ORDER : 1. In this petition petitioner seeks the following reliefs: “a. Call for the entire records in Crime No.115/2023 dt. 12.06.2023 u/ss 406, 420 and 417 of the IPC pending on the file of Hon’ble IV th Addl. CMM court at Bangalore. b. Quash the FIR and complaint in Crime No.115/2023 dt. 12.06.2023 registered by the respondent No.1 Byappanahalli Police Station, Bangalore city u/ss 406, 420 and 417 of the IPC pending before IV th ACMM, Bengaluru based on the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 and quash the entire criminal proceedings against the petitioners. c. Pass such other relief/reliefs as this Hon’ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the respondent No.2 – defacto complainant filed the instant impugned complaint against the petitioner on 12.06.2023 making certain allegations in relation to alleged sale agreement said to have been executed between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1 and an alleged GPA dated 19.11.2022 said to have been executed between respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the alleged sale agreement and GPA pertains to agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.143 and 147 of Thambihalli village, Kolar taluk, involving a commercial transaction relating to immovable property. The respondent No.2 filed the instant complaint which was registered as FIR in Crime No.115/2023 for offence punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 417 of IPC which are assailed in the present petition. 3. In relation to offence punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Race Club and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC Online SC 2248 held as under: “36. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients: In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) 1) There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property. 2) The person entrusted: a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use. b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of: (i) Any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged. 2) The person entrusted: a) Dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use. b) Dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of: (i) Any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged. (ii) Legal contract touching the discharge of trust (see: S.W. Palanitkar. Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are: 1) Deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission; 2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or 3) The consent that any person shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (See: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab) xxx 41. The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating is a fine one. In case of cheating, the intention of the accused at the time of inducement should be looked into which may be judged by a subsequent conduct, but for this, the subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right from the beginning of the transaction i.e. the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is this intention, which is the gist of the offence. 42. Whereas, for the criminal breach of trust, the property must have been entrusted to the accused or he must have dominion over it. The property in respect of which the offence of breach of trust has been committed must be either the property of some person other than the accused or the beneficial interest in or ownership of it must be of some other person. The accused must hold that property on trust of such other person. Although the offence, i.e. the offence of breach of trust and cheating involve dishonest intention, yet they are mutually exclusive and different in basic concept. 43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e., since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. 43. There is a distinction between criminal breach of trust and cheating. For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e., since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in case of cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property. In such a situation, both the offences cannot co-exist simultaneously.” 4. In the instant case, if the impugned complaint and FIR are examined bearing in mind the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgment coupled with well settled position of law that purely commercial/civil transactions which are overwhelmingly and essentially civil in nature cannot be given a criminal color/flavour, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned complaint deserves to be quashed reserving liberty in favour of the respondent No.2 to work out his civil remedies in accordance with law. In fact, a perusal of the complaint would fortify my aforesaid finding as can be seen from the impugned complaint, which reads as under: “From, Susheela M.P. Wife of Dr. K. Borappa Aged 78 years 403, 1 st cross, 6 th main Sadanandanagara Bangalore-560038 Ph: 9110689554 To, Inspector of Police Byappanahalli Police Station Respected Sir, This is to bring to your kind notice, that a lady by name Shilpa .K has cheated us to the tune of Rs.16,50,000/- (sixteen lakhs fifty thousand) in connection with problems of an agricultural land in my name at Thambihalli, Kolar Taluk, survey number 143 and 147 when we came to know that the records related to the above mentioned land (survey no.147) are not proper one of our close family friends introduced this lady to us telling that she would help us and also she herself would purchase the land. In that pretext she asked us to transfer Rs.14,00,000/- (fourteen lakhs) to one Ravichandra at Sathanur, Channapatna Taluk which I did, and also collected Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) cash from me. She asked us to transfer Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) to one Abhishek, her associate. My husband Dr.K. Borappa has also transferred Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) to Abhishek’s account as per her instructions. She took a G.P.A. from me dated 19.11.2022, copy enclosed. She asked us to transfer Rs.50,000/- (fifty thousand) to one Abhishek, her associate. My husband Dr.K. Borappa has also transferred Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) to Abhishek’s account as per her instructions. She took a G.P.A. from me dated 19.11.2022, copy enclosed. She also made a sale agreement with me on 5.11.2022- copy enclosed. She has made some false entry in the agreement claiming she has paid Rs.15,00,000/- cash (fifteen lakh) in 2015 itself when we did not even know her. She has mentioned that she has paid another Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakhs). She said as a formality she would pay Rs.10,00,000/- (ten lakhs) through bank and I should return the same to the account & Ravi Chandra, which I did. I have given the details & bank transfers. We had fever sites at Avani gated community at Antharagange hills, Kolar, and she offered to get E.Khatha done to the sites which she has done from the above amount. In the beginning she was in regular touch with us and she would visit us often with Mr. Abhishek since last 3 to 4 months has started avoiding us and stopped taking our calls and stopped visiting us. Now her phone is switched off. After patiently waiting all these days, we have approached you to help us to come out of this problem. She has also collected the original documents related to the lands survey numbers 143 and 147. We completely trusted her as she was introduced to us by our close family friend. Below I have given the details of money transferred to one Ravichandra and Abhishek. Details & Money transferred by Susheela M.P. to Ravichandra. A/c No. 702250012359901 IFSC: KAR 0000702 Karnataka Bank: By Cheque No.467238 Dated 10.11.2022 Rs. 14,00,000/- Cheque No.467240 Dated 15.11.2022 Rs. 1,00,000/- To Abhishek by phone pay on 1.12.2022 Rs. 25,000/- On 18.12.2022 Rs. 25,000/- Money paid to Abhishek by Dr. K. Borappa Rs 1,00,000/- To his phone No. +919591554692. Shilpa’s address and phone number. No.9, 1 st floor, outer ring road, Bangalore 560060 Phone Nos of Abhishek +91 9019099388, +91 9554692 Thanking you Yours's sincerely Sd/- (SUSHEELA M.P.) Mobile: 9110689554 Contact number Dr. K. Borappa 6362310643” 5. 25,000/- On 18.12.2022 Rs. 25,000/- Money paid to Abhishek by Dr. K. Borappa Rs 1,00,000/- To his phone No. +919591554692. Shilpa’s address and phone number. No.9, 1 st floor, outer ring road, Bangalore 560060 Phone Nos of Abhishek +91 9019099388, +91 9554692 Thanking you Yours's sincerely Sd/- (SUSHEELA M.P.) Mobile: 9110689554 Contact number Dr. K. Borappa 6362310643” 5. As is clear from the impugned complaint, the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2 relates to a commercial transaction involving immovable property and pertaining to alleged GPA and agreement of sale said to have been executed between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 which would necessarily have to be worked out before the competent civil court. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that continuation of the impugned proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed. The impugned proceedings pursuant to FIR and complaint in Crime No.115/2023 dt. 12.06.2023 registered by the respondent No.1 Byappanahalli Police Station, Bangalore city u/ss 406, 420 and 417 of the IPC pending before IV th ACMM, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed. 6. It is made clear that the present order is restricted to the impugned FIR and no opinion is expressed as regards the rival contentions before any other forum, Court, authority and liberty reserved is in favour of the parties to work out their civil remedy in accordance with law.