Holding

A complaint that, on its face, fails to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged offences and is used to disguise a civil dispute must be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Summary

The appellants sought to quash a FIR filed by the first respondent alleging offences under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 IPC read with Section 34, claiming the complaint was a civil dispute disguised as a criminal case. The High Court had rejected the petition and stayed the proceedings pending a civil suit. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the averments in the complaint, taken at face value, disclosed the essential ingredients of the alleged offences. It held that the complaint lacked any entrustment of property, dishonest inducement, or misappropriation, and therefore did not satisfy the statutory elements of the offences. Consequently, the proceeding was deemed an abuse of process and was quashed under Section 482 of the CrPC. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court’s order and terminating the criminal proceedings, without addressing the pending civil suit.

Issues considered

The applicability of the High Court's inherent power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding.
Whether the complaint's averments, on their face, disclose the ingredients of offences under Sections 405, 406, 415, 420 IPC read with Section 34.
Whether the complaint constitutes an abuse of process by cloaking a civil dispute with a criminal flavour.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 156(3), s. 482
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 34, s. 405, s. 406, s. 415, s. 420

Subjects

Section 482 CrPCquashing of FIRabuse of processcivil dispute disguised as criminalIndian Penal Codecriminal breach of trustcheatinginherent jurisdictioncomplaint ingredients

Judgment

[2019]
MEHBOOB-UR-REHMAN (D)2 THR.
S.C.R.LRS.
185 v. AHSANUL GHANI 185
[DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.]

PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY & ANR A
v.
SUDHA SEETHARAM & ANR
(Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 15, 2019 B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:
s.482 – Petition under – Seeking quashing of criminal
proceeding initiated u/ss. 405, 406, 415 and 420 IPC – Rejected by C
High Court – On appeal, held: High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction
u/s. 482 is required to examine whether the averments in the
complaint, taken on their face, constitute ingredients necessary for
an offence alleged – The complaint in the present case is bereft of
the basic facts necessary to constitute the offences alleged u/ss.
405, 406, 415 and 420 IPC – An attempt has been made by the D
complainant to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature – The
complaint constitutes an abuse of process of court and therefore is
liable to be quashed – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 405,406, 415 and
420.
On the private complaint of respondent No.1, FIR u/ss. E
405, 406, 415 and 420 r/w s.34 IPC was lodged. The case of the
complainant (respondent No.1) was that the civil suit filed by the
son of the appellants for recovery of Rs. 20 lakhs given to her
(respondent No.1) by the son of the appellants was without any
merit as the same has been returned by respondent No.1 to the
appellants. She alleged that the appellants and their son had F
colluded to siphon the money.
Appellants’ petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing
of the FIR was rejected and the criminal proceedings were stayed
till the disposal of the civil suit. Hence the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court G
HELD: 1.1 Section 482 of Cr.P.C. saves the inherent
power of the High Court to make orders necessary to secure the
ends of justice. The High Court, in the exercise of its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., is required to examine whether
H
185
186 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A the averments in the complaint constitute the ingredients
necessary for an offence alleged under the Penal Code. If the
averments taken on their face do not constitute the ingredients
necessary for the offence, the criminal proceedings may be
quashed under Section 482. The complaint must be examined as
a whole, without evaluating the merits of the allegations. Though
B
the law does not require that the complaint reproduces the legal
ingredients of the offence verbatim, the complaint must contain
the basic facts necessary for making out an offence under the
Penal Code. A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must
examine if on their face, the averments made in the complaint
C constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence.
[Paras 11, 12 and 16][191-B, D-E, 193-G]
1.2 The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure has to be exercised with care. In the exercise
of its jurisdiction, a High Court can examine whether a matter
D which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a
criminal offence. Where the ingredients required to constitute a
criminal offence are not made out from a bare reading of the
complaint, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will
constitute an abuse of the process of the court. [Para 23][198-D]
Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd. (2006) 6 SCC
E
736 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704 – relied on.
2.1 In the present case, the first respondent has alleged
in the complaint that the appellants have committed offences
under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 read with Section 34 of the
Penal Code. It is clear from the face of the complaint, that no
F amount was entrusted by the first respondent to either of the
appellants and there was no dishonest inducement of the first
respondent by the appellants to deliver any property. As stated
by the first respondent in the complaint, the money belonged to
the son of the appellants. It was transferred by the appellants’
G son to her on his own volition. The money was alleged to have
been returned to the appellants on the instructions of their son.
A plain reading of the complaint thus shows that the ingredients
necessary for constituting offences under Sections 405, 415 and

