Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kanaka Krishna Reddy vs State Of Karnataka By on 6 January, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10289 OF 2023
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10310 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10670 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10725 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10783 OF 2023
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11137 OF 2023
IN CRL.P No. 10289/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KANAKA KRISHNA REDDY
Digitally
W/O KRISHNA REDDY,
signed by AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
NAGAVENI
Location:
High Court of 2. SUNIL KUMAR K.,
Karnataka
S/O KRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.142,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
DEVAMMA COMPOUND,
INDIRANAGARA, HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BANNERGHATTA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. C. KUMAR
S/O CHOKKAN,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT NO.74/1,
BHOVI COLONY,
THYAGARAJ NAGAR, 3RD BLOCK,
BENGALURU - 560 028.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE FIR IN CR.NO.74/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 384,
406, 420, 447, 465, 468, 471, 506(B) OF IPC AND UNDER
SECTION 192(a) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2007 OF BANNERGHATTA POLICE
STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL
PROCEEDINGS IN PCR.NO.42/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., ANEKAL.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
IN CRL.P NO. 10310/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KANAKA KRISHNA REDDY
W/O. KRISHNA REDDY V.,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
2. SUNIL KUMAR K.,
S/O. KRISHNA REDDY V.,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 142,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
DEVAMMA COMPOUND,
INDIRANAGARA,
HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BANNERGHATTA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. A. VADIVEL
S/O R. ARAVANAN,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 789, 31ST CROSS,
THILAK NAGAR, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.106/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 384, 406, 420, 447, 465, 468, 471, 506(B) OF IPC
AND UNDER SECTION 192(a) OF KARNATAKA LAND
REVENUE (AMENDMENT) ACT 2007 OF BANNERGHATTA
P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C AT ANEKAL AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL
PROCEEDINGS IN PCR.NO.43/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT ANEKAL.
IN CRL.P NO. 10670/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KANAKA KRISHNA REDDY
W/O KRISHNA REDDY V.,
AGED 63 YEARS.
2. SUNIL KUMAR K.,
S/O KRISHNA REDDY V.,
AGED 43 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.142,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
DEVAMMA COMPOUND,
INDIRANAGARA, HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 008
...PETITIONERS
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BANNERGHATTA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MOHAMMED RAFI
S/O MOHAMMED YOUSUF,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO 6/1, 'F' CROSS,
NEW GURAPPANAPALYA,
D.R.COLLEGE POST,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.61/2023 AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 384, 406, 420,
447, 465, 468, 471, 506(B) OF IPC OF BANNERGHATTA
POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH
ALL PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.37/2023, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
IN CRL.P NO. 10725/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KANAKA KRISHNA REDDY
W/O KRISHNA REDDY V.,
AGED 63 YEARS
2. SUNIL KUMAR K.,
S/O KRISHNA REDDY V.,
AGED 43 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.142,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
DEVAMMA COMPOUND,
INDIRANAGARA, HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BANNERGHATTA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. PARTHASARATHY
S/O G.SUBRAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.248, 31ST A CROSS,
THILAKNAGAR, JAYANGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE, FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.67/2023 AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 384, 406,
420, 447, 465, 468, 471, 506(B) OF IPC OF
BANNERGHATTA P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF
ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN) AND J.M.F.C AT ANEKAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS IN
PCR.NO.39/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT ANEKAL.
IN CRL.P NO. 10783/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KANAKA KRISHNA REDDY
W/O KRISHNA REDDY V.,
AGED 63 YEARS.
2. SUNIL KUMAR K.,
S/O KRISHNA REDDY V.,
AGED 43 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.142,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
DEVAMMA COMPOUND,
INDIRANAGARA, HAL 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...PETITIONERS
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BANNERGHATTA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. L.TERRACE
S/O I.LAWRANCE,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT NO.788, 31ST CROSS,
THILAK NAGAR, JAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 041.
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
I. LAWRANCE,
FATHER OF COMPLAINANT
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R/AT NO.788, 31ST CROSS,
THILAK NAGAR,
JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.105/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 384, 406, 420, 447, 465, 468, 471, 506(B) OF IPC
AND U/S 192(a) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
(AMENDMENT) ACT 2007 OF BANNERGHATTA P.S.,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.)
AND J.M.F.C AT ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS IN
PCR.NO.44/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C AT ANEKAL,
BENGALURU RURAL.
IN CRL.P NO. 11137/2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KANAKA KRISHNA REDDY
W/O KRISHNA REDDY V.,
AGED 63 YEARS.
2. SUNIL KUMAR K.,
S/O KRISHNA REDDY V.,
AGED 43 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO.142,
KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD,
DEVAMMA COMPOUND, INDIRANGARA
HAL 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 008.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BANNERGHATTA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SHEKAR
S/O LATE DORAISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO 29, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
MLA LAYOUT, KALENAHAGRAHARA,
MOUNT ST. JOSEPH,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI M.T.NANAIAH, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRABHUGOUD B.TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.62/2023 AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 384,
406, 420, 447, 465, 468, 471, 506(B) OF IPC OF
BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC AT ANEKAL AND
CONSEQUENTLY QUASH ALL PROCEEDINGS IN PCR
NO.41/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE
(JR.DN.) AND JMFC AT ANEKAL.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners, who are common in all these cases, are before this Court calling in question registration of crime in different crime numbers against these petitioners, while the offences remain common.
2. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
2.1. The complainants, in these cases, are said to have purchased different sites of Mantapa Village, Khata No.345/155/1-09, Hullahalli, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk on 19-
04-2017. The petitioners/accused purchase property from the hands of one N.Bhagyalakshmi and one N.Nagaraju to an extent of 33 guntas in Survey No. 155/1 for certain consideration. The vendors of the petitioners later execute a confirmation deed on account of closure of a civil suit in OS No.452 of 2016 on 09-06-2022. Therefore, the petitioners purchase the property in Survey No. 155/1 to an extent of 33 guntas, which comes to be confirmed by the vendor, after the closure of the civil suit in OS No.452 of 2016. The petitioners,
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
after the purchase of the property wanting to develop the property, are said to have demolished the compound wall on 10-11-2022. On the score that the property belonged to the complainants and the compound wall built up by the complainants was sought to be demolished by the present petitioners/the accused, the complainants seek to register a complaint before the jurisdictional police.
2.2. The jurisdictional police does not entertain the complaint on the score that the dispute was purely civil in nature and issues an endorsement accordingly. The complainant then approaches the Deputy Superintendent of Police, as obtaining under Section 154(3) of the CrPC. The Deputy Superintendent of Police also refers the matter to the very same police station, who again issue an endorsement that the matter is purely civil in nature and therefore, the police would not register the crime. The complainants then invoke Section 200 of the CrPC by registering private complaints against the present petitioners and seeks reference of the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The reference leads to registration of a crime against these
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
petitioners in different crime numbers viz., Crime Nos.74 of 2023, 106 of 2023, 61 of 2023, 67 of 2023, 105 of 2023 and 62 of 2023 respectively, for offences punishable under Sections 384, 406, 420, 447, 465, 468, 471, 506B of IPC and under Section 192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Act, 2007. The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in all these cases.
3. Heard Sri Manjunath B R, learned counsel appearing for petitioners/accused, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M. T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Sri Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2/complainants, in all these cases.
4. The learned counsel Sri Manjunath B R appearing for the petitioners in all these cases would vehemently contend that the issue in the lis is purely civil in nature. The petitioners, after the execution of the sale deed, were wanting to develop the property and therefore have demolished the structures that were standing in the said property. The learned counsel
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
submits, the petitioners having secured a sale deed and all the records standing in the name of the petitioners, are entitled to develop the property in the manner they wanted to. Therefore, he would submit that there can be no offence under Section 447 of the IPC or any other offences alleged against these petitioners. The learned counsel would further submit that if the investigation is permitted to continue, it would amount permitting the police to interfere in a civil matter and investigate into the title of the property, which ought to be done before the competent Civil Court.
5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri M. T. Nanaiah appearing for the 2nd respondent/complainants would seek to defend the action of registration of the crimes. The learned senior counsel submits that the complainants, in the cases at hand, have separate sale deeds in their favour, They have purchased the property from one Anthony Raj and would take this Court through the sale deed executed by one Anthony Raj in favour of one C. Kumar, who is the complainant in Criminal No.10289 of 2023. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioners while purchasing the property ought to have
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
done due diligence that there is already a sale deed subsisting in favour of the complainant and therefore ought not to have purchased the property. He would accept the fact that the petitioners are the purchasers of the property, which admittedly belonged to the complainants in the case at hand.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the issue is purely civil in nature, therefore the police declined to register the crime against the accused. Now that the matter has been referred by the learned Magistrate, the police do not have any option but to register the crime and continue with the investigation. He would submit that if the Court would permit investigation, they would conduct investigation, notwithstanding the earlier denial of registration of crime when the complainant had approached the police.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The issue in all these cases is with regard to, who is the owner of
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
the property. The complainant in Crl.P.No.10289 of 2023 has appended to the statement of objections a sale deed which is of the year 2012. The sale deed depicts vacant site. In what survey number is a mystery. Later, certain documents are produced in all these cases where objections are filed, which do not directly reflect the name of the complainants in those cases, as the documents relate to a period either anterior to the sale deeds or after the sale deeds. The complainants have filed the private complaints only on the strength of those sale deeds which do not directly reflect the names of the complainant with site numbers.
9. Contrariwise, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed certain documents. The petitioners are purchasers from the hands of two vendors, N. Bhagyalakshmi and N. Nagaraju measuring 33 guntas of land in the same survey number and other survey numbers and other extents of land in other cases and the revenue records or the statutory records for the same now stand in the name of the petitioners.
Therefore, to develop the property, they wanted to take steps to clean the property. Then, springs the impugned complaint
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
from the hands of the complainants, who had not done anything since 2012. Now that the property is purchased and wanting to be developed by the petitioners, the complaint springs from the hands of the complainants in these cases.
Since the entire issue is now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice certain paragraphs of the complaint in Crl.P.No.10289 of 2023 and it reads as follows:
".... .... ....
