances, to ascertain
- 13 -
whether the allegations disclose the commission of a
cognizable offence or whether the prosecution is manifestly
attended with malafides and instituted with an ulterior
motive. The Court must look beyond the form of the
accusation to discern its substance; for the mere registration
of a crime cannot confer legitimacy upon a prosecution
which is otherwise demonstrably an instrument of
harassment.
14.1. The Apex Court in the case of VARALA BHARATH
1
KUMAR v. STATE OF TELANGANA , observes that the High
Courts must exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
when the criminal law is set into motion with the objective of
wreaking vengeance and holds as follows:
"…. …. ….
6. It is by now well settled that the extraordinary power
under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure can be exercised by the High Court,
either to prevent abuse of process of the court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. Where allegations made in the
first information report/the complaint or the outcome of
investigation as found in the charge-sheet, even if they
are taken at their face value and accepted in their
1
(2017) 9 SCC 413
- 14 -
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make
out the case against the accused; where the allegations
do not disclose the ingredients of the offence alleged;
where the uncontroverted allegations made in the first
information report or complaint and the material
collected in support of the same do not disclose the
commission of offence alleged and make out a case
against the accused; 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, the
power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may
be exercised.
7. While exercising power under Section 482 or
under Article 226 in such matters, the court does not
function as a court of appeal or revision. Inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code though wide
has to be exercised sparingly, carefully or with caution
and only when such exercise is justified by the tests
specifically laid down under Section 482 itself. It is to be
exercised ex debito justitiae to do real and substantial
justice, for the administration of which alone courts exist.
The court must be careful and see that its decision in
exercise of its power is based on sound principles. The
inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. Of course, no hard-and-fast rule
can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High
Court will exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction of
quashing the proceedings at any stage ."
14.2. Again, the Apex Court in the case of MAHMOOD ALI v.
2
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
2
(2023) 15 SCC 488
- 15 -
11. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes before
the Court invoking either the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal proceedings
quashed essentially on the ground that such proceedings
are manifestly frivolous or vexatious or instituted with
the ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the court owes a duty to look into the FIR
with care and a little more closely.
12. We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance etc. then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted
with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would
ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are
such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be
just enough for the Court to look into the averments
made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of
ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not.
13. In frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court
owes a duty to look into many other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case over
and above the averments and, if need be, with due care
and circumspection try to read in between the lines. The
Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section
482CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not
restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the
case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on hand.
Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time.
It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance,
thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out of
private or personal grudge as alleged.
- 16 -
14. State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [ State of
A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy , (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004
SCC (Cri) 1805] , a two-Judge Bench of this Court
elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can
assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction
between consideration of materials that were tendered as
evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such
material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in
the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court
held : ( Golconda Linga Swamy case [ State of A.P. v. Golconda
Linga Swamy , (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] , SCC
p. 527, paras 5-7)
“ 5 . … Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to
abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the court
has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse
of the process of the court to allow any action which
would result in injustice and prevent promotion of
justice. In exercise of the powers court would be
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation
or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of
court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise
serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed
by the complaint, the court may examine the question of
fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed, it
is permissible to look into the materials to assess
what the complainant has alleged and whether any
offence is made out even if the allegations are
accepted in toto .
6 . In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab [ R.P.
Kapur v. State of Punjab , 1960 SCC OnLine SC 21 :
AIR 1960 SC 866] , this Court summarised some
categories of cases where inherent power can and
should be exercised to quash the proceedings :
(SCC OnLine SC para 6)
( i ) where it manifestly appears that there is
a legal bar against the institution or continuance
e.g. want of sanction;
( ii ) where the allegations in the first
information report or complaint taken at its face
value and accepted in their entirety do not
constitute the offence alleged;
- 17 -
( iii ) where the allegations constitute an
offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or
the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge .
7 . In dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction between
a case where there is no legal evidence or where
there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with
the accusations made, and a case where there is
legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may
not support the accusations. When exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the
High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an
enquiry whether the evidence in question is
reliable or not or whether on a reasonable
appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge .
Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument
of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be
circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and
should take all relevant facts and circumstances into
consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an
instrument in the hands of a private complainant to
unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At
the same time the section is not an instrument handed
over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and
bring about its sudden death.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order [ Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. ,
2022 SCC OnLine All 2568] passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside. The criminal
proceedings arising from FIR No. 127 of 2022 dated 4-6-2022
registered at Police Station Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P.
are hereby quashed.”
- 18 -
14.3. The Apex Court in its recent judgment rendered in the
3
case of ANITA MAURYA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH ,
observes that the criminal law cannot be set into motion as a
counter blast or retaliation or to wreak vengeance, and holds as
follows:
"…. …. ….
14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record. The question that falls for our
consideration is whether the continuation of complaint against
the appellants would amount to an abuse of the process of the
court.
15. The inherent power preserved by Section 482 of
CrPC, now Section 528 of BNSS, is exercisable to prevent the
abuse of the process of any court and to secure the ends of
1
justice. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , this Court set out
the illustrative categories in which the power may be exercised,
the relevant paragraph is reproduced as follows:
“ 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
3
2026 SCC OnLine SC 1519
- 19 -
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 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.
- 20 -
(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.”
16. The power is undoubtedly to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection, and never to throttle a
legitimate prosecution or to conduct a mini trial at the
threshold. These self-imposed restraints, however, do not
require the court to shut its eyes to a proceeding that is a
manifest abuse. Where mala fide or an oblique motive is
alleged, the court is not confined to the four corners of
2
the complaint. In Mahmood Ali v. State of U.P. , this Court
held that in such a situation the court owes a duty to
examine the complaint with care and a little more closely,
and, where necessary, to read in between the lines.
