SRI. S SUDHAKAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61925
CRL.P No. 824 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010033552025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 824 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

SRI. S SUDHAKAR
S/O SUNLINGAM
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
RD
SY. NO. 29/1, 3 CROSS,
BEHIND VARTHUR HIGH SCHOOL,
VARTHUR POST,
BENGALURU 560087
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GADILINGAPPA G M.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VARTHUR POLICE STATION,
(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THE HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001

2. SRI.T.NAGENDRAN,
S/O N. THIRUGNANAM,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
NO.4, PUDHU VASANTHAM
ST
1 STREET, PONMENI MAIN ROAD,
MADURAI DISTRICT,
TAMILNADU-625016

ALSO R/AT C/O S.PALANI KUMAR
NO.327, B2, GANGA BLOCK,
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE,












Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61925
CRL.P No. 824 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010033552025



KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560047

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SURENDRA Y.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CC.NO.8837/2021 (CRIME NO.154/2019) PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE BEFORE THE HONBLE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL CJM AT
BENGALURU AGAINST THIS PETITIONER/ACCUSED FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 417, 418, 420, 504, 506 OF IPC AND
ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs;
1. Quash the entire proceedings in Cc.No.8837/2021
(Crime No.154/2019) pending on the file of the
before the Honble file of II Additional CJM at
Bengaluru against this petitioner/accused for the
alleged offences p/u/s 417, 418, 420, 504, 506 of
IPC.

2. Pass any appropriate order or directions as deems
fit and proper to this Hon’ble Court to the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice
and equity.

2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 13.06.2019,
pursuant to which the Varthur Police Station
registered FIR in Crime No.154 of 2019 for offences
punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 and 34 of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61925
CRL.P No. 824 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010033552025



the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). The
proceedings arising therefrom are now pending in
C.C. No.8837 of 2021.

3. The allegation in the complaint is that Respondent
No.2 had entered into two agreements in respect of
an apartment in Vahe Imperial Gardens, promoted
by M/s. Vahe Projects Pvt. Ltd. One agreement
related to the purchase of the apartment and the
other to its construction. The aggregate
consideration is stated in the records to be
₹64,00,000/-, out of which Respondent No.2 claims
to have paid ₹55,00,000/-. Despite receipt of the
amount, the apartment was not delivered. It is
further alleged that the apartment was sold to
another person and that the request made by
Respondent No.2 for return of the amount was not
accepted. On these allegations, the complaint came
to be lodged.

4. Sri Gadilingappa G.M., learned counsel for the
petitioner, submits that the allegations, even if
accepted in their entirety, essentially arise out of
agreements for purchase and construction of an
apartment. According to him, the remedies available
to Respondent No.2 are specific performance of the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61925
CRL.P No. 824 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010033552025



agreements or recovery of the amount paid. The
failure to deliver the apartment or refund the amount
cannot, without more, constitute cheating or the
other offences alleged. He submits that no dishonest
intention existed at the inception of the transaction
and that the complaint has been given a criminal
colour to enforce contractual obligations.

5. Heard Sri Gadilingappa G.M., learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Sri Surendra Y.S., learned counsel for
Respondent No.2. Perused the records.

6. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the
transaction relates to two agreements concerning the
purchase and construction of an apartment in the
project promoted by M/s. Vahe Projects Pvt. Ltd., of
which the petitioner is stated to be a Director. The
grievance of Respondent No.2 is that, despite
payment of ₹55,00,000/- towards the agreed
consideration, the apartment was not delivered and
was subsequently sold to another person. The
amount paid was also not refunded.

7. The first question is whether these allegations
disclose the ingredients of cheating. Section 415 of
the IPC defines cheating, while Sections 417 and 420
prescribe punishment for different forms of cheating.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61925
CRL.P No. 824 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010033552025



The essential requirement is deception and the
consequent inducement of the person deceived to
deliver property, consent to the retention of
property, or do or omit to do something which
causes or is likely to cause damage or harm.

8. A mere breach of contract and the offence of
cheating depends upon the intention of the accused
at the time of inducement. Subsequent conduct may
be considered in determining that intention, but
mere failure to fulfil a promise subsequently does not
establish that the promise was made with a
dishonest intention from the beginning.

9. Applying the above principle, the complaint does not
disclose any specific representation made by the
petitioner, at the time of entering into the
agreements, which was false to his knowledge. Nor
does it disclose that, when the agreements were
entered into or the amount was received, the
petitioner had already decided not to deliver the
apartment or had no intention of performing the
contractual obligations. The subsequent allegation
that the apartment was not delivered and was sold to
another person, without particulars connecting that
conduct to a dishonest intention at the inception of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61925
CRL.P No. 824 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010033552025



the transaction, does not by itself establish the
offence of cheating.