12. It is submitted that accused No.1 and 2 deceived the complainant and other purchasers through layout sketch and photographs, he falsely portrayed the said LAKSHMI LAYOUT as if in the city neighborhood close to major city land marks. They had sold them as if fully developed township with lavish infrastructures and amenities. Through his false presentations, the senior citizens and laber class people became gullible buyers. We were made believe that the house sites were formed in compliance with all governmental regulations with regard to the formation of townships.
13. The complainant submits that on 10th November 2022, around 10 O'clock morning the complainant and his co-site owner's visited his site for inspection, to his shock and surprise found that the compound walls and layout marking demolished, there he had seen the above said Accused/persons have entered into the land with antisocial elements and rowdies with weapons, accompanied by tipper lories and with JCB and demolished the compound walls and sheds, and they were acting under the instructions of Mr.Sunilkumar accused No.4 and N. Nagaraj
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
accused No.2. When the complainant and others inquired the matter in detail it was found that the land was taken over by the said accused No.1 and 2 by way of a fresh sale, and further complainant asked the trespassers who are you all, why you people demolishing the compound wall and erasing the marked roads and drainage culverts etc., in turn the said persons and their associates attempted to assault us and threatened to kill us with the weapons and chased us away, further they threatened with dire consequences and said that don't come to the site, if you people try enter the property we will finish you.
14. The trespassers have caused serious damages to our properties. They destroyed the compound walls and erased the layout markings and caused damages to the other sites also. They stole away our constructions materials and fencing steel wires along with my vendors to cheat me. The total cost of the damages to our schedule properties amounts Rs.100000/-(Rupees One Lakh). I am herewith enclosing the photographs of the damage caused to my properties and left over debris caused by their demolition. A copy of the photograph is herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.12.
15. The said accused had directed the complainant not initiate any legal proceedings including approaching the police with complaint against them. The accused has threatened the complainant with dire consequences to his life if proceeded against their wish. The accused persons known to be highly influential having deep roots and connections with rowdy elements, goondas and killers likely to do away with our lives of the complainant and other family members.
16. The complainant further submits that they immediately approached to the jurisdictional Bennarughatta Police station to give complaint to against them. After receiving the complaint by the SHO, she asked us to wait for the Police inspector to come, after the area rounds the Police Inspector
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
came and called us and enquired about the complaint, after hearing from us the Police Inspector asked us to wait till the other parties to come, we are all waited till late evening, but the other parties did not come, so the Police Inspector asked us to come tomorrow, accordingly very next day we are all went to the Police station, by the time the said accused persons 2 and 4 was present in the station, the Police Inspector asked both parties to settle the matter amicably but the accused persons denied to give back our sites, immediately the Police Inspector directed the SHO to take the complaint and to issue acknowledgements. Accordingly the SHO is issued complaint acknowledgement bearing Reference No. GSC NO. 860/2022 dated 10.11.2022 and refused to register the FIR but issued an endorsement Sl.No.860/2022 dated 10.11.2022 to approach the court of law as it is a pure in civil dispute. The copy of the Police complaint, acknowledgement, and Station endorsement are herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.13, 14 & 15.
17. Further submitted that, aggrieved by this police station endorsement the complainant filed a petition/appeal to the Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru District, the same was forwarded to the Police station from SP office under reference No.451/Arjee /SP/BD/S-2/2022 dated 20.01.2023, again the Police Inspector issued an endorsement bearing No. BGPS/H Arjee /08/2023 dated 26.01.2023 stating that this is land dispute case hence you are directed to approach the court law to solve complaint, hence this complaint. The Copy of the petition to the SP Bengaluru District dated 07.01.2023 and the endorsement to the petition bearing No.BGPS/H Arjee/08/2023 are herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.16, 17.
18. It is humbly submit that there were earlier incidences of trespasses and threatening to the other co site owners namely Mr.Parthasarathy, C.M.Ravikumar, Suresh, and N.Govindaraj which have reported to the Circle Inspector, the first being dated 25.05.2022 under reference
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
No.AKL/CPI/L-Pet-10/2022, No.AKL/CPI/L-Pet-
09/2022, No.AKL/CPI/L-Pet-11/2022, and
No.AKL/CPI/L-Pet-12/2022 respectively. The said land owner Smt. N.Bhagyalakshmi and her husband Sri.N Nagaraj, Smt.Kanaka Krishna Reddy and Sri. Sunilkumar are jointly preplanned to cheat us. The copy of the previous Petition dated 25.05 2022 are herewith produced and marked as DOCUMENT No.18.
19. When the complainant came to know about all the said facts and immediately, he has personally requested his vendors' family members informed the complainant, that at no point of time they have not executed any sale deeds in favour of any one by receiving any consideration amount. But the accused No1 and 2 have given permission to the accused No-3 & 4 to destroy the layout and to demolish compound walls etc., in respect of the said property with sole intention to knock of the scheduled property.
20. It is submitted that the complainant and his family members are very poor and invested the hard earned money to buy this site hence the complainant have filed this case.
21. The complainant reserves liberty to adduce additional evidence and witnesses at the stage of complainant's evidence.
22. The accused persons and their henchmen have committed an offences under sections 384, 406, 420, 447 465, 468, 471, 506(B) of IPC and 192(A) Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
23. The accused persons has committed the offences within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court and the Bennarughatta Police Station.
