Criminal Petition No. 6622 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11370 CRL.P No. 6622 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6622 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. K.R. RAVISHANKAR AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF URVASHI THEATER NO.40, SIDDAIAH ROAD NEAR MTR, DODDAMAVALLI SUDHAMANAGAR BENGALURU - 560027. (BY SRI. T. SESHAGIRI RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
CHANNAMANAKERE ACHUKATTE POLICE BENGALURU - 560085 REP BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER/ THROUGH SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Legal Reasoning
2. SRI. MOHANDAS PAI V S/O LATE V KRISHNA PAI AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, PROPRIETOR OF M/S DHEERAJ ENTERPRISES RESIDING AT NO.245/3 1ST FLOOR 2ND MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 5TH BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 027. (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. V. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC/ UNDER SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIKA SURAKSHA SAMHITHA, 2023, PRAYING QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE IV - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11370 CRL.P No. 6622 of 2024 CMM, BENGALURU NO.2441/2024 ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDING CRIME NO.97/2024 ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 406 AND 420 OF IPC, PURSUANT TO THE REFERENCE ORDER DATED 05.03.2024 ONE PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CMM, BENGALURU IN PCR NO.2441/2024. PCR IN THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, who is facing investigation for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, is before this Court seeking relief. 2. The 2nd respondent filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., stating that, having known the petitioner for a long time and placing trust in him, he permitted the petitioner to exhibit five films of which he is the distributor in his theater. The petitioner, being the owner of the theater, exhibited the films from February 2019 to October 2019, and thereafter, he failed to pay the amount due for exhibiting the films, of which the complainant is the distributor. 3. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Subsequently, the Police registered an FIR for the aforesaid offences. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11370 CRL.P No. 6622 of 2024 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complaint does not allege that the petitioner, in view of the complainant’s permission to exhibit the films, acted with any intention to deceive. In the absence of allegations establishing the essential elements constituting the offences, the registration of the FIR is without merit. It was further submitted that the films were allegedly screened from February 2019 to October 2019, while the private complaint was filed only in 2024; hence, the complaint appears to be an attempt to pressure the petitioner to claim a time-barred benefit. 5. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the allegations in the private complaint disclose that the petitioner, with the intention to cheat the respondent, induced him to permit the screening of the films. The counsel further contended that the allegations disclose the commission of cognizable offences, and that the veracity of these allegations requires investigation. Therefore, at this stage, the registration of the FIR does not warrant interference, and the counsel sought the dismissal of the petition. 6. The learned HCGP for respondent No. 1 (State) reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11370 CRL.P No. 6622 of 2024 7. The Court has duly considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Section 406 of the IPC deals with the punishment for criminal breach of trust, which, under Section 405, is defined as the dishonest misappropriation, conversion, or disposal of property by a person entrusted with it, in violation of any law or contractual obligation. In the instant case, the films were merely permitted to be screened by the petitioner, and there is no allegation that any property was entrusted to him for the purpose of exhibiting the films. Furthermore, for an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, it must be established that the accused dishonestly induced another person to deliver any property with an intention to deceive at the time of the transaction’s inception. In the present matter, the complaint does not allege that the petitioner induced respondent No. 2 to permit him to screen the films with any intention to cheat at the inception of their agreement. 9. Moreover, the petitioner exhibited the films between February 2019 and October 2019, whereas the private complaint was filed in 2024. The Apex Court, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Madhusudan Rao, at para 30, observed: “Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11370 CRL.P No. 6622 of 2024 been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also carries the danger of introducing a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident, or even a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, thereby casting serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that any delay in lodging the report be satisfactorily explained.” 10. In view of the absence of any material to substantiate that the petitioner acted with the requisite fraudulent intention at the time of entering into the arrangement, the essential elements constituting the offences alleged are conspicuously absent. Consequently, the continuation of the investigation against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Furthermore, the dispute between the parties is in relation to non payment of money under the arrangement for screening the films, which is purely civil in nature, however, given a criminal texture. 11. According, I pass the following orders:
Decision
ORDER i. The petition is allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11370 CRL.P No. 6622 of 2024 ii. The impugned FIR in Crime No.97/2024 registered by Channamanakere Achukattu Police Station, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed. In view of disposal of the main petition, all pending IA's does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 102