10. The allegation that the amount was not refunded
may give rise to a claim for recovery of money and
other appropriate civil remedies. However, a failure
to refund an amount due under an agreement does
not, by itself, constitute cheating.

11. Section 417 of the IPC prescribes punishment for
cheating. Since the complaint does not disclose the
essential ingredients of cheating as defined under
Section 415 of the IPC, the offence punishable under
Section 417 is also not made out.

12. Section 418 of the IPC deals with cheating with
knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to a person
whose interest the offender is bound by law or by a
legal contract to protect. Apart from the basic
ingredients of cheating, the provision requires a
specific obligation on the part of the accused to
protect the interest of the person deceived and
knowledge that the deception is likely to cause
wrongful loss to that person. The complaint does not
disclose any such separate legal or contractual
obligation undertaken by the petitioner towards
Respondent No.2, or any dishonest deception in
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61925
CRL.P No. 824 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010033552025



breach of such obligation. The ingredients of Section
418 are, therefore, not made out.

13. Section 420 of the IPC requires cheating
accompanied by dishonest inducement to deliver
property or to make, alter or destroy a valuable
security. Though Respondent No.2 alleges that a
substantial amount was paid towards the apartment,
the complaint does not disclose the necessary
dishonest intention at the time of the inducement.
The mere fact that the apartment was not delivered
or was subsequently sold to another person cannot,
in the absence of material indicating dishonest
intention at the inception, satisfy the requirements of
Section 420. The dispute, on the allegations placed
before this Court, remains one arising from the non-
performance of contractual obligations.

14. The complaint also invokes Section 504 of the IPC.
To attract this provision, there must be intentional
insult of such a nature as to give provocation, with
the intention or knowledge that such provocation is
likely to cause the person insulted to break the public
peace or commit another offence. Mere abuse,
without the requisite intention or knowledge and the
circumstances constituting provocation, is not
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61925
CRL.P No. 824 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010033552025



sufficient to attract Section 504. In the present case,
the allegations placed before this Court do not
disclose any specific act of intentional insult or
circumstances indicating an intention to provoke
Respondent No.2 to commit a breach of peace or
another offence. The ingredients of Section 504 are
consequently absent.

15. Section 506 of the IPC prescribes punishment for
criminal intimidation, which is defined under Section
503. The provision requires a threat of injury to the
person, reputation or property of the complainant, or
to a person in whom the complainant is interested,
made with the intention of causing alarm or
compelling the complainant to do an act which he or
she is not legally bound to do, or omit an act which
he or she is legally entitled to do. Mere expression of
words, without an intention to cause alarm, is
insufficient to constitute criminal intimidation. In the
present case, the complaint, as placed before this
Court, does not disclose the nature of any specific
threat or the intention to cause alarm. The
ingredients of Section 506 are, therefore, not made
out.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61925
CRL.P No. 824 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010033552025




16. The FIR also refers to Section 34 of the IPC. Section
34 does not create a separate offence but provides
for joint liability where a criminal act is done by
several persons in furtherance of their common
intention. In the absence of the basic ingredients of
the offences alleged, the invocation of Section 34
does not sustain the prosecution.

17. It is settled that the mere existence of a civil remedy
does not bar criminal proceedings where the
allegations independently disclose the ingredients of
a criminal offence. Equally, a contractual dispute
cannot be converted into a criminal prosecution
merely because one party has failed to perform the
obligations undertaken under an agreement. The
Court must examine whether the allegations, taken
at their face value, disclose the ingredients of the
offences alleged.

18. In the present case, the substance of the complaint
is that Respondent No.2 paid a substantial amount
towards purchase and construction of an apartment,
that the apartment was not delivered and that the
amount was not refunded. The complaint does not
disclose the requisite dishonest intention at the
inception of the transaction or the other ingredients
necessary to attract Sections 417, 418 or 420 of the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61925
CRL.P No. 824 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010033552025



IPC. It also does not disclose the ingredients of
Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.

19. In these circumstances, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings against the petitioner would
amount to an abuse of the process of Court. The
petitioner cannot be subjected to a criminal trial
merely on account of the alleged failure to perform
the contractual obligations, when the essential
ingredients of the offences alleged are not disclosed.
ORDER
allowed
i. Criminal petition stands

ii. The proceedings in Cc.No.8837/2021 (Crime
No.154/2019) pending on the file of the before
the Hon’ble file of II Additional CJM at
Bengaluru are quashed.

iii. Liberty is reserved to the respondent to file
such appropriate proceeding for specific
performance and/or recovery of money as may
be advised.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2
SR/