H
186
PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY v. SUDHA SEETHARAM 187

420 of the Penal Code are not made out. Thus, the complaint in A
the present case is bereft of the basic facts necessary to constitute
the offences alleged under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 of the
Penal Code. [Paras 20 and 21][196-E-F, 197-D]
2.2 In the present case, the son of the appellants has
instituted a civil suit for the recovery of money against the first B
respondent. The suit is pending. The first respondent has filed
the complaint against the appellants six years after the date of
the alleged transaction and nearly three years from the filing of
the suit. The averments in the complaint, read on its face, do not
disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute offences under
the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first respondent C
to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the absence
of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence. The
complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants
constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be
quashed. [Para 24] D
Binod Kumar v State of Bihar (2014) 10 SCC 663 :
[2014] 11 SCR 85; State of Karnataka v. L Muniswamy
(1977) 2 SCC 699 : [1977] 3 SCR 113 – relied on.
Rajesh Bajaj v State of NCT of Delhi (1999) 3 SCC
259 : [1999] 1 SCR 1012 – held inapplicable. E
Case Law Reference
[ 2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 704 relied on Para 10
[2014] 11 SCR 85 relied on Para 19
[1999] 1 SCR 1012 held inapplicable Para 21
[1977] 3 SCR 113 relied on Para 22 F
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 238 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.09.2016 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Criminal Petition No. 3675 of 2016
Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Sanjay Jain, Anurag Tandon, Advs. for G
the Appellants.
Ms. Pritha Srikumar, Ms. Neha Mathen, Joseph Aristotle,
Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Shiva P. Advs. for the Respondents.

H
188 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Delay condoned.
2. The present appeal arises from the judgment and final order
dated 1 January 2016 of the High Court of Karnataka,rejecting the prayer
B of the appellants to quash the criminal proceedings instituted by the first
respondent against them. The High Court stayed the criminal proceedings
till the disposal of a pending civil suit instituted by the son of the appellants
against the first respondent.
3. The facts relevant to the present dispute are thus:
C Rajiv VijayasarathyRatnam, (the son of the appellants) and Savitha
Seetharam (the daughter of the first respondent) were married on 24
May 2002. They moved to the United States of America and a child was
born to them in 2009. Savitha was involved in a car accident on 5 February
2010 and proceedings were initiated against her abroad. It is alleged by
D the appellants that fearing the attachment of their son’s property in the
proceedings, an amount of Rs 20 lakhs was transferred by Rajiv to the
bank account of the first respondent on 17 February 2010. Following a
breakdown in marital relations, Savitha and Rajiv have been living
separately since October 2010. Multiple rounds of litigation ensued in
various courts.
E
4. Savitha filed a private complaint1against her husband Rajiv
and the appellants alleging the commission of various offences, including
criminal intimidation and a demand for dowry. The High Court of
Karnataka quashed the proceeding against appellant No. 2. On 14
February 2013, Rajiv filed a civil suit for recovery of money2 against the
F first respondent for the return of the money allegedly transferred by him
into her bank account.The suit is pending. Two divorce petitions instituted
by Savita have been dismissed by the family court.
5. On 25 February 2016, the first respondent filed a private
complaint3 against the appellants which forms the subject matter of the
G present appeal. The first respondent alleges that the amount of Rs 20
Lakhs which was transferred by the son of the appellants was returned
in cash to the appellants with interest of Rs 24,000 on 1 July 2010. No

