Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Over Allegation Couple Took Over ₹2 Crore Promising Cheaper Properties

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners induced him, his family members and friends to pay more than ₹2 crore by promising to facilitate property purchases at lower prices, but failed to execute the sale deeds and later threatened him

The petitioners contended that ₹21 lakh received by cheque related to a sale agreement for a flat, and that the further allegations lacked documentary support

After the police registered Crime No. 188/2023 for offences under Sections 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the petitioners sought quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Whether the FIR and proceedings against the petitioners warranted quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in light of the allegations and the petitioners’ defence

Whether the allegations disclosed a basis for further investigation into the alleged inducement and receipt of substantial sums

The petitions invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to seek quashing of the FIR.

The Court applied the principle that where the complaint and available material prima facie disclose cognizable offences, an FIR should not be quashed at the threshold merely on the basis of the accused’s defence, particularly while investigation remains at an early stage and relevant evidence is yet to be collected

The alleged offences were under Sections 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

The petitioners relied on Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951, but the Court did not separately discuss that precedent

The complaint alleged that the petitioners induced the complainant and others to part with substantial sums by promising to arrange property purchases at lower prices, and that sale deeds were not executed

The Court noted that sale agreements had been executed, including one relating to a flat for which ₹21 lakh had been paid, while mediation concerning execution of the sale deed had failed; other agreements involving the complainant’s relatives and friend were also noted

These circumstances required investigation into how the money was received and why the deeds were not executed.

Because the investigation was at a nascent stage, the Court declined to determine the merits of the petitioners’ defence or anticipate the investigation’s outcome

The Court dismissed both petitions as devoid of merit, without expressing an opinion on the merits of the case