PRAYER Wherefore, it is humbly prayed that in view of the above facts and circumstances, this Hon'ble court may be pleased to direct the police Inspector, Bennarughatta
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
Police Station under section 156(3) to register a case against the accused and investigate the case in the aforesaid offences in the interest of justice."
A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that the dispute is with regard to who is the owner of the property and pursuant to which sale deed. The alleged sale deed of the respondent is of the year 2012 and the alleged sale deed of the petitioners is of the year 2022.
10. The issue would be, whether the investigation should be permitted to be continued for the purpose of determination of who is the owner of the property through which sale deed or which sale deed is a fraud or otherwise. These matters are seemingly civil in nature, which will have to be thrashed out before a competent Civil Court. By registering a private complaint, it cannot be said that every case, which is civil in nature, can merely because it is directed to be investigated into, should be permitted to be investigated into. The Magistrate ought to have scrutinized the material prior to referring the matter for investigation, as to whether the dispute is civil in nature or otherwise. The issue of permitting such
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
investigations by the learned Magistrates when the material would clearly disclose facts being civil in nature is considered by the Apex Court in the case of RIKHAB BIRANI v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, wherein it is held as follows:
"17. This Court, in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2024) 10 SCC 690], highlighted the fine distinction between the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating, observing that the two are antithetical in nature and cannot coexist simultaneously. Police officers and courts must carefully apply their minds to determine whether the allegations genuinely constitute the specific offence alleged.
18. In Kunti v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2023) 6 SCC 109], this Court referred to Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab [(2023) 5 SCC 360], wherein it was observed that a breach of contract does not give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. Merely on the allegation of failure to keep a promise will not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. Thus, the dishonest intention on the part of the party who is alleged to have committed the offence of cheating should be established at the time of entering into the transaction with the complainant, otherwise the offence of cheating is not established or made out.
19. It is the duty and obligation of the court to exercise a great deal of caution in issuing process, particularly when the matter is essentially of civil nature [G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636]. The prevalent impression that civil remedies, being time-consuming, do not adequately protect the
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
interests of creditors or lenders should be discouraged and rejected as criminal procedure cannot be used to apply pressure [Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal, (2022) 7 SCC 124]. Failure to do so results in the breakdown of the rule of law and amounts to misuse and abuse of the legal process.
20. In yet another case, again arising from criminal proceedings initiated in the State of Uttar Pradesh [Deepak Gaba v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2023) 3 SCC 423] this Court was constrained to note recurring cases being encountered wherein parties repeatedly attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of criminal courts by filing vexatious complaints, camouflaging allegations that are ex facie outrageous or are pure civil claims. These attempts must not be entertained and should be dismissed at the threshold. Reference was made to a judgment of this Court in Thermax Limited v. K.M. Johny [(2011) 13 SCC 412], which held that courts should be watchful of the difference between civil and criminal wrongs, though there can be situations where the allegation may constitute both civil and criminal wrongs. Further, there has to be a conscious application of mind on these aspects by the Magistrate, as a summoning order has grave consequences of setting criminal proceedings in motion. Though the Magistrate is not required to record detailed reasons, there should be adequate evidence on record to set criminal proceedings into motion. The Magistrate should carefully scrutinize the evidence on record and may even put questions to the complainant/investigating officer etc. to elicit answers to find out the truth about the allegations. The summoning order has to be passed when the complaint or chargesheet discloses an offence and when there is material that supports and constitutes essential ingredients of the offence. The summoning order should not be passed lightly or as a matter of course.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
21. Lastly, we would refer to another detailed judgment of this Court in Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2024 SCC OnLine SC 726], which draws out the ingredients required to establish an offence under Sections 406, 415, 420, 503 and 506 of the IPC in the following terms:
"36. An offence under Section 406 of the IPC requires entrustment, which carries the implication that a person handing over any property or on whose behalf the property is handed over, continues to be the owner of the said property. Further, the person handing over the property must have confidence in the person taking the property to create a fiduciary relationship between them. A normal transaction of sale or exchange of money/consideration does not amount to entrustment. Clearly, the charge/offence of Section 406 IPC is not even remotely made out.
37. The chargesheet states that the offence under Section 420 is not made out. The offence of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC requires dishonest inducement, delivering of a property as a result of the inducement, and damage or harm to the person so induced. The offence of cheating is established when the dishonest intention exists at the time when the contract or agreement is entered, for the essential ingredient of the offence of cheating consists of fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him to deliver any property, to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he had not been deceived. As per the investigating officer, no fraudulent and dishonest inducement is made out or established at the time when the agreement was entered.
38. An offence of criminal intimidation arises when the accused intendeds to cause alarm to the victim, though it does not matter whether the victim is alarmed or not. The intention of the accused to cause alarm must be established by bringing evidence on
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
record. The word 'intimidate' means to make timid or fearful, especially : to compel or deter by or as if by threats. The threat communicated or uttered by the person named in the chargesheet as an accused, should be uttered and communicated by the said person to threaten the victim for the purpose of influencing her mind. The word 'threat' refers to the intent to inflict punishment, loss or pain on the other. Injury involves doing an illegal act.