1
PCR No. 3418 of 2012; FIR No. 18 of 2012 registered on 23 February 2012
2
O. S. No. 1305 of 2013
3
H PCR 2116 of 2016
PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY v. SUDHA SEETHARAM 189
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

receipt was allegedly received by the first respondent. It is alleged that A
the appellants and their son have colluded to siphon the money and that
the civil suit filed by the son of the appellants is without merit. On 11
May 2016, the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate referred the complaint
for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973. On 19 May 2016, a First Information Report4 was registered under
B
Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Penal
Code.Aggrieved by the judgment and final order of the High Court
rejecting their petition to quash the FIR, the appellants have filed the
present appeal.
6. MrNidhesh Gupta, learned Senior Counsel representing the
appellants urged the following submissions: C
i) No offence is made out from the averments in the
complaint as they stand;
ii) The first respondent has admitted that the amount which
forms the subject matter of the present dispute was
received from the son of the appellants; D
iii) The subject matter of the present dispute is of a civil
nature and the criminal complaint constitutes an abuse
of the process of the court; and
iv) The allegations in the present complaint are similar to
the previous complaint filed by the daughter of the first E
respondent.
7. On the other hand, MsPrithaSrikumar, learned counsel for
the respondents urged the following submissions:
i) The criminal proceeding is not liable to be quashed as
the allegations in the complaint disclose the ingredients F
necessary to constitute an offenceunder Sections 405,
406, 415 and 420 of the Penal Code;
ii) The appellants have colluded with their son to siphon
the money as no receipt was given to the first respondent
when the amount of Rs 20,24,000 was transferred; and G
iii) The law does not require that the complaint should
reproduce verbatim every ingredient of the criminal
offence in the complaint.
8. The rival submissions fall for our consideration.
4
FIR H
190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A 9. The primary question before this Court is whether the High
Court has erred in rejecting the plea of the appellants for quashing the
criminal proceedings against them. The question at the heart of the present
dispute is whether the averments in the complaint disclose the ingredients
necessary to constitute an offence under the Penal Code.
B 10. Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure saves the inherent
power of the High Court to make orders necessary to secure the ends
of justice. In Indian Oil Corpn. v NEPC India Ltd.5, a two judge
Bench of this Court reviewed the precedents on the exercise of jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 and formulated
guiding principles in the following terms:
C “12. …
(i) A complaint can be quashed where the allegations made
in the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute
any offence or make out the case alleged against the
D accused. For this purpose, the complaint has to be examined
as a whole, but without examining the merits of the allegations.
Neither a detailed inquiry nor a meticulous analysis of the
material nor an assessment of the reliability or genuineness
of the allegations in the complaint, is warranted while
examining prayer for quashing of a complaint.
E (ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear
abuse of the process of the court, as when the criminal
proceeding is found to have been initiated with mala fides
malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where
the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
F (iii) The power to quash shall not, however, be used to stifle
or scuttle a legitimate prosecution. The power should be used
sparingly and with abundant caution.
(iv) The complaint is not required to verbatim reproduce the
legal ingredients of the offence alleged. If the necessary
G factual foundation is laid in the complaint, merely on the ground
that a few ingredients have not been stated in detail, the
proceedings should not be quashed. Quashing of the complaint
is warranted only where the complaint is so bereft of even

