Karnataka HC Lets Case Against Hyderabad Company Director Proceed Over Alleged ₹6 Lakh Animation Dues And Death Threat

In brief

The question

1. Whether the allegations and investigation materials warranted quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC on the ground that the dispute was civil and no prima facie case was made out.

The court held

The Court declined to quash the proceedings, holding that the allegations and witness statements required consideration at trial and that no ground for relief under Section 482 of the CrPC had been made out.

It also directed

The criminal petition was dismissed.

01Facts

The complainants, who were engaged in partnership business, alleged that they entered into an agreement with the petitioner, a director of Realcom Infocom Pvt. Ltd., on 30 August 2017 for animation project work.

pp. 2–3, 5–6

They alleged that they paid ₹7,20,000, but that the petitioner failed to pay a further ₹6,00,000 said to be due for work performed, and threatened them when they demanded payment.

pp. 2–3, 5–6

Following investigation, police filed a charge sheet in C.C. No. 5248/2020 arising from Crime No. 168/2018, alleging offences under Sections 420, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, arguing that the dispute was civil in nature, that the complaint was registered outside the police station’s jurisdiction, and that there was no material establishing an offence.

p. 4

The complainant, though served, did not appear.

p. 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the allegations and investigation materials warranted quashing the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC on the ground that the dispute was civil and no prima facie case was made out.

pp. 4–7

ii.2. Whether the alleged lack of territorial jurisdiction in registering the complaint was a ground to quash the proceedings.

p. 4

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Section 482 of the CrPC, under which the High Court was asked to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings.

p. 4

The charge sheet alleged offences under Sections 420, 506 and 34 of the IPC.

pp. 2–3

The Court’s reasoning was that, where the recorded witness statements contain specific allegations concerning the transaction and threats, those allegations require testing at trial rather than being determined in a quashing petition.

pp. 6–7

Provisions in the judgment · 5 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 154

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420 Section 506 Section 34

04Reasoning

The Court noted that the payment of ₹7,20,000 was not disputed and that the complainants specifically alleged non-payment for project work and threats when payment was demanded.

pp. 5–6

It also considered the statements of C.Ws. 2 to 5, which supported the complaint’s account and the alleged threats.

pp. 5–6

In the Court’s view, whether the transaction involved an intention to cheat from the outset, and whether the threats were made, were matters for trial; the petitioner’s characterisation of the dispute as civil did not justify quashing at this stage.

pp. 5–7

Although the petitioner also challenged the police station’s jurisdiction, the Court did not separately analyse or decide that contention.

p. 4 · p. 7