39. This Court in Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, had referred to Section 506 which prescribes punishment for the offence of 'criminal intimidation' as defined in Section 503 of the IPC, to observe that the offence under Section 503 requires that there must be an act of threating another person with causing an injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested. This threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or omit to do an act which he is entitled to do. Mere expression of any words without any intent to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring home an offence under Section 506 of the IPC. The material and evidence must be placed on record to show that the threat was made with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant, or to cause them to do, or omit to do an act. Considering the statutory mandate, offence under Section 506 is not shown even if we accept the allegation as correct."
22. Significantly, this Court in Sharif Ahmed (supra) cautioned courts to check such attempts of making out a criminal case on the basis of vague and ex facie false assertions.
23. Further, Sharif Ahmed (supra) exposits the legal position relating to the ingredients and contents of a chargesheet, drawing upon several earlier judgments of this Court which elucidate the contents of a police report under Section 173(2) of
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
the Cr.P.C. It also clarifies the course of action to be adopted by the Magistrate when the chargesheet is found to be incomplete or vague in content. In this context, reference may be made to Sections 190 and 204 of the Cr.P.C., as well as Sections 211 to 213 and 218 of the Cr.P.C., which collectively govern the framing and contents of a charge. Some of the portions of this judgment are reproduced below:
"13. The question of the required details being complete must be understood in a way which gives effect to the true intent of the chargesheet under Section 173(2) of the Code. The requirement of "further evidence" or a "supplementary chargesheet"
as referred to under Section 173(8) of the Code, is to make additions to a complete chargesheet8, and not to make up or reparate for a chargesheet which does not fulfil requirements of Section 173(2) of the Code. The chargesheet is complete when it refers to material and evidence sufficient to take cognizance and for the trial. The nature and standard of evidence to be elucidated in a chargesheet should prima facie show that an offence is established if the material and evidence is proven. The chargesheet is complete where a case is not exclusively dependent on further evidence. The trial can proceed on the basis of evidence and material placed on record with the chargesheet. This standard is not overly technical or fool-proof, but a pragmatic balance to protect the innocent from harassment due to delay as well as prolonged incarceration, and yet not curtail the right of the prosecution to forward further evidence in support of the charges.
XXXXXX
16. This Court in Bhushan Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) while referring to Sections 190 and 204 of the Code has observed that the expression "cognisance" in Section 190 merely means "becoming aware of", and when used with reference to a court or a judge it connotes "to take notice of judicially". It indicates the juncture at which the court or Magistrate takes
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
judicial notice of the offence with a view to initiate proceedings in respect of such an offence. This is different from initiation of proceedings. Rather, it is a condition precedent to the initiation of proceedings by a Magistrate or judge. At this stage, the Magistrate has to keep in mind the averments in the complaint or the police report, and has to evaluate whether there is sufficient ground for initiation of proceedings. This is not the same as the consideration of sufficient grounds for conviction, as whether evidence is sufficient for supporting the conviction or not, can be determined only at the stage of trial, and not at the stage of cognisance. This aspect is important and will be subsequently referred to when we examine the decision of this Court in K. Veeraswami v. Union of India, and the observations therein which have been referred to on several occasions in other judgments.
17. Section 204 of the Code does not mandate the Magistrate to explicitly state the reasons for issue of summons and this is not a prerequisite for deciding the validity of the summons. Nevertheless, the requirement of the Code is that the summons is issued when it appears to the Magistrate that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. Summons is issued to the person against whom the legal proceedings have commenced. Wilful disobedience is liable to be punished under Section 174 of the Penal Code, 1860. As a sequitur, keeping in mind both the language of Section 204 of the Code and the penal consequences, the Magistrate is mandated to form an opinion as to whether there exists sufficient ground for summons to be issued. While deciding whether summons is to be issued to a person, the Magistrate can take into consideration any prima facie improbabilities arising in the case. The parameters on which a summoning order can be interfered with are well settled by the decision of this court in Bhushan
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
Kumar (supra). The Magistrate in terms of Section 204 of the Code is required to exercise his judicial discretion with a degree of caution, even when he is not required to record reasons, on whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Proceedings initiated by a criminal court are generally not interfered with by High Courts, unless necessary to secure the ends of justice.
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court holds that the Magistrate while ordering investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC, ought to apply his mind as to whether the material on record would divulge that the proceedings are purely civil in nature or otherwise and only then refer the matter for investigation.
11. The case at hand is akin to what the Apex Court has considered in the aforesaid judgment. The Magistrate has referred the matter for investigation without even looking into the material as to whether it would constitute an offence or otherwise. Merely because the offences are sought, the crime is directed to be registered under Section 156(3) of CrPC, be that as it may. The facts narrated hereinabove would clearly disclose that the complainants are wanting the police to investigate into the status of ownership of the parties, which
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
admittedly is impermissible and this Court, by a stroke of pen, would not permit such action at the hands of the police.
12. The Apex Court in a plethora of cases has held that civil cases which are given a cloak of criminal offence ought to be quashed by the High Courts by exercising their inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC. I deem it appropriate to notice the recent judgments of the Apex Court on this issue.
