Cr.P.C. Section 482. Criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that allegations appear to be of civil nature when ingredients of the offence against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint. Karnataka High Court 19 Feb 2021

M/s. Sabre Travel Technologies Private Limtied and others vs State of Karnataka and another. Criminal Petition 154 of 2021 decided on 19 February 2021. Judgment Link: http://judgmenthck.kar.nic.in/judgmentsdsp/bitstream/123456789/367830/1/CRLP154-21-19-02-2021.pdf
Relevant paragraphs: FACTS 2,3&4.The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein has filed the complaint with the police vide his complaint dated 3.11.2020 that in the year 1992, he had joined Sabre at its head quarters in South Lake, Texas, USA and he was transferred in various capacity to serve the Sabre office locations. He was also offered a position as a Director on 12.01.2005 and he accepted the offer and moved to Bengaluru. He had already completed 13 years of service with Sabre. In May 2017, all of a sudden the decision was made to terminate his employment. By that time, he had nearly completed 25 years of service in Sabre. The decision of terminating was without any cause and hence, he would be entitled to a minimum severance pay equal to 12 months of their last drawn salary. His annual fixed salary was Rs.1,42,32,107/- and in addition, he was also entitled to his full tenure gratuity for 25 years of service amounting to Rs.96,36,325/-. Besides the above, he was terminated without cause. He would have been entitled to the payment of the above mentioned amount. Apart from that he had a total of Rs.8,837/- RSU of Sabre, which was valued at Rs.1,24,60,170/-. Hence, he was entitled to a minimum payment of cash of Rs.3,49,15,782/-. He entered into the negotiations in good faith with Sabre India for his voluntarily separation and in the pursuance of the same, the mutual separation agreement was entered into on 31.05.2017. By virtue of the MSA, he was made to forego and forfeit all his claims against Sabre and agreed to pay the amount by way of part-I payment of Rs.52,89,399/- and part-II payment of Rs.2,06,69,245/- on or before 10.12.2017. It is alleged that however, soon after the first tranche of payments was completed. They began behaving in a suspicious and odd manner. He was alerted to this behaviour when he began seeking one set of originals of the executed MSA. The MSA was executed in two originals and both of the originals were retained by Sabre India. When he insisted one copy, they did not furnish in its entirety. By surprise on 13.12.2017, he received an email that they have conducted an internal inquiry after his departure from the Company and came to the purported conclusion that he breached Sabre’s Code of Business Ethics. In the complaint, specific allegation is made that with dishonest intention in order to cheat and defraud him, the MSA was entered and the same was with criminal and mala fide intent and deceived him in forgoing his valuable statutory and contractual claims against them. It is also urged in the complaint that the petitioners herein never intended on performing the MSA and fraudulently and dishonestly induced him in executing the said agreement, for which he was deceived to forego his valuable post- employment claims and he was cheated by executing the MSA. Hence, it attracts the ingredients of the offence alleged in the complaint. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case against these petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 415, 418 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. Hence, the present petition is before this Court.

HELD: 33. In the case on hand, the complaint is specific that with dishonest intention, the MSA was entered into between the parties. This Court would also like to refer to the principles laid down in Criminal Appeal No.255/2019 between Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.  at  para No.9, the Apex Court has held that criminal complaints cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of civil nature. If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted.

34. Having perused the material on record, this Court already pointed out that there was MSA between the parties and also an agreement between the parties. No doubt, there is a clause to withhold the amount. The question before the Court is that whether there was dishonest intention at the inception of the entering into contract and if so, the said question has to be probed by the Investigating Officer if the complaint prima facie discloses the cognizable offence and hence, once the cognizable offence is found in the allegations made in the complaint, the Investigating Officer has to be probe the matter as established under law.
35. In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:-

The petition is hereby dismissed.

Judgments cited:

1. Prof. R.K. Vjayasarathy and Another v.  Sudha  Seetharam  and  Another  (2019) 16 SCC 739,

2. Binod Kumar and Others v. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663,

3. Commissioner of Police and Others v. Devender Anand and  Others  2019  SCConline SC 996,

4. Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v.  State  of  Gujarat  and another (2019) 9 SCC 148,

5. Medmeme, LLC and Others v. Ihorse BPO Solutions Private Limited (2018) 13 SCC 374 ,

6. Joseph Salvaraj A. v.  State  of  Gujarat and Others (2011) 7 SCC 59,

7. K.Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. 2020 SCC Online SC 318,

8. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2019) 14 SCC 350,
9. Mohd. Allauddin Khan v. State of Bihar and Others (2019) 6 SCC 107,

10. Syed Askari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam and Another v. State (Delhi Administration) and another (2009) 5 SCC 528,

11. Som Mittal v. Government of Karnataka reported in (2008) 3 SCC 753,

12. Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India  Limited  and  Others (2006) 6 SCC 736,

13. Devender Kumar Singla v. Baldev Krishan Singla (2005) 9 SCC 15,

14. Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and  Others (2014) 2 SCC 1,

15. Criminal Petition No.3197/2020 between Yogesh Agarwal and Ors. v. State of Karnataka and Ors vide order dated 24.9.2020,

16. Criminal Appeal No.255/2019 between Sau. Kamal Shivaji Pokarnekar v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors.