MR DEEPAK RAHEJA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

4

504 and 506 of IPC. The learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has referred the case for investigation to SHO, Sanjaynagar Police Station. The Investigating Officer pursuant to the reference has registered a crime in Crime No.286/2017 on 6.10.2017 and charge sheet is laid.

3. The learned Magistrate taking note of the statement of witnesses and material on record has taken cognizance under Section 190(b) for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned Magistrate has issued NBW to the petitioners herein.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners reiterating the grounds has vehemently argued and contended that the allegations in the complaint clearly substantiate that it is a contractual dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2

5

and there is absolutely no evidence of criminal offence. What is primarily a civil dispute between petitioner and respondent No.2 is converted into a criminal case and based on frivolous allegations, criminal proceedings are lodged against the petitioner. He would further submit that the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the complaint without issuing notice to the petitioners in the first instance. He would further contend that a plain reading of the FIR and charge sheet clearly discloses that the dispute between the parties may constitute a civil dispute. The charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer is also questioned by the petitioners on the ground that Investigating Officer has not undertaken proper investigation.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would however contend that there are sufficient materials against the petitioner and

6

therefore, this is not a fit case where the Court can grant indulgence under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

6. Learned HCGP has argued in the same vein and has sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Before I advert to the arguments advanced by the counsel on record, it has become absolutely necessary to take cognizance of the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for offences punishable Sections 110, 120B. 323. 420, 406, 504 and 506 of IPC. The relevant portions are culled out as under:

"12. The complainant further submits that, on 18/02/2017 The Complianant went and given the Compliant in the Home Minister Stating that

"M/S.PEBBLE BAY DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, Proprietor is SRI. DEEPAK RAHEJA No....... RMV 2nd Stage, Dollars Colony, Bangalore-560037, That is related to the complainant's Painting contract work was done and the complainant asking to pay the Bill amount from the Accused no.1,2,3 that is Rs. 48,00,000/- Rupeess Forty Eight Lakhs only.

7

But Previous date 23/05/2016 the compliant was also given before the Home Minister regarding this matter, in that time the Hon'ble minister referred to the Hon'ble Police Commissioner Sri M.N.Reddi for immediate action for cheating the complianant and sallow the money

Rs.48,00,000/-Rupeess Forty Eight Lakhs only, without paying the money for complainant's paint contract work done.

But the accused no.1 to 3 was turned into a difference mind with support of A 4 to 6 this it self show that the Accused no.1,2,3 intention is to swallow the money of the complaint's paint contract work bill amount Rs.48,00,000/- Rupeess Forty Eight Lakhs only, even after without fear /without giving respect for the Home Minister letter & also negligeting the Hon'ble Police commissioner words. The copy of the Home minister letter document is Produced and Marked as a ANNEXURE- F."

"41. The complainant further submits that the totally the compliant painting work done the Bill cost was Rs.1,25,51,361/- as follows:-

First........Bill Rs-2,88,794/- dated on 31/03/2011 Second...Bill Rs- 1,56,333/- dated on 01/04/2011 Third.......Bill Rs-3,32,904/- dated on 07/07/2011 Fourth....Bill Rs-5,31,397/- dated on 17/09/2011 Fifth.......Bill Rs-7,89,274/- dated on 14/12/2011 Sixth....... Bill Rs-5,48,999/-dated on 26/12/2011 Seventh.....Bill Rs- 8,27,342-dated on 16/04 2012 Eight........Bill Rs-6,63,589/-dated on 18/05/2012 Ninth…….Bill Rs10,79,632/-dated on 07/09/2012 Tenth.......Bill Rs-3,47,304/-dated on 09/10/2012 Eleventh..Bill Rs-8,50,467/- dated on 18/12/2012 Twelvth....Bill Rs- 4,88,398/-dated on 01/01/2013

8

Thirteenth...Bill Rs-15,50,418/-dated on 10/03/2013

Fouteenth….Bill Rs-16,84,118/-dated on 08/06/2013

Fifteenth....Bill Rs-03,59,306/-dated on 02/08/2013

Final.........Bill Rs-11,46,793/-dated on 11/10/2013

Total amount Rs.1,13,17,819/- Rupess One Crore thirteen lakhs Seventeen thousand Eighteen Hundred nine only The copy of the Final Bill dated 11/10/2013 is produced & Marked as ANNEXURE-X

42. The complainant further submits that, By seeing the complianant Painting work, the accused no.1 told that there is good further for your work, you will become No.1 Painting contactor in Bangalore for your paint work full demand if you work with my Company.

