Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Against Couple Over 2006 Land Deal, Noting Site Deed To Wife Preceded The Alleged Initial Payment of ₹3.5 Crore

Respondent No. 2 complained that he and several firms had agreed to purchase land at Kengeri from Prasannaiah and Laxmin Pramod Kumar, and had paid ₹3.5 crore towards the transaction.

He alleged that the vendors failed to convey the land and that Site No. 4, which was said to have been promised to the firms, was instead conveyed to petitioner No. 2, the wife of petitioner No. 1.

Kengeri Police registered Crime No. 460/2024 under Sections 34, 406, 420 and 417 IPC.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR and complaint under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS.

They produced a sale deed for Site No. 4 dated 19 May 2006.

Respondent No. 2, though served, did not appear.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, corresponding to Section 528 BNSS, to seek quashing of criminal proceedings.

The Court considered Sections 406, 417 and 420 IPC, observing that non-performance of an agreement concerning immovable property, or a subsequent dispute over transfer, does not by itself establish criminal breach of trust or cheating.

The complaint must disclose dishonest intention and the other essential ingredients of the alleged offences.

The Court also clarified that the existence of a civil remedy does not, by itself, exclude criminal liability where the ingredients of an offence are otherwise made out.

The alleged transaction related to 2006, but the complaint was lodged in 2024.

The complaint stated that ₹3.5 crore was paid on 6 July 2006, while the sale deed conveying Site No. 4 to petitioner No. 2 was dated 19 May 2006.

It did not explain how that earlier conveyance amounted to dishonest inducement at the inception of the alleged arrangement, nor clearly state the dates or circumstances of the later arrangements concerning Site No. 4.

In these circumstances, the allegations did not prima facie establish the required dishonest intention or other ingredients of the charged offences; the dispute appeared essentially civil in nature, without foreclosing any civil remedies subject to applicable objections, including limitation.

It quashed the FIR and complaint in Crime No. 460/2024, while leaving the complainant and firms at liberty to pursue any civil remedies available in law, subject to applicable objections.