The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR against a couple, accused of defrauding a woman of Rs 1.40 crore on the promise of securing an MBBS seat for her daughter, holding that mere presence of a monetary/civil transaction cannot be permitted to “smother” a legitimate criminal investigation.

The couple claimed that the case was at best a civil transaction between them and the complainant which happened three years ago and that the complainant waited three years to lodge a complaint.

Rejecting the petitioners' argument that the criminal proceedings were a coercive device for recovery of money, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed:

"The submission that the proceedings are merely a coercive device for recovery of money, therefore, cannot become a talisman by the mere utterance of the expression “civil dispute”. Every transaction involving money does not, by that circumstance alone, shed its criminal complexion. Where the very foundation of the transaction is alleged to have been laid in deception and the victim is induced to part with property on a representation which, from its inception, is alleged to have been dishonest, the cloak of a civil transaction cannot be permitted to smother a legitimate criminal investigation".

The court said that the cloak of a monetary transaction cannot, in every circumstance, be permitted to become a sanctuary for an allegation of criminality, if the ingredients of the offences alleged are otherwise prima facie discernible.

“If the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value, what emerges is, not a mere case of money advanced and money remaining unpaid simpliciter. It is an allegation of a mother's aspiration for her daughter's medical education being converted into an instrument of exploitation,” the Court said.

The petitioners had filed a criminal petition before the High Court, seeking quashing of an FIR against them for the offences under Sections 406 (punishments for criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property) and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code.

The Court found that the allegations made by the complainant, prima facie, constitute the offences under Sections 406 and 420.

“If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are juxtaposed with the ingredients of the offences alleged, what emerges is, even at the very threshold, is that the allegations prima facie travel through every ingredient necessary to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC,” the Court noted.

Addressing the charge of criminal breach of trust, the Court found a clear case of entrustment.

“The allegation is that, a staggering sum of Rs 1,40,00,000/- came to be entrusted to accused Nos.1 and 2 for one singular and specific purpose—to secure a medical seat for the daughter of the complainant. The seat never came; neither did the money return. The allegation is that, the amount so entrusted was dishonestly appropriated by the accused to themselves. If these allegations are taken at their face value, as they must be at this nascent stage of investigation, the ingredients of Section 405 of the IPC prima facie stand attracted, thereby warranting investigation into the offence punishable under Section 406 of the IPC,” the Court held.

Justice Nagaprasanna further observed that a delay in registering a police complaint would not efface the allegations in the complaint, at this stage.

“To obliterate the crime at this embryonic stage would amount to stifling an investigation into allegations which, on their face, disclose cognizable offences,” the Court said.

The petitions were dismissed.

SHILPA ARAVALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, IN CRL.P No. 10705/2026

KIRAN KUMAR P VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, IN CRL.P NO. 10794/2026