12.1. The Apex Court in the case of JIT VINAYAK AROLKAR v. STATE OF GOA1 holds as follows:
"10. Thus, in short, the grievance of the 4th respondent is that the vendors under the sale deeds had only an undivided share in the subject property, and they could not have sold the entire subject property under the sale deeds. The contention of the appellant is that what is sold is the right, title and interest of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar. Thus, the dispute between the parties is predominantly a civil dispute.
11. Section 415, which defines cheating, reads thus:
"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 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 1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 31
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat".
Explanation.--A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section."
12. It is pertinent to note that the purchasers under the sale deeds have not made any grievance about the sale deeds. In the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar [(2009) 8 SCC 751], in paragraphs 20 to 23, this Court held thus:
"20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused.
21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner.
22. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in Section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there was an offence punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419 or 420 of the Code.
A clarification
23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint."
(emphasis added) 12.1 In this case, it is impossible to understand how the appellant deceived the 4th respondent and how the act of execution of sale deeds by the appellant caused or was likely to cause damage or harm to the 4th respondent in body, mind, reputation or property. The appellant has not purported to execute the sale deeds on behalf of the 4th respondent. He has not purported to transfer the rights of the 4th respondent. There is no allegation that the appellant deceived the 4th respondent to transfer or deliver the subject property.
13. Taking the complaint as correct, the offence of cheating under Section 415 of IPC was not made out against the appellant. Moreover, the complaint was filed by the 4th respondent for the first time after a time gap of two years from the date of institution of the civil suits. In the complaint, he suppressed the fact that civil suits were already filed in which applications for temporary injunction were made. When there was a dispute over the title, the act of the 4th respondent of setting in motion criminal law two years after the date of filing of the suits amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of law.
(Emphasis supplied)
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
12.2. The Apex Court in the case of MALA CHOUDHARY v. STATE OF TELANGANA2 holds as follows:
"11. The averments in the impugned FIR are to the effect that the accused appellants orally agreed to sell plot No. 82 and a farm house at Delhi to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only) whereas in a civil suit which was filed much after the lodging of the FIR, the complainant has specifically averred that the agreement for sale was made for a consideration of Rs. 1,15,000/- per square yard and the total value of the plot was Rs. 5,75,00,000/-. Thus, there is a drastic variance in the complainant's allegations qua the oral agreement as narrated in the FIR vis-a-vis as set out in the plaint. In order to aggravate the allegations, the complainant also alleged in the FIR that the accused appellants assured the complainant that on the intervention of appellant No. 1, the neighbouring plot owner i.e., Mr. Devraj would also sell his plot to the complainant. However, the averments in the civil suit instituted by the complainant do not bear even a semblance of this aspersion.
12. Thus, clearly the complainant has manipulated and distorted the facts and has used its influence for getting the FIR registered against the appellants. On a bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that a plain and simple dispute involving non- execution of a registered sale deed in terms of so- called oral agreement to sell has been given the cloak of a criminal case by misusing the criminal machinery. Not only this, appellant No. 1 being a 70 years' old lady and wife of a retired Army officer was arrested in connection with this false and frivolous FIR and had to remain in the custody for almost eight days.2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1474
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
13. We are of the firm opinion that even from the admitted allegations set out in the complaint, there was no justification for registering the FIR and rather the complainant should have been instructed to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the civil Court.
14. In gross disregard to all tenets of law, the impugned FIR came to be registered for allegations which had no elements of any offence whatsoever what to talk of a cognizable offence. The fact that appellant No. 1 was arrested in this frivolous FIR clearly shows the clout of the company of which the complainant is an agent, on the police agency as not only did the complainant manage to get the FIR registered, but thereafter, also saw to it that appellant No. 1 is arrested and humiliated by keeping her in custody for eight days. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, the appellants fairly offered to return the amount of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- transferred to them by the complainant through valid banking transactions but the counsel for the complainant on instructions stated that the complainant is not interested in accepting the same and demanded interest on the amount for settling the dispute.
15. We feel that rather than awarding interest to the complainant, it is a fit case wherein the complainant should be penalized with exemplary cost for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
12.3. The Apex Court in the case of URMILA DEVI v.
BALRAM3 holds as follows:
"8.8. This Court, in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre, (1988) 1 SCC 692, (Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia) reasoned that the criminal process cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose. This Court also observed that the court should quash those criminal cases where the chances of an ultimate conviction are bleak and no useful purpose is likely to be served by continuation of a criminal prosecution.
8.9. In R.K. Vijayasarathy, this Court held that while exercising powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., a High Court can examine whether a matter which is essentially of a civil nature has been given a cloak of a criminal offence. Recently, in Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1680, this Court held that courts have to be vigilant to ensure that the machinery of criminal justice is not misused for achieving oblique motives and agendas. Tacitly endorsing such misuse only unnecessarily burdens the courts and the criminal justice system. In Anand Kumar Mohatta, this Court, whilst quashing the FIR and chargesheet therein, highlighted the following words of this Court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699, that describe the fundamental principle for exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.:
"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 process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding 3 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1574
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
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 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 quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice."
(underlining by us)
9. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against the accused- appellants herein are made out. The instant case is just another one in a string of cases filed in recent years that seek to disguise a civil dispute as criminal. The complaint case against the accused- appellants has been pending for over two decades and its continuation would not serve any purpose. The observations made by this Court in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia inform our decision and the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal and particularly sub- paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102 extracted above, squarely apply to the facts of this case. In our view, it is in the interest of justice that present proceedings be quashed."
(Emphasis supplied)
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
12.4. The Apex Court in the case of S.N.
VIJAYALAKSHMI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA4, holds as follows:
"42. Coming to the second question i.e., whether civil and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same set of allegations qua the same person(s), the answer stricto sensu, is that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a complainant, ipso facto, is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR, as pointed out, inter alia, in P Swaroopa Rani v. M Hari Narayana, (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5 SCC 528. The obvious caveat being that the allegations, even if having a civil flavour to them, must prima facie disclose an overwhelming element of criminality. In the absence of the element of criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse of the process of the Court, which the Courts have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution in question would have to be quashed. In this connection, Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11 SCC 673 can be referred to:
'12. ... Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal offence are present or not has to be judged by the High Court. A complaint disclosing 4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
civil transactions may also have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process of the court.' (emphasis supplied)
43. In Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal, (2023) 15 SCC 135, while quashing the FIR therein and further proceedings based thereon, it was observed '...the factual position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil nature.'"
(Emphasis supplied) 12.5. The Apex Court in the case of SHIKHAR CHEMICALS v. STATE OF U.P5 holds as follows:
"19. The Judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount will be very unreasonable as civil suit may take a long time before it is decided and, therefore, the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount.
20. Is it the understanding of the High Court that ultimately if the accused is convicted, the trial court would award him the balance amount? The observations 5 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1643
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
recorded in para 12 are shocking. It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations contained in para 12 of the impugned order. It was expected of the High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law. It was expected of the High Court to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint. In substance the High Court has said in so many words that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit."
(Emphasis supplied) 12.6. In the case of ANUKUL SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.6, the Apex Court holds as follows:
"13. The record reveals that within a short span, as many as eight FIRs were registered against the appellant. The gravamen of the allegations in the present FIR is that Respondent No. 2/complainant approached the appellant for a loan of Rs. 2,00,000/-, but was allegedly advanced only Rs. 1,40,000/-. It is further alleged that, in connection with the said transaction, an agreement to sell dated 09.11.1998 was executed in respect of a plot owned by the complainant, and that the appellant procured three cheques from Respondent No. 2, which, upon presentation, were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Even if accepted in entirety, these allegations disclose, at best, a civil dispute and do not prima facie constitute the essential ingredients of the criminal offences alleged.
...... ....... ....... 6 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060 - 39 - NC: 2026:KHC:507 CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023 CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
16. Despite this background, the police proceeded to file a charge sheet dated 16.04.2003 against the appellant for offences under sections 420, 467, and 468 IPC. Even if the allegations are assumed to be true, they unmistakably arise out of a commercial/contractual transaction relating to loan and repayment, which has been given a criminal colour. The case thus falls squarely within categories (1) and (7) of Bhajan Lal, namely, where the allegations do not disclose the commission of an offence, and where the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. Continuation of such prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law and consequently, warrant quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
17. This Court has, in a long line of decisions, deprecated the tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings. In Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd.[ (2006) 6 SCC 736], it was held that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual matters, and that such misuse amounts to abuse of process. The following paragraphs from the decision are apposite:
"9. The principles, relevant to our purpose are:
(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 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.
(ii) A complaint may also be quashed where it is a clear abuse of the process of the
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507 CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023 C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023 CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023 HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS court, as when the criminal proceeding is found to have been initiated with malafides/malice for wreaking vengeance or to cause harm, or where the allegations are absurd and inherently improbable.
(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 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 the basic facts which are absolutely necessary for making out the offence.
(v) A given set of facts may make out: (a) purely a civil wrong; or (b) purely a criminal offence; or (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal offence. A commercial transaction or a contractual dispute, apart from furnishing a cause of action for seeking remedy in civil law, may also involve a criminal offence. As the nature and scope of a civil proceedings are different from a criminal proceeding, the mere fact that the complaint relates to a commercial transaction or breach of contract, for which a civil remedy is available or has been availed, is not by itself a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. The test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
10. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice of a growing tendency in business circles to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is obviously on account of a prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes also, leading to irretrievable break down of
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
marriages/families. There is also an impression that if a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure though criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."
18. Similarly, in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal [(2007) 12 SCC 1 : AIR 2008 SC 251], it was emphasized that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment or private vendetta. In Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam [(2015) 9 SCC 647], this Court again reiterated that criminal complaints in respect of property disputes of civil nature, filed solely to harass the accused or to exert pressure in civil litigation, constitute an abuse of process.
19. Most recently, in Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Criminal Appeal No. 2963/2025 decided on 14.07.2025 : 2025 INSC 869], this Court disapproved the practice of using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil remedies, observing that money recovery cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution where the dispute is essentially civil. The Court cautioned High Courts not to direct settlements in such matters but to apply the settled principles in Bhajan Lal. The following paragraphs are relevant in this context:
"9. What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral agreement between the parties. The Respondent No. 4 might have parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the appellant - herein owes a particular amount to be paid to the Respondent No. 4. However, the question is whether prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been committed by the appellant.
10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality.
11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of this Court in the case of "Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh", (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said decision, the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that this very decision was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent. We fail to understand why the High Court should undertake such exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying that no offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for quashing is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016.
12. Why the High Court was not able to understand that the entire dispute between the parties is of a civil nature.
13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. It appears that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date. Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of the process of law.
14. We could have said many things but we refrain from observing anything further. If the Respondent No. 4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to him in law. He
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings.
15. We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order. The High Court first directed the appellant to pay Rs. 25,00,000/- to the Respondent No. 4 and thereafter directed him to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the purpose of settlement. That's not what is expected of a High Court to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for quashing of FIR or any other criminal proceedings. What is expected of the High Court is to look into the averments and the allegations levelled in the FIR along with the other material on record, if any. The High Court seems to have forgotten the well-settled principles as enunciated in the decision of this Court in the "State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal", 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335"
20. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the dispute - concerning repayment of loan money and the alleged coercion in execution of documents - is purely civil in character. The essential ingredients of cheating or forgery are not prima facie made out. The institution of multiple FIRs in quick succession, particularly after the appellant had already initiated lawful proceedings, reinforces the inference of mala fides."
(Emphasis supplied) 12.7. The Apex Court in the case of INDER CHAND BAGRI v. JAGADISH PRASAD BAGRI7, holds as follows:
"24. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to set aside the sale deed dated 20.06.2011 and claim damages for the 7 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2529
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
alleged violation of his contractual rights which he is already pursuing vide Title Suit No. 160 of 2012 against the appellant-accused which is currently pending adjudication and hence the route through criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made out, cannot be permitted. Criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas. The appellant-accused therefore, in our view, could not be attributed any mens rea and therefore, the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant-accused are unsustainable.
25. Furthermore, in Inder Mohan Goswami, it was held by this Court that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. It was further held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion that to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused herein would cause undue harassment to him because as observed hereinabove, no prima facie case for the offence under Sections 406 or 420 of the IPC is made out.
....... ........ .......
28. At this juncture, we find it apposite to mention the observations of this Court in Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024) 14 SCC 112 wherein it was observed that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud. We say so for the reason that while the complainant/respondent No.
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
1 has made grave allegations against the appellant herein, he has failed to justify the same before this Court. Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly criminal courts."
(Emphasis supplied) 12.8. In the case of TUHIN KUMAR BISWAS v. STATE OF W.B.8, the Apex Court holds as follows:
"TENDENCY OF FILING CHARGESHEETS AND FRAMING CHARGES IN MATTERS WHERE NO STRONG SUSPICION IS MADE OUT CLOGS THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
28. Before parting with this case, this Court would like to emphasise that where there is a pending civil dispute between the parties, the Police and the Criminal Courts must be circumspect in filing a chargesheet and framing charges respectively. In a society governed by rule of law, the decision to file a chargesheet should be based on the Investigating Officer's determination of whether the evidence collected provides a reasonable prospect of conviction. The Police at the stage of filing of Chargesheet and the Criminal Court at the stage of framing of Charge must act as initial filters ensuring that only cases with a strong suspicion should proceed to the formal trial stage to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the judicial system. The tendency of filing chargesheets in matters where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system. It forces Judges, court staff, and prosecutors to spend time on trials that are likely to result in an acquittal. This diverts limited judicial resources from handling stronger, more serious cases, contributing to massive case backlogs. Undoubtedly, there can be no analysis at 8 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2604
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
the charge framing stage as to whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal, but the fundamental principle is that the State should not prosecute citizens without a reasonable prospect of conviction, as it compromises the right to a fair process.
29. In the present case, the Police and the Trial Court should have been cognizant that as there was a pending civil dispute with regard to the property in question as well as a prior subsisting injunction order and the complainant had refused to make any judicial statement, strong suspicion founded on legally tenable material/evidence was absent."
(Emphasis supplied)
13. If the law laid down by the Apex Court in the afore-
quoted judgments is applied to the facts of this case what would unmistakably emerge is that, permitting the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein would lead to abuse of process of the law and miscarriage of justice.
In the circumstances of this case it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL9, which reads as follows:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power 9 1992 Supp. 1 SCC 335
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or 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 a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a noncognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
(Emphasis supplied)
14. In light of the aforesaid observations, and the observations of the Apex Court in BHAJAN LAL supra, I deem it appropriate to exercise my jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC and obliterate the criminal proceedings against the petitioners herein.
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:507
CRL.P No. 10289 of 2023
C/W CRL.P No. 10310 of 2023
CRL.P No. 10670 of 2023
HC-KAR AND 3 OTHERS
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The FIR's registered in Crime Nos.74 of 2023, 106 of 2023, 61 of 2023, 67 of 2023, 105 of 2023 and 62 of 2023 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, qua the petitioners stand quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order would not come in the way of the parties agitating their rights before any other fora, if available in law.
Pending applications if any, also stand disposed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52