Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Case Against Reporter Accused Of Taking ₹1.5 Lakh Promising Government Job For Complainant’s Son

The complainant alleged that in 2021 the petitioner promised to secure government employment for her son and demanded ₹3,00,000. She allegedly paid ₹5,000 in cash and transferred a further ₹1,45,000 to the petitioner’s bank account, but he neither secured the employment nor returned the money.

Following investigation, police filed a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, citing, among other grounds, delay in filing the complaint and the absence of the offences’ essential ingredients.

By the time the petition was considered, the trial court had framed charges and posted the case for trial.

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; that power is to be exercised sparingly and with caution. Framing of charges does not, by itself, bar the High Court from exercising that jurisdiction, though the Court will ordinarily be slow to interfere once a matter has proceeded to trial.

Section 406 IPC concerns criminal breach of trust, requiring entrustment and dishonest misappropriation; Section 420 IPC concerns cheating, requiring deception and dishonest inducement.

The Court described cheating and criminal breach of trust as offences with distinct and, on the same allegations, antithetical ingredients, while stating that whether either or both offences were attracted depended on the specific allegations and evidence.

The petitioner also cited Arshad Neyaz Khan v. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 950.

The Court noted that the charge-sheet alleged that the petitioner induced the complainant to pay money by promising government employment and then failed to secure the employment or repay the amount.

It also noted that the trial court had considered the record sufficient to frame charges and that the case had reached the trial stage.

Whether the facts established cheating, criminal breach of trust, or either offence was a matter for trial; the competing contentions involved disputed questions of fact that could not be resolved in the Section 528 petition.

Although the Court stated that the offences could not coexist on the same allegations, it did not decide their application to the facts and found no exceptional circumstances justifying quashing.

Pending interlocutory applications were dismissed, and the trial court was directed to dispose of the case expeditiously without being influenced by the High Court’s observations, which were confined to the petition.