Mere receipt of sale proceeds in relatives’ accounts, without evidence of criminal intent or participation, does not justify prosecution.

In Crl.P. No. 659/2024, the complainant alleged that accused No. 1, together with others, offered to sell land at Devanahalli and received a total of ₹37,50,000, including transfers of ₹7,50,000 and ₹15,00,000 to the bank accounts of accused Nos. 2 and 3, the wife and son of accused No. 1.

The complainant later alleged that the land had been sold to another person and that the accused had cheated him.

The petitioners sought to quash the FIR registered in Crime No. 122/2022; petitioner No. 1 withdrew his petition, while petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 pursued theirs.

In the connected Crl.P. No. 662/2024, petitioner No. 2 had died during the proceedings, and counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition.

1. Whether the allegations against petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 in Crl.P. No. 659/2024 disclosed criminal intent or participation sufficient to continue the investigation, or whether the proceedings should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. What orders should follow in Crl.P. No. 662/2024 upon petitioner No. 2’s death and the request to withdraw the petition.

The petitions invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (also referenced in the cause title with Section 528 BNSS). The offences alleged in Crl.P. No. 659/2024 were under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed where the complaint and material disclose no criminal intent or overt act attributable to the petitioners and continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

No precedent was cited.

The Court considered that the complainant alleged the transfers to petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 were made on accused No. 1’s instructions.

The petitioners were not alleged to have been present during the transaction, made representations about the sale, participated in negotiations, or directly received cash.

The Court found no material showing that they knew of or participated in the alleged fraud or forgery; their relationship to accused No. 1 and receipt of bank transfers, without more, did not establish mens rea or an overt act.

In the connected petition, the Court recorded the death of petitioner No. 2 and counsel’s request to withdraw.

In Crl.P. No. 662/2024, the petition abated as against deceased petitioner No. 2 and was dismissed as not pressed following counsel’s request to withdraw.