ANIL KUMAR vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61923
CRL.P No. 1358 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010056822025




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. 1358 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)

/ 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

ANIL KUMAR
SON OF LATE VISHWANATHA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
AND RESIDING AT NO.395, SLN ROAD,
NEAR KAVERI INDUSTRIES, JIGANNI HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562 106
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANDEPALYA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU 560 001

2. JAVEED SAB,
SON OF MEHABOOB SAB,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
AND RESIDING AT NO.82 AND 83,
TH
4 CROSS, ELEYABLE RESIDENCY,
HARALURU, SOMASANDRA PALYA,
BENGALURU 560 102
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 2276











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:18, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61923
CRL.P No. 1358 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010056822025



OF 2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE I/C VII ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420, 418, 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.

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:
Quash the proceedings in CC No. 2276 of 2021
pending on the file of Honble I/C VII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for offences
punishable under section 420, 418, 120(B) r/w 34 of
IPC.

2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 12.12.2018,
on the basis of which the Bandepalya Police
registered FIR in Crime No.236 of 2018 for the
offences punishable under Sections 34, 120-B and
420 of the IPC. On completion of the investigation, a
charge sheet came to be filed on 28.10.2020. The
proceedings arising therefrom are pending in C.C.
No.2276 of 2021. It is these proceedings that the
petitioner seeks to quash.

3. The submission of Sri Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel
for the petitioner, is as follows:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61923
CRL.P No. 1358 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010056822025




3.1. A reading of the complaint would indicate that
respondent No.2 allegedly entered into an oral
agreement with one Vishwanath Reddy and the
petitioner, who is his son, for the purchase of
their property. Pursuant to the said agreement,
respondent No.2 is stated to have paid a sum of
₹30,00,000/-.

3.2. Subsequently, respondent No.2, being occupied
with contesting an election, could not approach
Vishwanath Reddy and the petitioner for
execution of the sale deed. In the meanwhile,
they sold the property to a third party. When
respondent No.2 demanded the return of the
amount paid, they allegedly assured him that
the amount would be refunded within one
month. Since the amount was not returned,
respondent No.2 lodged the complaint on
12.12.2018.

3.3. Learned counsel submits that even if the
allegations in the complaint are taken at face
value, they do not disclose the ingredients of
the offences punishable under Sections 420,
418 or 120-B of the IPC. He further submits
that Vishwanath Reddy has since expired and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61923
CRL.P No. 1358 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010056822025



that the petitioner, being his son, is before this
Court seeking quashing of the proceedings
insofar as he is concerned.

4. Notice issued to respondent No.2, though served,
respondent No.2 has chosen not to represented.

5. Heard Sri.Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for the
petitioner, and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Perused
the records.

6. The complaint relates to a transaction concerning the
proposed sale and purchase of immovable property.
According to respondent No.2, he entered into an
oral agreement with the petitioner and his father,
Vishwanath Reddy, for purchase of their property
and paid a sum of ₹30,00,000/- towards the
transaction. The grievance of respondent No.2 is that
the property was subsequently sold to a third party
and the amount paid by him was not returned
despite a promise to do so.

7. Certain aspects of the complaint are relevant.
Respondent No.2 himself states that, after entering
into the agreement and making the payment, he
could not approach the petitioner and his father for
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61923
CRL.P No. 1358 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010056822025



execution of the sale deed as he was occupied with
contesting an election. The complaint does not
disclose the date on which the alleged oral
agreement was entered into, the date on which the
amount of ₹30,00,000/- was paid, or the manner in
which the payment was made. It also does not set
out the circumstances in which the agreement was
entered into or any representation made by the
petitioner which was false to his knowledge at the
time of the transaction.

8. The charge sheet material, as placed before this
Court, consists principally of the statements of
respondent No.2 and his family members. These
statements refer to the alleged agreement and the
payment of ₹30,00,000/- to the petitioner and his
father. However, the material does not disclose any
further circumstance indicating that, at the time of
entering into the agreement or receiving the amount,
the petitioner had a dishonest intention not to
perform the transaction. The subsequent sale of the
property and the failure to refund the amount may
give rise to a claim for recovery of money or other
appropriate civil remedies. In the absence of material
indicating dishonest intention at the inception of the
transaction, those circumstances, by themselves, do
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61923
CRL.P No. 1358 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010056822025



not constitute the offence of cheating punishable
under Section 420 of the IPC.

9. For an offence under Section 420 of the IPC to be
made out, there must be deception and dishonest
inducement of the person deceived to deliver
property or to do or omit to do something which he
would not otherwise have done. The dishonest
intention must exist when the inducement is made. A
subsequent failure to fulfil a contractual obligation or
to return money does not, by itself, establish that the
person had a dishonest intention from the beginning.
In the present case, the complaint and the material
collected during the investigation do not disclose
circumstances from which such initial dishonest
intention can be inferred against the petitioner.

10. The offence punishable under Section 418 of the IPC
also requires the prosecution to establish that the
accused cheated a person, knowing that he was
likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to that person
whose interests the accused was bound, either by
law or by a legal contract, to protect. The complaint
does not disclose any such obligation on the part of
the petitioner to protect the interests of respondent
No.2, apart from the alleged contractual
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61923
CRL.P No. 1358 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010056822025



arrangement for purchase of the property. Nor does
the charge sheet material disclose circumstances
establishing the specific ingredients of Section 418 of
the IPC. The mere allegation that the amount paid
towards the proposed purchase was not refunded
does not, without more, attract the said provision.

11. The allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section
120-B of the IPC also cannot be sustained merely
because the petitioner and his father were parties to
the alleged property transaction. The prosecution
must place material indicating an agreement
between them to commit an illegal act or to
accomplish a lawful act by illegal means. In the
present case, apart from the assertion that the
petitioner and his father entered into the alleged
agreement and received the amount, there is no
material indicating that they had agreed to cheat
respondent No.2. Once the material does not disclose
the commission of the alleged offence of cheating,
the allegation of conspiracy to commit that offence
cannot be sustained on the basis of the same
circumstances alone.

12. Section 34 of the IPC does not create a separate
offence but embodies the principle of joint liability
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61923
CRL.P No. 1358 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010056822025



where a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of their common intention. The material
in the present case does not disclose the existence of
a common intention to cheat respondent No.2. The
mere fact that the petitioner and his father were
jointly involved in the alleged property transaction is
not sufficient to attract Section 34 of the IPC.

13. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 claims to
have paid ₹30,00,000/- towards the proposed
purchase of the property and that the transaction did
not culminate in execution of a sale deed in his
favour. The subsequent sale of the property and the
alleged failure to refund the amount may entitle
respondent No.2 to pursue appropriate remedies for
recovery of the amount or for enforcement of any
other civil rights arising from the alleged agreement.
However, the criminal process cannot be continued
merely to enforce such a claim when the allegations
and the charge sheet material do not disclose the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged.

14. In the circumstances, even if the allegations in the
complaint and the charge sheet material are
accepted at face value, the essential ingredients of
the offences punishable under Sections 420, 418 and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61923
CRL.P No. 1358 of 2025

CNR: KAHC010056822025



120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC are not made
out against the petitioner. Permitting the proceedings
to continue would therefore amount to an abuse of
the process of law.

15. Accordingly, this court passes the following:
ORDER
allowed
i. The criminal petition is .

ii. The proceedings in C.C. No.2276 of 2021 pending
on the file of the learned In-charge VII Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are
hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner is
concerned.

iii. It is made clear that this order shall not come in
the way of respondent No.2 pursuing such civil
remedies as may be available to him in
accordance with law.

iv. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
13/11/2026, 14:19, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
SR/