5
H (2006) 6 SCC 736
PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY v. SUDHA SEETHARAM 191
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making A
out the offence.
(v) …”
11. The High Court, in the exercise of itsjurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is required to examine whether
the averments in the complaint constitute the ingredients necessary for B
anoffencealleged under the Penal Code. If the averments taken on their
face do not constitute the ingredients necessary for the offence, the
criminal proceedings may be quashed under Section 482. A criminal
proceeding can be quashed where the allegations made in the complaint
do not disclose the commission of an offence under the Penal Code.
The complaint must be examined as a whole, without evaluating the C
merits of the allegations. Though the law does not require that the
complaint reproduce the legal ingredients of the offenc everbatim, the
complaint must contain the basic facts necessary for making out an
offence under the Penal Code.
12. The first respondent has alleged in the complaint that the D
appellants have committed offences under Sections 405, 406, 415 and
420 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. It would thus be necessary
to examine the ingredients of the above offences and whether the
allegations made in the complaint, read on their face, attract those offences
under the Penal Code.
E
13. Section 405 of the Penal Code reads thus:
“Section 405.- Criminal breach of trust.-
Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with
property, or with any dominion over property,
dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his
own use that property, or dishonestly uses or F
disposes of that property in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in which
such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal
contract, express or implied, which he has made
touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully G
suffers any other person so to do, commits
“criminal breach of trust”.
A careful reading of Section 405 shows that the ingredients of a
criminal breach of trust are as follows:
H
192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A i) A person should have been entrusted with property, or
entrusted with dominion over property;
ii) That person should dishonestly misappropriate or convert
to their own use that property, or dishonestly use or
dispose of that property or willfully suffer any other
B person to do so; and
iii) That such misappropriation, conversion, use or disposal
should be in violation of any direction of law prescribing
the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of
any legal contract which the person has made, touching
the discharge of such trust.
C
Entrustment is an essential ingredient of the offence. A person
who dishonestly misappropriates property entrusted to them contrary to
the terms of an obligation imposedis liable for a criminal breach of trust
and is punished under Section 406 of the Penal Code6.
14. Section 415 of the Penal Code reads thus:
D
“Section 415. Cheating.- Whoever, by
deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly
induces the person so deceived to deliver any
property to any person, or to consent that any
person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces
E the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived,
and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause
damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation
or property, is said to “cheat”.”
F The ingredients to constitute an offence of cheating are as
follows:
i) there should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a
person by deceiving him;
ii) (a) the person so induced should be intentionally induced
G to deliver any property to any person or to consent
that any person shall retain any property, or
(b) the person so induced should be intentionally induced
to do or to omit to do anything which he would not
do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
6
Section 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust
H .- Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with
both.
PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY v. SUDHA SEETHARAM 193
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

iii) in cases covered by (ii) (b) above, the act or omission A
should be one which caused or is likely to cause damage
or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation
or property.
A fraudulent or dishonest inducement is an essential ingredient
of the offence. A person who dishonestly induces another person to
B
deliver any property is liable for the offence of cheating.
15. Section 420 of the Penal Code reads thus:
“Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly
inducing deliver of property.- Whoever cheats
and thereby dishonestly induces the person
C
deceived to deliver any property to any person,
or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part
of a valuable security, or anything which is signed
or sealed, and which is capable to being converted
into a valuable security, shall be punished with
D
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine.”
The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 420 are as follows:
i) A person must commit the offence of cheating under E
Section 415; and
ii) The person cheated must be dishonestly induced to
(a) deliver property to any person; or
(b) make, alter or destroy valuable security or
anything signed or sealed and capable of being converted F
into valuable security.
Cheating is an essential ingredient for an act to constitute an offence
under Section 420.
16. A court exercising its inherent jurisdiction must examine if
on their face, the averments made in the complaint constitute the G
ingredients necessary for the offence.The relevant extract of the
complaint filed by the first respondent is extracted below:
“The accused person’s son Mr. Rajiv
VijayasarathyRatnam started to transfer all his
monies to different accounts and also transferred H
some monies belonging to him in the US to his
194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A parents accounts in Bangalore, India and he also
pleaded his wife i.e. Complainant’s daughter
that he also wanted to divert some funds
unto Complainant’s account in Bangalore… That
Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam diverted some of his
monies to Accused No. 1 and 2 and the
B
Complainant…
It is further pertinent to mention that the accident
occurred on 05.02.2010 and money was
transferred on 17.02.2010, the transfer was
due to the insecurity at the behest of Mr.
C Rajiv Vijayasarathy Rathnam, the money was
not sought or required by the complainant.
The Complainant daughter Ms. SavithaSeetharam
convinced the Complainant to accept transfer of
monies which was for the benefit of the
D Accused person’s son Mr. Rajiv Vijayasarathy
Ratnam and to hold it in trust for
him and accordingly the son of the accused
transferred monies on 17 th February 2010
to the Complainant account Rs. 20,00,000/-
E (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) … It is pertinent to
mention that the accused person’s son Mr. Rajiv
Vijayasarathy Ratnam insisted the Complainant
and her husband to pay the said monies by way
of cash to the accused person’s including the
interest…Mr. Rajiv Vijayasarathy Ratnam
F sought for the return of the aforesaid monies
i.e. of Rs. 20,00,000/-”
“…The said monies were paid in cash as per
the dicta of the accused person’s son Mr. Rajiv
Vijayasarathy Ratnam has filed a false and
G frivolous suit…” (Emphasis supplied)
17. The condition necessary for an act to constitute an offence
under Section 405 of the Penal Code is that the accused was entrusted
with some property or has dominion over property. The first respondent
has stated that the disputed sum was transferred by the son of the
appellants of his own volition to her. The complaint clearly states that
H
PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY v. SUDHA SEETHARAM 195
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