43. The complainant further submits that, the accused no.1 promised the complainant that they will pay the payment Total amount Rs.1,13,17,819-00/- Rupees One Crore Thirteen lakhs Seventeen thousand Eight Hundred and Nineteen only/settled immediately for the complainant's first work finished without dues in time, that is after the accused no.2 finalised the bill amount Total amount Rs.1,13,17,819-00/- Rupees One Crore Thirteen lakhs Seventeen thousand Eight Hundred and Nineteen only will be paid to the complianant. The cpy of the

PHOTOGRAPHS PAINTING WORK DONE PHOTO

DOCUMENTARY IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS A

ANNEXURE-X)

9

44. The complainant further submits that, work order total amount - Rs. 1,13,17,819-00/- Out this..........Paid only..Rs. 83,08,955-00/- Remaining Old Balance not Paid

Rs. 30,08864.00/-

It would be also useful to cull out Paragraph 46 to 53, which reads as under:

46. The complianat further submits that the Accused no.1,2,3 are not made up their mind to settle the complianant out standing Balance payment... Rs.49,07,257-00/- instead of that Accused no. 1,2,3 well planned & made RTGS... Rs. 1,00,000-00/- and Remaining Balance Payment still now not /not

given...........Rs.48,07,257-00/-

47. The complianat further submits that, and then further the matter is taken before the Police commissioner the complianant was given against the Accused no.1,2 for cheating the complianant and not paying the remaining Balance payment amount Rs.48,07,257-00/-

48. The complianat further submits that, on 18/06/2014 the matter referred to the jurisdiction of the police Sanjayanagar police station SHO from the police commissioner. The police complianant is produced & Marked as ANNEXURE-

Y

THE MAIN REASON TO GIVE THE POLICE

COMPLIANT BEFORE THE POLICE COMMISSIONER

10

THAT ACCUSED NO.1,2 CRIMINAL INTENTION

(CONSPIRENCY) BEHIND IS THAT TO MAKING A

INJUSTICE TO THE COMPLIANANT AMOUNT

RS.48,07,257-00/-AFTER FINISHED THE

PAINTING CONTRACT WORK FROM THE

COMPLIANANT IN TIME AND THEN PLAYED

DOBBLE GAME WITHOUT MAKING THE PAYMENT.

49. The complainant further submits that, after the work process complete the complainant asked the payment Rs. RS.48,07,257-00/- from the accused no.1&2 showed his original colour and intentionally purposefully with strong support of accused no.l to3.

50. The complainant further submits that, the accused no.1,2 started talking adversely and scolding in bad vulgar words and threaten the complainant that "when I will give the amount you should take you come after one week, after coming one week, Accused no.1 telling to come in the next after one month, after month the complianant went and meet then the accused is telling that Auditing work is in process you come after one year in the month of march 2015 finalising the auditing work with charter account and then I will see that your payment Rs.48,07,257-00/- will be made "Like this keep on talking adversely to the complainant keep on daring even till today in the name of the settlement,

51. The complainant further submits that, but the accused no.1 by listing the words of accused no.2,3 not made up his mind to make the settlement for the complianant payment amount Rs. 48,07,257-00/- even till today, but intention play to cheat & clearly admits the criminal conspiracy

11

52. The complainant further submits that, the complainant humbly requested the accused no.1 &2 by folding the hands to pay the amount Rs. 48,07,257-00/- for the complianant work done with him.

