ORDER : 1. The complainant and the petitioners had certain business transactions which resulted in the complainant lodging a complaint with respondent No.1-Police. Accused No.1 is the father, accused No.2 is his daughter, accused No.3 is the son-in-law and accused No.4 is the assistant of accused No.1. Criminal Petition No.4799/2024 is filed by accused No.2; Criminal Petition No.5231/2024 is filed by accused No.3 and Criminal Petition No.5657/2024 is filed by accused No.1 and accused No.4. 2. The complaint lodged by respondent No.2-complainant reads as under: 3. Based on the said complaint, the respondent No.1-Police have registered a Crime No.37/2024 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore City, for the offences under Sections 420, 406, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'). 4. Though several grounds are raised by the petitioners in their petitions, in the course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for accused Nos.1 and 4 limits her arguments to the following grounds: i) Accused No.1 in the course of the transactions has issued post-dated cheques in favour of respondent No.2-complainant and the same have been dishonoured and respondent No.2-complainant has preferred a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the N.I. Act') and both the police complaint and the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are not maintainable. ii) It is further contended that in the present FIR, police have accused, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 of committing offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC (Punishment for criminal breach of trust; Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), which are mutually destructive. 5. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.3 apart from adopting the arguments of the learned counsel for the other accused has also contended that the complaint does not disclose the commission of any offence by accused No.3 and prays for allowing the petition as prayed for. 6. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader, upon instructions, submits that accused No.1 is in the habit of collecting money from various persons and not giving them any property nor returning back the money as promised and more than seven(7) criminal cases are pending against him. Further, he contends that the allegations made in the complaint justify the registering of the FIR by the police and prays for dismissal of the petitions. 7. Further, he contends that the allegations made in the complaint justify the registering of the FIR by the police and prays for dismissal of the petitions. 7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant adopts the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader and prays for dismissal of the petitions. 8. Perusal of the complaint reveals that respondent No.2-complainant has transferred money through RTGS and also by cash. It also reveals that accused No.1 has issued certain cheques to refund the same upon he not being able to get the property registered as promised. There is a direct allegation made against accused Nos.2 and 4 (daughter and assistant of accused No.1) about they being involved in inducing the complainant to pay the money to accused No.1. In respect of accused No.3 the only allegation made is that when she approached accused No.2 for refund of the money, he threatened the complainant with dire consequences and abused her. 9. Whether the aforementioned facts as alleged by the complainant took place or not is a matter to be investigated. It cannot be decided by this Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'the Cr.P.C). However, there is an allegation of only one transaction in the complaint, that is, payment of amounts by the complainant to accused No.1 and accused No.1 not being able to purchase the property as agreed upon and the failure on the part of accused No.1 to repay the money when demanded by the complainant. Upon investigation, the police will have to decide whether the said allegation is true or false. If true, then whether it amounts to an offence under Sections 406 of the IPC or 420 of the IPC. A person cannot be accused of both the offences under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC, for the same act which constitute an offence because in Criminal Breach of Trust, there is misappropriation subsequent to receipt of money and there is no mens rea at the time of receiving the money. Whereas in cheating, there is mens rea at the time of receiving the money itself. Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are mutually destructive. However, just because an error is committed in mentioning the offences in FIR, that will not be a ground for quashing the proceedings against the accused. Whereas in cheating, there is mens rea at the time of receiving the money itself. Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC are mutually destructive. However, just because an error is committed in mentioning the offences in FIR, that will not be a ground for quashing the proceedings against the accused. The police upon receiving a complaint, being prima facie of the opinion that an offence has been committed, have registered the FIR. It is possible that erroneous sections are mentioned in the FIR. After investigation, the same can always be rectified while filing the police report. Even thereafter, if the accused are not charged with the right kind of the offences, the trial Court has the power to alter the same. A mistake in the FIR mentioning an erroneous offence will not be fatal to it. 10. However, in respect of accused No.3, the only allegation made against him is that when the complainant visited accused No.2 at her residence to ask for money to be returned, accused No.3 being the husband of accused No.2 threatened her and abused her verbally. Thus, the proceedings can lie against accused No.3 only insofar as it relates to an offence under Sections 506 and 34 of the IPC and not under any other provisions. However, in respect of the other accused, no such benefit can be granted to them at this stage. 11. Insofar as it relates to the maintainability of proceedings against accused No.1 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and also filing a complaint as it has been done in the instant case, I am of the opinion that both are maintainable. This is because, the present complaint against accused No.1 is filed on the ground that he has cheated the complainant and the proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been initiated for not paying the legally dischargeable debt and the cheque issued in this regard has been dishonoured. In my opinion, the act which has given rise to the filing of the present complaint and the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act are two different Acts and hence, though both form part of one transaction are maintainable. Hence, the following: ORDER: i. The proceedings against accused No.3 under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC stands quashed. However, proceedings against him under Sections 506 and 34 of the IPC shall continue. ii. Hence, the following: ORDER: i. The proceedings against accused No.3 under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC stands quashed. However, proceedings against him under Sections 506 and 34 of the IPC shall continue. ii. The petitions stands dismissed as against other accused.