the amount was transferred for the benefit of the son of the appellants A
and that the first respondent was to hold the amount ‘in trust’ for him.
The complaint alleges that the money was transferred to the appellants‘as
per the dicta’ of the son of the appellants. There is on the face of the
complaint, no entrustment of the appellants with any property.
18. The condition necessary for an act to constitute an offence B
under Section 415 of the Penal Code is that there was dishonest
inducement by the accused. The first respondent admitted that the
disputed sum was transferred by the son of the appellants to her bank
account on 17 February 2010. She alleges that she transferred the money
belonging to the son of the appellants at his behest. No act on part of the
C
appellants has been alleged that discloses an intention to induce the
delivery of any property to the appellants by the first respondent. There
is thus nothing on the face of the complaint to indicate that the appellants
dishonestly induced the first respondent to deliver any property to them.
Cheating is an essential ingredient to an offence under Section 420 of
the Penal Code. The ingredient necessary to constitute the offence of D
cheating is not made out from the face of the complaint and consequently,
no offence under Section 420 is made out.
19. In Binod Kumar v State of Bihar7certain amounts were
due and payable to a contract worker. When the amount due was not
paid due to a termination of the contract, the worker filed a criminal E
case against the appellant for criminal breach of trust. The appellants’
petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing
was dismissed by the High Court. A two judge Bench of this Court
examined the ingredients of the offence and whether the complaint on
its face disclosed the commission of any offence. This Court quashed
the criminal proceedings holding thus: F
“14. At this stage, we are only concerned with
the question whether the averments in the
complaint taken at their face value make out the
ingredients of criminal offence or not.
18. In the present case, looking at the allegations G
in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no
allegations are made attracting the ingredients of
Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no

7
(2014) 10 SCC 663 H
196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention
of the appellants in retaining the money in order
to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing
wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the
bald allegations that the appellants did not make
payment to the second respondent and that the
B
appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or
for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to
the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property…
19. Even if all the allegations in the complaint taken
at the face value are true, in our view, the basic
C essential ingredients of dishonest misappropriation
and cheating are missing. Criminal proceedings
are not a shortcut for other remedies. Since no
case of criminal breach of trust or dishonest
intention of inducement is made out and the
D essential ingredients of Sections 405/420 IPC are
missing, the prosecution of the appellants under
Sections 406/120-B IPC, is liable to be quashed.”
20. The suit for recovery of money was institutedby the son of
the appellants against the first respondent in 2013. The complaint alleging
offences under the Penal Code was filed by the first respondent belatedly
E
in 2016. It is clear from the face of the complaint, that no amount was
entrustedby the first respondent to either of the appellants and there
was no dishonest inducement of the first respondent by the appellants to
deliver any property. As stated by the first respondent in the complaint,
the money belonged to the son of the appellants. It was transferred by
F the appellants’ son to her on his own volition. The money was alleged to
have been returned to the appellants on the instructions of their son. A
plain reading of the complaint thus shows that the ingredients necessary
for constituting offences under Sections 405, 415 and 420 of the Penal
Code are not made out.
G 21. The respondents have relied on the decision of this Court in
Rajesh Bajaj v State of NCT of Delhi8. In that case,the Delhi High
Court had quashed an FIR alleging an offence under Section 420 of the
Penal Code on the ground that the complaint did not disclose the
commission of any offence. Allowing the complainant’s appeal, this Court
held thus:
H 8
(1999) 3 SCC 259
PROF R K VIJAYASARATHY v. SUDHA SEETHARAM 197
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]