53. The complainant further submits that, when ever the complianant ask the amount Rs.48,07,257-00/- from the accused no. 1&2 he keeps on delaying and postponing to pay the amount Rs. 48,07,257-00/- till today by telling one or other reasons with the strong support of accused no.1 to 3 this was continued till today, Master key mind person behind this Accused no.3"

8. The culled out portions of the complaint clearly reveal that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 in regard to payment of balance amount. The grievance of Respondent No.2 is that petitioner is yet to pay balance amount of Rs.48,07,257/-.

9. The concern that civil disputes are being manipulated or transformed into criminal offences by the inclusion of charges such as cheating or criminal breach of trust is not unfounded. Judicial precedents

12

elucidate that the conversion of civil disputes into criminal charges without proper legal basis or evidence constitutes an abuse of the legal process. Courts have consistently held that criminal charges should not be invoked as a means to adjudicate or settle disputes of a purely civil nature, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural safeguards and legal standards.

10. The Supreme Court of India has consistently reiterated the imperative to prevent the misuse of criminal proceedings in addressing civil disputes. This principle was emphasized in various landmark cases, including Mohammed Ibrahim and others v. State of Bihar and another¹, Alpic Finance Ltd. v. P Sadasivan & Anr.², and All Cargo

(I) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Dhanesh Badarmal Jain &

13

Anr.³the Apex Court has highlighted the growing tendency of complainants to resort to criminal charges as a means to settle civil disputes or exert pressure on the opposing party. The Court expressed concern over the misuse of criminal proceedings, emphasizing that criminal Courts should not be used as a tool for settling scores or pressurizing parties in purely civil matters.

11. Now, it becomes imperative to take cognizance of the involvement of police involving civil dispute. There is an unequivocal admission in the complaint indicating how the police machinery is used to settle a contractual dispute.

12. Paragraphs 47, 48, 52, 53 and 59 to 77 of the complaint are culled out as under:

"47. The complianat further submits that, and then further the matter is taken before the Police commissioner the complianant was given against

14

the Accused no.1,2 for cheating the complianant and not paying the remaining Balance payment amount Rs.48,07,257-00/-

48. The complianat further submits that, on 18/06/2014 the matter referred to the jurisdiction of the police Sanjayanagar police station SHO from the police commissioner. The police complianant is produced & Marked as ANNEXURE-

Y

THE MAIN REASON TO GIVE THE POLICE

COMPLIANT BEFORE THE POLICE COMMISSIONER

THAT ACCUSED NO.1,2 CRIMINAL INTENTION

(CONSPIRENCY) BEHIND IS THAT TO MAKING A

INJUSTICE TO THE COMPLIANANT AMOUNT

RS.48,07,257-00/-AFTER FINISHED THE

PAINTING CONTRACT WORK FROM THE

COMPLIANANT IN TIME AND THEN PLAYED

DOBBLE GAME WITHOUT MAKING THE PAYMENT.

52. The complainant further submits that, the complainant humbly requested the accused no.1 &2 by folding the hands to pay the amount Rs. 48,07,257-00/- for the complianant work done with him.

53. The complainant further submits that, when ever the complianant ask the amount Rs.48,07,257-00/- from the accused no. 1&2 he keeps on delaying and postponing to pay the amount Rs. 48,07,257-00/- till today by telling one or other reasons with the strong support of accused no.1 to 3 this was continued till today, Master key mind person behind this Accused no.3.

IN THE SANJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION

ACCUSED/S PROMISED

15

59. The complainant further submits that, after receiving the police complianant from the police commissioner the said SHO made call to the accused no.1.

60. The complainant further submits that, in the police station SHO is waiting to come accused no.1,2,3, at that time accused no.1 send the Accused no.2 & 3 and then as per the direction/instruction of the acusd no.1 the said accused no.2,3 meet the SHO in the Police station.

61. The complainant further submits that, the Accused no.2,3 humbly requested the Police inspector SHO not file any FIR against the Accused no.1 because it is prestigious man and having good name in the society.

62. The complainant further submits that, the accused no.1 & 2 promised before the SHO that accused no.1 are going to settle the entire amount Rs.48,07,257-00/-of the complianant out standing payment and then the accused no.3 & 2 took complianant copy to show for the accused no.1.

63. The complainant further submits that, then the accused no.3 called me for office to meet the accused no.1 in the name of the Settlement, But the complianant told to settle in front of the SHO reason the complianant doesn't have faith on accused no.2 because the accused no.2 still not made my finalisation in bill settlement to send for the accused no.1 even after forcefully demanded and taken the Rs.45,000/- from the complianant side to sanction and relies the final bill amount Rs.48,07,257-00/- even till today keeping delaying and dragging in the name of settlement,

16

So don't have faith on accused no.1,2,3 that they will settle in office,

64. The complainant further submits that, the complianant told to accused no.2&3 saying that "if you want to settle my amount Rs.48,07,257-00/- other take legal action by filing the FIR and arrest them according to the Law for cheating complainant's amount Rs.48,07,257-00/-

65. The complainant further submits that, Accused no.1,2,3 in the name of settlement Played the Criminal Breach of trust which clearly admits the Criminal conspiracy and given threaten to the complianat life by scolding in vulgar words

66. The complainant further submits that, police inspector told to Accused no.2,3 in front of the complianant that if you want settle the matter to the complianant you settle it right now otherwise you go to the court, I will file the FIR against the Accused no.1,2,3 and send to court"

67. The complainant further submits that, the accused no.2 told to the police inspector that "we have brought 10,00,000/- cheque to give for the complianant for that complianant got upset and told to the accused no.2 that" my out standing amount Rs.48,07257-00/- in that you showing Rs. 10,00,000/- cheque, but I will not accept this amount Rs.10 lakhs if accused no.1 wants pay the amount Rs.48,07,257-00/ let them pay full Rs.48,07,257-00/-

68. The complainant further submits that, the complianant told to the SHO in front of the complianant that if accused no.1 wants to settle my amount Rs.48,07,257-00/-, Let them settle my payment before you, otherwise file the FIR and send them to court let the case matter go to

17

the court by take the action against the accused no.1,2,3"

69. The complainant further submits that, accused no.2 told to the police inspector not file the FIR because we will settle the entire amount Rs.4807,257-00 requested the SHO saying that

"Please give one week time and we bring the accused no.1 to the police station

70. The complainant further submits that, accused no.2 told to the police inspector not file the FIR because we will see that accused no.1 will come to police station and settle the complainant's amount Rs.4807,257-00 in front of the SHO itself and then we will close this police compliant given by the complianant against the accused no.1,2,3

71. The complainant further submits that, after week no any response from the accused no.1,2,3

72. The complianat further submits that, the complianant went filed the complianat before Deputy inspector General of Police Civil Rights & Enforcement Place raod Bangalore-560001 for making injustice in not paying the paint contract work Bill amount Rs.48,07,257-00/- The copy of the Complianat given against the Accused no.1 document is produced and Marked as ANNEXUR=Z

73. The complainant further submits that, when the complianant came to the police station and contacted the SHO Police inspector, made call to the accused no.1

74. The complainant further submits that, accused no.1 abated the accused no.2 and then

18

accused no.2 send the accused no.3 to the sanjayanagar police station related to the complianant settlement Rs.48,07,257-00/-

75. The complainant further submits that, when the SHO & Complianant was in the police station waiting with good faith, good hopes for accused no.1 come and settle the matter before filing the FIR against the accused no.1,2,3

76. The complainant further submits that, at the time the accused no.3 came to the police station and told to the SHO that we will make the payment Rs.4807,257-00 to the complianat as soon as Accused no.1 comes from the Bombay head office in next week, request complianant to wait for one week.

77. The complainant further submits that, the accused no.3 request in police station, when the complianant came out of the police station at that time the accused no.3 told to complianant that" you meet in next week personally in the same place"

13. The above culled out paragraphs of the complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. is quite disturbing and also reflects the factual matrix on the ground as to how the police officers inspite of repeated directives by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are interfering in civil disputes. The above culled out

19

portions clearly substantiate the police officers' interference and high handedness in summoning the parties to the contract to the police station and misusing their power to settle civil disputes. The interference by the police in the present case on hand is reprehensible, wrongful and unlawful. Contrary to the catena of judgments rendered by the Apex Court, the police officers of Sanjaynagar Police Station have tried to settle the dispute between petitioner and respondent No.2.

