After $62,000 For A Cancelled Music Tour Went Directly To Artists, Karnataka HC Quashes Cheating And Breach-Of-Trust Case Against Manager

Respondent No. 2 complained that the petitioner represented he could arrange performances by artists in the United States and Canada.

The parties entered into an International Tour Agreement on 17 November 2021; respondent No. 2 alleged that he paid approximately USD 62,000 directly to artists and event-service providers, and that the petitioner later withdrew from the event, causing loss.

Vivek Nagar Police registered Crime No. 211/2023 for offences under Sections 504, 406 and 420 IPC.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 482 CrPC, contending that his role was limited to arranging flights and hotels and that he had neither received the money nor caused the alleged loss.

Section 482 CrPC empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings where their continuation would amount to an abuse of process.

Under Sections 405 and 406 IPC, criminal breach of trust requires entrustment of property and dishonest misappropriation or conversion; breach of contract alone is insufficient.

Under Sections 415 and 420 IPC, cheating requires dishonest or fraudulent intention when the representation or promise is made, which must be supported by cogent facts.

Relying on Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058, the Court noted the distinction between cheating and criminal breach of trust and the need to prevent criminal proceedings from being used to pursue a contractual claim or private vendetta.

The Court found that respondent No. 2 had paid the alleged USD 62,000 directly to the artists and other providers, rather than entrusting it to the petitioner.

The agreement also provided for the handling of cancellation and rescheduling, and the Court accepted that the programme was cancelled because the artists were unavailable on the proposed dates.

On those facts, the Court found no material showing that the petitioner had dishonestly induced respondent No. 2 from the outset, received or misappropriated entrusted property, or was directly involved in the alleged loss.

It therefore concluded that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out against him.