Court emphasizes the necessity of investigating criminal elements in disputes involving misrepresentation and financial transactions.
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition seeking the quashing of an FIR against Sri T G Balan and another individual, accused of cheating in a matter involving misrepresentation and financial inducement. The petitioners had approached the court under the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking relief from criminal proceedings initiated against them.
Presiding over the case, Justice Suraj Govindaraj underscored that the mere existence of a civil dispute does not automatically negate the potential for criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that the allegations in the complaint disclosed a prima facie criminal element requiring thorough investigation.
The case arose when the complainant, facing property disputes following the death of her husband, was allegedly approached by the accused who represented himself as an advocate. The accused assured the complainant that he could resolve her pending property litigation and, on this assurance, induced her to part with Rs.21,35,000. However, no progress was made in resolving the disputes, and the complainant later discovered that the accused was not an advocate.
The petitioners contended that the dispute was purely civil and related to the recovery of money, arguing that criminal proceedings were inappropriate. They relied on precedents from the Supreme Court and other cases to support their claim that civil disputes should not be converted into criminal cases. However, the court held that the allegations, taken as a whole, warranted investigation into potential criminal conduct.
Justice Govindaraj stated that the relevant questions in this case included whether the accused represented himself as an advocate to induce the complainant to part with money, the assurances given regarding pending litigation, and the intentions behind receiving the funds. The court stressed that these aspects required investigation and could not be dismissed at the threshold.
Furthermore, the court addressed the objection regarding the verifying affidavit, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The court found that the requirement for a verifying affidavit was substantially satisfied, as the complainant had verified the contents of the complaint and her efforts to lodge it with the police.
Rejecting the petition, the Karnataka High Court directed the jurisdictional police to conduct a proper and complete investigation into the allegations and proceed according to the law. The decision reinforces the principle that while criminal law should not be used to settle purely civil disputes, it remains applicable when allegations of criminal conduct, such as cheating and misrepresentation, are involved.
Bottom Line :
Quashing of FIR/complaint under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS - Mere existence of civil dispute is not by itself a ground to quash criminal proceedings - Where allegation is that accused represented himself as an advocate, induced complainant to part with Rs.21,35,000/- on assurance of resolving pending property litigation, and later no progress was made, complaint discloses prima facie criminal element requiring investigation - Verifying affidavit held to be in substantial compliance with Priyanka Srivastava.
Statutory provision(s):
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528
- Penal Code, 1860 Sections 420, 120B, 504, 506B, and 149
Sri T G Balan v. State of Karnataka, (Karnataka) : Law Finder Doc id # 2989317