14. This is a classic case where the police machinery are used as a debt collection agents. The police, as an agency, cannot continue adding to history by exercising functions and powers beyond that is conferred upon it by its enabling statute. The irony still remains. Instead of being the protector of the fundamentally guaranteed rights of the citizens,

20

the police often become the violators of these rights. This gongs a sound of hopelessness for the citizenry.

15. Police interference in civil affairs and coercion of individuals violates fundamental rights. The Supreme Court and various high courts have repeatedly held that police have no jurisdiction to interfere in civil disputes, and when disputes are of a purely civil nature, police cannot exercise jurisdiction. In G.B.C. Raj Gopal vs The Government Of A.P⁴, the Andhra Pradesh High Court affirmed that the resolution of civil disputes is exclusively entrusted to its purview. It was emphasized that police officers lack jurisdiction to interfere in civil or property disputes between citizens. Even in criminal cases, their role is confined to registering complaints and initiating investigations. The power to adjudicate guilt and pronounce sentences lies exclusively within the

21

judicial branch of the State. The judiciary clarified that judicial power cannot be exercised by agencies outside its orbit, emphasizing that no authority may assume adjudicatory powers without statutory conferment. The coercive power of the State must not be employed to adjudicate disputes, reaffirming the fundamental principle of judicial sovereignty and the separation of powers.

16. In the case of J. Lakshmi @ Lakshmamma Vs. Commissioner of Police⁵,the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reiterated the Supreme Court's stance that police lack jurisdiction to intervene in purely civil disputes. The court emphasized that when disputes are of a civil nature and no crime is registered, the police have no authority to interfere.

477

22

17. Courts have consistently reaffirmed that the police lack the authority or jurisdiction to settle disputes of a civil nature. Police are not authorized to adjudicate such disputes and lack the machinery for such purposes. Despite these admonitions, the police persist in attempting to intervene in matters beyond their purview, thereby contravening established legal principles. It is incumbent upon law enforcement agencies to recognize and respect the limits of their authority, refraining from engaging in activities that encroach upon the exclusive domain of the judiciary. The continued insistence on police interference in civil disputes underscores the importance of reinforcing the boundaries between law enforcement and judicial functions to uphold the rule of law and safeguard citizens' rights.

18. The learned Magistrate has referred the matter to Sanjayanagar Police Station and the

23

Investigating officer has laid a charge sheet. In the present case on hand, the Officers of Sanjayanagar Police Station are guilty of interfering in a civil dispute between petitioner and respondent No.2. The Investigating officer and the officials of the Sanjayanagar Police Station who have shown keen interest in settling the dispute between petitioner and respondent No.2 complainant have exceeded their jurisdiction which is clearly evident from the culled out paragraph supra. The Investigating officer, in the present case on hand, has obviously overstepped and has unfortunately mishandled and filed a frivolous charge sheet ignoring the fact that it is a civil dispute and therefore, no charge sheet could have been filed merely for a civil wrong or breach of contract.

19. It is therefore, both strange and surprising that the Investigating Officer has extended his functions and powers to incorporate enforcement of

24

civil claims by garbing civil disputes in the apparel of offences of cheating and criminal breach of trust.

20. The officials of Sanjaynagara Police Station rather than focusing squarely on the statutory functions of investigation, preventing and prosecuting crimes, have allowed themselves to be used by overzealous or unscrupulous characters for the recovery of money arising from contracts which are purely civil in nature. There are a plethora of cases where the Apex Court has deprecated the ugly practice by the police department in settling civil disputes.