17. The same principle was reiterated in Mohammad
3
Wajid v. State of U.P. , where it was observed:
“30. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes
before the Court invoking either the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that
such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious
or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes
a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well drafted
with all the necessary pleadings. The complainant would
ensure that the averments made in the FIR/complaint
are such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not
be just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for
the purpose of ascertaining whether the
- 21 -
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to
look into many other attending circumstances
emerging from the record of the case over and
above the averments and, if need be, with due
care and circumspection try to read in between
the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict
itself only to the stage of a case but is empowered
to take into account the overall circumstances
leading to the initiation/registration of the case
as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on hand.
Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of
time. It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance,
thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out
of private or personal grudge as alleged.”
( emphasis supplied )
18. It is equally settled that a dispute essentially
civil in character is not to be permitted to be clothed as a
criminal offence, and that the criminal process is not a
substitute for the remedies available in law. In G. Sagar
4
Suri v. State of U.P. , this Court cautioned that before
issuing process a criminal court must exercise a great
deal of caution, and that it is for the court to see whether
a matter essentially of a civil nature has been given the
cloak of a criminal offence.
…. …. ….
21. A complaint that suppresses a pre-existing FIR
lodged by the accused in respect of the same incident,
and that is instituted after such report has ripened into a
charge-sheet, bears the hallmark of a retaliatory
7
counterblast. In Anukul Singh v. State of U.P. , this Court
quashed the proceedings, holding that the plea that the
case was a retaliatory counter-blast to the proceedings
legitimately initiated by the accused carried substantial
weight, that a proceeding so maliciously instituted with
- 22 -
an ulterior motive falls within categories (1) and (7) of
Bhajan Lal (supra), and that the suppression of a
material antecedent proceeding is itself indicative of the
want of bona fides.
…. …. ….
23. Another aspect which requires consideration is the
matter of suppression. The complaint as filed by the
respondent No. 2, did not disclose the pre-existing FIR or
the charge-sheet dated 30.11.2020. When read a little
more closely, the sequence of events assumes
significance. The complainant, whose own side was
already facing a charge-sheeted FIR arising out of the
same occurrence, set the criminal law in motion afresh
against the entire opposing family, including the three
women, over the identical incident. A proceeding of this
character answers to the description of the retaliatory
counterblast that was deprecated in Anukul Singh Case
(supra).
24. Lastly, there remains the civil substratum of the
controversy. The dispute between the parties has, at its
root, a long-standing quarrel over land, agitated by the
complainant even by way of a public interest litigation. To
permit a private complaint, belatedly instituted and
suppressing the earlier FIR, to proceed against an entire
family in these circumstances would be to allow a matter
essentially civil to be pursued through the criminal
process as an instrument of harassment, a course against
which this Court in G. Sagar Suri case (supra) cautions.
The summoning of the entire family, including the three women,
upon a solitary and belated version, does not reflect the careful
application of mind by the Magistrate that the issuance of
process demands.
25. The High Court confined itself to the bare
averments of the complaint and treated the material
placed by the appellants as raising only disputed
questions of fact for trial. Where, however, the indicia of
mala fide and abuse of process appear on the record, the
court is not merely entitled but obliged to look beyond
- 23 -
the averments and to prevent the perpetuation of the
abuse. Taking the cumulative effect of the unexplained
delay, the suppression of the antecedent FIR, the
counter-blast character of the complaint and the
essentially civil nature of the dispute, we are of the
considered view that the case falls squarely within
categories (1), (5) and (7) of Bhajan Lal Case (supra),
and that the continuation of the complaint against the
appellants would be nothing but an abuse of the process
of the court ."
The Apex Court, in unmistakable terms, has held that a Court
exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
cannot remain oblivious to the attendant circumstances that
precede, accompany and culminate in the registration of a criminal
complaint. The Court is required to lift the veil of the
allegations and discern whether the criminal law has been
set in motion to wreak vengeance against the accused,
whether a dispute essentially civil in character has been
deliberately clothed with the colour of criminality, or
whether the complaint is nothing but a counterblast to
proceedings lawfully instituted by the accused. These are not
circumstances to be brushed aside as inconsequential; they
go to the very root of the bona fides of the prosecution.
- 24 -
15. In the case at hand, all the three vitiating
circumstances converge with striking clarity. The complaint is
manifestly actuated by a desire to wreak vengeance against the
petitioner; a dispute arising entirely out of an agreement of sale
and the recovery of advance consideration is sought to be dressed
in the garb of cheating and forgery; and, most significantly, the
criminal complaint springs into existence only after the petitioner
institutes proceedings for recovery of Rs.35,00,000/- and notice is
issued therein. The complaint is thus not merely a
counterblast, but appears to be a calculated attempt to
convert the coercive machinery of criminal law into an
instrument of retaliation and intimidation. To permit such
proceedings to continue, despite the absence of the
foundational ingredients of the offences alleged, would
amount to lending judicial imprimatur to an abuse of the
process of law. The prosecution, therefore, deserves to be
interdicted, for the inherent jurisdiction of this Court exists
precisely to prevent the solemn process of criminal law from
being reduced to an instrument of private vengeance.
- 25 -
16. It now becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the
4
Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL ,
has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
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
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
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
- 26 -
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.”
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
17. In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court all quoted
supra, if investigation even is permitted to continue in the case at
hand, it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in
miscarriage of justice.
- 27 -
18. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) Impugned FIR in Crime No.198 of 2024 pending on the
file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sakleshpura stands
quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
BKP
CT: MJ