Karnataka High Court
M P Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:33011
CRL.P No. 3250 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3250 OF 2022
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
M P NAGARAJ
S/O LATE M.G.PRAKASH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O GUNDURAO EXTENSION,
BRAHMINS VALLEY, MADIKERI-571201
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.SURESH.S.LOKRE, SR.COUNSEL FOR
SRI. B S BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
signed by HSR LAYOUT POLICE
REKHA R
REP BY SPP
Location:
High HIGH COURT, BENGALURU-01
Court of
Karnataka
2. R. RAMESH
S/O LATE RAMA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
R/O NO. 446, 12TH MAIN, 24TH CROSS,
7TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560102
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.S.G.RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:33011
CRL.P No. 3250 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 17235/2020 FILED IN CRIME NO.
104/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S 504,507 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner who is the sole accused has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 507 IPC in C.C.No.17235/2020 on the file of XXXVI ACMM Court, Bengaluru.
2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the complaint filed against him is false and vexatious. It is registered with the motive to wreck vengeance against him. Several criminal and civil litigation are pending between him and the complainant. Before -3- NC: 2025:KHC:33011 CRL.P No. 3250 of 2022 HC-KAR filing the charge sheet, the concerned police have not questioned him and his statement is not recorded. Prima facie, there is no material to connect him with the crime and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition.
3. In support of his arguments, learned senior counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Fiona Shrikhande Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. (Fiona Shrikhande)1
(ii) Manik Taneja and Anr Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (Manik Taneja)2
(iii) Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangalagi) Vs. the State of Karnataka, through PSI Kagwad Police Station, Belagavi (Vageppa)3
(iv) Vikram Johar Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (Vikram Johar)4
(v) Gagan. V and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr. (Gagan)5 1 (2013) 14 SCC 44 2 (2015) 7 SCC 423 3 ILR 2020 KAR 630 4 Crl.A.No.759/2019(SLP(Crl)No.4820/2017) 5 Crl.P.No.10271/2021 c/w Crl.P.No.5680/2018 Dt: 04.07.2022 -4- NC: 2025:KHC:33011 CRL.P No. 3250 of 2022 HC-KAR
(vi) Sugurappa @ Sugurauua Swami Vs. The State of Karnataka and Anr.(Sugurappa)6
4. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that complainant is no other than the father-in-law of petitioner. There is also a dispute between them with regard to purchase of a land which, according to the complainant is purchased by him in the name of petitioner. On the other hand, petitioner claim that it is purchased by him. There is also matrimonial dispute between the petitioner and his wife. In this background, petitioner used to send messages to the complainant giving threats not only to the complainant but also to his family members and also using abusive language. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police have filed the charge sheet. In the light of prima facie material in the charge sheet, a full fledged trial is required to be held to prove the allegations. The 6 Crl.P.No.201248/2021 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:33011 CRL.P No. 3250 of 2022 HC-KAR petitioner is at liberty to take whatever defence available to him at the trial and pray to dismiss the petition.
5. Heard arguments and perused the record.
6. The relationship between petitioner and complainant is not in dispute. Petitioner is the son-in-law of complainant. The daughter of complainant by name Sushma Sharvani was given in marriage to petitioner on 04.05.2003 and they are having two children, a son and one daughter. Petitioner is stated to be a practising advocate. The complainant is also having a son. He is also married and having wife and children. It appears there is matrimonial dispute between petitioner and his wife. Added to this, complainant claim that he purchased land in Sy.No.1/112, measuring 3 acres 25 guntas and Sy.No.1/110, measuring 5 acres 38 guntas and Sy.No.83, measuring 6 acres 36 guntas and Sy.No.82 for ₹48 lakhs. However, he got the Sale deed executed in the name of petitioner. He is in possession and enjoyment of the said -6- NC: 2025:KHC:33011 CRL.P No. 3250 of 2022 HC-KAR lands and the title deeds are also with him and he has developed them by making huge investment. On the other hand, petitioner claim that it is he who has purchased the said lands and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same.
7. In the light of these dispute and difference of opinion between the petitioner and complainant and his daughter, it is alleged that the petitioner was in the habit of sending messages using vulgar language and making obscene allegations and also giving threat. Along with the charge sheet, the printout of the messages sent by the petitioner to the complainant are also produced. Prima facie these messages support the allegations made in the charge sheet. He has also given threat not only to the complainant, but also to his son. In the light of the same, it cannot be said that the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The prosecution should be given an opportunity to -7- NC: 2025:KHC:33011 CRL.P No. 3250 of 2022 HC-KAR prove the allegations made against the petitioner. In the above facts and circumstances, the decisions relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand. In the result, the petition is liable to be dismissed, and accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.
(ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41