“9. It is not necessary that a complainant should A
verbatim reproduce in the body of his complaint
all the ingredients of the offence he is alleging.
Nor is it necessary that the complainant should
state in so many words that the intention of the
accused was dishonest or fraudulent. Splitting up
B
of the definition into different components of the
offence to make a meticulous scrutiny, whether
all the ingredients have been precisely spelled out
in the complaint, is not the need at this stage. If
factual foundation for the offence has been laid
in the complaint the court should not hasten to C
quash criminal proceedings during investigation
stage merely on the premise that one or two
ingredients have not been stated with details…”
The decision does not advance the submission of the first
respondent. As we have noted above, the complaint in the present case D
is bereft of the basic facts necessary to constitute the offences alleged
under Sections 405, 406, 415 and 420 of the Penal Code.
22. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that
the actions of the first respondent constitute an abuse of process of the
court. It is contended that the present dispute is of a civil nature and the E
first respondent has attempted to cloak it with a criminal flavor to harass
the aged appellants. It is also contended that there is an undue delay in
filing the complaint from which the present appeal arises,and this
demonstrates the mala fide intention of the first respondent in filing the
complaint against the appellants. Learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants relied on the decision of this Court in State of Karnataka v F
L Muniswamy9. In that case, the prosecution alleged that eight of the
accused had conspired to kill the complainant. The Karnataka High Court
quashed the proceedings on the ground that no sufficient ground was
made out against the accused. A three judge Bench of this Court dismissed
the appeal by the State with the following observations:
G
“7…In the exercise of this wholesome power,
the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding
if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the
proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the
9
(1977) 2 SCC 699 H
198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 2 S.C.R.

A process of the Court or that the ends of justice
require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
The saving of the High Court’s inherent powers,
both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve
a salutary public purpose which is that a court
proceeding ought not to be permitted to
B
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or
persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object
behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the
material on which the structure of the prosecution
rests and the like would justify the High Court in
C quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.”
23. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure has to be exercised with care. In the exercise of its jurisdiction,
a High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a
civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence.Where the
D ingredients required to constitute a criminal offence are not made out
from a bare reading of the complaint, the continuation of the criminal
proceedingwill constitute an abuse of the process of the court.
24. In the present case, the son of the appellants has instituted a
civil suit for the recovery of money against the first respondent. The suit
E is pending. The first respondent has filed the complaint against the
appellants six years after the date of the alleged transaction and nearly
three years from the filing of the suit. The averments in the complaint,
read on its face, do not disclose the ingredients necessary to constitute
offences under the Penal Code. An attempt has been made by the first
respondent to cloak a civil dispute with a criminal nature despite the
F absence of the ingredients necessary to constitute a criminal offence.
The complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellants
constitutes an abuse of process of court and is liable to be quashed.
25. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed. The judgment
of the High Court is set aside and the criminal proceedings arising from
G PCR 2116 of 2016 instituted by the first respondent against the appellants
are quashed. We however clarify, that no opinion has been expressed
on the merits of the pending civil suit filed by the son of the appellants
for the recovery of money. The pending suit shall be disposed of in
accordance with the law.

H Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeal allowed.