The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy over Rs 21.35 lakh said to have been paid to resolve pending property litigation, holding that a plea that the dispute is civil does not by itself end a criminal case, and directing the police to conduct a proper and in-depth investigation.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition by two men seeking to quash an FIR and the related proceedings in a private complaint alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy, holding that the contention that the dispute is civil cannot by itself defeat a criminal case, and directing the jurisdictional police to conduct a proper and in-depth investigation [T.G. Balan and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another].
Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order on September 15, 2026 on a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, filed as a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS. The allegations are untested, the petitioners are presumed innocent, and the Court has expressed no view on the merits of the complaint.
The case
The complainant, a widow, alleged that the first petitioner approached her claiming to be an advocate and assured her that he would clear the litigation over her late husband’s property, and that he introduced the second petitioner, saying the two of them would resolve all the cases. She alleged that she paid a total of Rs 21.35 lakh, part of it by bank transfers of Rs 10 lakh on June 6, 2022, Rs 5 lakh on June 14, 2022 and Rs 1 lakh on November 22, 2022, and the rest in cash. When there was no progress, and she learned that he was not an advocate, she demanded a refund.
According to the order, the complainant says the local police refused to receive her complaint, and she then sent it by speed post to the police station and the Commissioner of Police on December 16, 2023. A private complaint (PCR No. 3320/2024) was then filed before a Bengaluru Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, who referred it for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC on February 26, 2024. The K.P. Agrahara Police Station registered Crime No. 143/2024 on September 19, 2024 under Sections 420, 120B, 504, 506B and 149 of the IPC.
What the parties argued
Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate A.T. Mallya argued that the dispute is civil and at most concerns the recovery of money paid by the complainant, which cannot be given a criminal colour. He relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which warns against frivolous litigation and the abuse of criminal procedure, and on the Karnataka High Court’s decisions in Sailen Das and Deepak Raheja. He submitted that there was no material to show a dishonest intention from the inception, as cheating under Section 420 requires, and that the parties knew each other.
The High Court Government Pleader, Ranjith Kumar N., appearing for the State, submitted that the complainant was a widow, that the first petitioner had held himself out as an advocate who would clear the litigation, and that a refund demand does not take away the offences alleged. He said sufficient grounds existed to continue the case and that the matter required an investigation. The complainant was served and was not represented.
The Court’s reasoning
Justice Govindaraj accepted that the tests laid down by the Supreme Court and by coordinate Benches were not in dispute, and that civil matters are increasingly being given a criminal tinge. He held, however, that not every criminal complaint has to be dismissed merely because it is said to be a civil dispute. The Court has to look at the averments in the complaint as a whole and decide, on the facts, whether it is purely civil or discloses a criminal element.
The Court noted that it was not disputed that an agreement dated November 30, 2022 existed, under which the first petitioner agreed that the property disputes, including a civil suit (O.S. No. 27645/2022) then pending in court, would be resolved. How that agreement came to be entered into, it said, would have to be inquired into, since a dispute pending in court has to be resolved in court and not outside it. It also observed that the complainant’s own conduct in paying money to settle a pending civil suit could not be said to be beyond blame.
The Court said the fact remained that Rs 21.35 lakh was stated to have been paid to resolve litigation to which the first petitioner was not a party, that the promise was not fulfilled, and that he was later found not to be an advocate. On the argument that there was no allegation of impersonation, the Court held that this was not of much relevance, as what mattered was that he approached a woman who was laid up in bed with a promise to resolve her late husband’s property litigation and received a large sum. Whether he represented that he was an advocate, and whether he is one, had to be examined in the investigation, since such conduct has a bearing on the judicial system as a whole.
The affidavit objection
The petitioners also argued that the affidavit filed with the complaint did not meet the requirements laid down by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh. The Court called this misplaced. It held that the verifying affidavit clearly states that the complainant approached the jurisdictional police, who failed to receive the complaint, that she therefore filed a private complaint, and that the averments are true to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. That, it held, satisfies the requirement.
The order
Finding the allegations serious enough to merit a serious and complete investigation, and finding no ground at this stage to interfere with the investigation under Section 482 of the CrPC, the Court directed the jurisdictional police to conduct a proper and in-depth investigation and dismissed the petition.
Why it matters
The order shows that a plea that a dispute is civil, even with supporting precedents, does not automatically lead to quashing. The Court weighed the complaint as a whole, the agreement to settle pending litigation outside court, and the allegation that the money was taken on a promise the accused could not have kept, and left the question of the accused’s intention to the investigation.
The ruling is at the investigation stage. It does not find that the petitioners cheated the complainant, it records that the complainant’s own conduct is not beyond blame, and it leaves the civil suit and any recovery claim untouched. The allegations will be tested in the investigation and, if a charge sheet is filed, at trial.
Case Title: T.G. Balan and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another [Criminal Petition No. 991 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: September 15, 2026
Appearances: Advocate A.T. Mallya appeared for the petitioners, and High Court Government Pleader Ranjith Kumar N. appeared for the State of Karnataka. The complainant was served and was not represented.