21. As I went through the facts of this case, this Court is still wondering as to how a purely civil matter could easily metamorphose and

transubstantiate into a purely criminal case. The end result is that the petitioners have suffered untold

25

hardship in the hands of police that is constitutionally and legally saddled with prosecution of criminal offences. The Investigating Officer and the officials of the Sanjayanagar Police Station even before registration of complaint have tried to muzzle the rights of citizens even when cases are clearly outside their jurisdiction, power, or corridor.

22. Now, let me examine whether the learned Magistrate erred in superficially referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Before 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is pressed into service by the learned Magistrate, he has to satisfy on the allegations made in the complaint that an offence has been committed and that he may take cognizance of such a complaint. Though the complaint filed in the present case on hand has the characteristic of a plaint disclosing a civil dispute between parties, the learned Magistrate invoking power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. has

26

mechanically ordered for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

23. Even after the Investigating Officer laid a charge sheet, Magistrate has not examined the charge sheet materials to ascertain whether the complainant has tried to use the criminal justice system to settle a civil dispute.

24. The private complaint is not supported by an affidavit as mandated by the Apex Court in the case of Priyank Srivastava .vs. State of Uttar Pradesh⁶

25. The judiciary's role, as emphasized by the Supreme Court, is to ensure that criminal proceedings are not abused to harass or intimidate parties involved in civil disputes. The courts are tasked with distinguishing between genuine criminal offenses and

27

matters that are essentially civil in nature but camouflaged as criminal offenses. This distinction is crucial to uphold the integrity of the legal process and prevent the misuse of criminal law. Moreover, the Supreme Court has underscored the importance of establishing mens rea, or the intent to commit a crime, in criminal cases. In cases such as Hridya Rajan Pd. Verma & others v. State of Bihar and another⁷, the Court clarified that mere breach of contract does not automatically constitute a criminal offense unless fraudulent or dishonest intent is proven at the outset of the transaction.

26. Furthermore, the Court has recognized the discretionary power of the High Courts under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash criminal proceedings that are found to be mala fide or an abuse of legal process. This discretionary power, as

28

outlined in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Bhajan Lal & Anr.⁸enables the courts to intervene and prevent the misuse of criminal law in cases where the ingredients of the offense are not made out or where proceedings are maliciously instituted.

27. In light of the preceding legal principles elucidated by the Supreme Court, it becomes evident that the allegations levied against accused no. 1 and 3 lack substantive basis to constitute the offenses as claimed by the complainant/respondent no. 2. The essence of criminal proceedings necessitates the presence of specific and credible allegations to establish the commission of criminal offenses. Upon careful examination of the allegations presented, this court finds them lacking in specificity and fails to meet the requisite threshold to substantiate the charges of cheating or criminal breach of trust. This court, guided

29

by the principles enunciated above, emphasizes the importance of discerning between genuine criminal offenses and civil disputes masked as criminal transgressions. In this instance, the allegations fail to demonstrate the essential elements necessary to establish criminal liability, particularly the presence of fraudulent or dishonest intent at the inception of the transaction. Therefore, the attempt to cloak civil disputes in the garb of criminal proceedings is unwarranted and contravenes the fundamental principles of law.

28. In addition to the aforementioned allegations pertaining to cheating and criminal breach of trust, the respondent no. 2/complainant has further asserted in the complaint the existence of threats to his life purportedly emanating from the accused parties. It is crucial to acknowledge that allegations of threats and intimidation, particularly in the absence of

30

concrete evidence or corroboration, can be weaponized to unjustly escalate a civil dispute into the realm of criminal litigation. As established in various precedents, including Mohammed Ibrahim (supra), criminal courts are cautioned against allowing criminal proceedings to be utilized as a means of coercion or retribution in matters primarily rooted in civil disputes. The mere assertion of threats, without accompanying evidence or corroborating circumstances, cannot suffice to justify the invocation of criminal liability against the accused.

29. In light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court and the overarching objective of preventing the misuse of criminal proceedings to settle civil disputes, this court must exercise vigilance and discernment in evaluating the veracity of such allegations. The unsubstantiated assertion of threats,

31

especially in conjunction with allegations of cheating and breach of trust, raises legitimate concerns regarding the potential abuse of the criminal justice system for ulterior motives. The allegations in the complaint are self explanatory. On reading the culled out portion supra, it is clearly evident that it is respondent No.2 who has used the police machinery as a means of coercion to recover the money from the petitioners. Respondent No.2 claims that he has completed the work entrusted to him and that petitioners are liable to pay balance amount of Rs.48,07,257/-. Therefore, it is quite surprising that respondent No.2 has virtually used the police machinery and the police have readily obliged respondent No.2 by extending its functional powers to incorporate enforcement of civil claims. Whether respondent No.2 complainant is entitled for balance amount of 48,07,257/- is a disputed question of fact

32

which necessarily has to be adjudicated by the competent civil Court. Therefore, respondent No.2- complainant by garbing civil disputes in the apparel of offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust has also alleged that petitioners have given life threat while the allegations in the complaint narrates a contrary scenario. Merely because petitioners have not obliged to pay the disputed amount will not in itself constitute an offence under Sections 420, 504 and 506 of IPC. Therefore, in the absence of compelling evidence substantiating the allegations of threats to life, and considering the broader context of the dispute as primarily civil in nature, this court must exercise caution to ensure that criminal proceedings are not unduly manipulated to perpetuate the objectives of a civil dispute. It is imperative to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system by refraining from allowing unsubstantiated allegations to

33

serve as a pretext for the unwarranted criminalization of civil disputes.

30. Therefore, the allegations leveled against accused Nos. 1 and 3 fail to substantiate commission of criminal offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Hence, this Court finds it imperative to quash the proceedings, thereby affirming the principle that civil disputes should not be erroneously transfigured into criminal proceedings in the absence of requisite criminal intent or substantiated allegations.

31. Before I part, the case on hand also reflects the ethical concerns and lawyers obligation to provide assistance to the litigants in launching criminal prosecution in civil matters. Lawyers have ethical obligation to provide competent and zealous representation to the clients while also upholding the

34

integrity of the legal profession and the justice system. Recommending frivolous or unjustified complaints violates ethical standards. Clients may have unrealistic expectations about the outcomes and consequences of criminal charges in civil disputes. This is precisely where a lawyer should not shirk his responsibility to educate the client about potential risk and limitation of criminal actions. Criminal investigations and prosecutions consume significant resources, including time, money and police machinery. Initiating criminal proceedings in civil cases without a legitimate basis can divert resources away from genuinely criminal conduct and undermine the efficiency of legal system.

32. In crafting a complaint, lawyers must meticulously balance their fiduciary duty to their client with their overarching responsibility to uphold the

35

integrity of the legal system. Primarily, lawyers must exercise prudence to ensure that the allegations set forth in the complaint accurately reflect the substantive legal violations at hand. This entails a thorough examination of applicable statutes, case law, and regulatory provisions, coupled with a scrupulous review of the factual circumstances underpinning the client's claims. Moreover, the complaint should be drafted in a clear and concise manner, employing language that is both legally, sound and comprehensible to all parties involved, including the court, opposing counsel.

33. Importantly, lawyers must remain cognizant of their duty to refrain from pursuing criminal charges when the underlying matter is more appropriately addressed through civil remedies. While zealous advocacy on behalf of their clients is undoubtedly paramount, lawyers must resist the temptation to

36

convert a civil dispute into a criminal matter solely at the behest of their client. Instead, they are duty- bound to exercise independent professional judgment and to counsel their clients accordingly, steering them towards the most prudent and ethically sound course of action.

34. In the present case on hand, the defacto complainant is assisted by a lawyer to file a private complaint which spans sixteen pages and 104 paragraphs. What should have been presented as a plaint is converted into a criminal case and that has led to filing of a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. On reading the complaint in entirety, this Court is more than satisfied that a false and frivolous criminal complaint is filed by converting a civil dispute into a criminal case.

37

35. For the reasons stated supra, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings pending in C.C.No.30444/2018 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 120(B), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed. Sd/-

JUDGE

*alb/-