- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11135 CRL.P No. 3202 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3202 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SEEMA MUTHUSWAMY WIFE OF K.K. MUTHUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.D2/8, I CROSS ROAD, I.I.T CAMPUS, CHENNAI-600 035. 2. SRI. MUTHUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.D2/8, I CROSS ROAD, I.I.T CAMPUS, CHENNAI-600 035. 3. SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD SON OF KUPPUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.7, RAJAPRIYA MANSION, 2ND CROSS, CHIKKATHAYAPPA LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 043. 4. SMT. PRIYADARSHINI PRASAD WIFE OF SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.7, RAJAPRIYA MANSION, 2ND CROSS, CHIKKATHAYAPPA LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 043. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11135 CRL.P No. 3202 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE BY SANJAY NAGAR POLICE STATION REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.8452/2017 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 420, 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners-accused, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 401 and 420 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that a registered sale deed was executed by the deceased husband of the complainant in favour of accused No.1 (petitioner No.1) on 21.11.2011, and that after the sale deed was executed, the petitioner-accused No.1 paid only a part of the sale - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11135 CRL.P No. 3202 of 2025 consideration, thereby defrauding the deceased husband of the complainant. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 (State). 4. A registered sale deed was executed in favour of accused No.1 by the complainant’s husband on 21.11.2011. The complainant’s husband died on 7.8.2016, and a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was allegedly filed on 1.10.2016. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, the Police submitted a charge sheet for the offences in question. Meanwhile, the complainant also filed a suit in O.S.No.7555/2017 for the cancellation of the sale deed and for a permanent injunction, reiterating the allegations made in the private complaint. 5. A review of the private complaint indicates that the complainant’s deceased husband executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.1 and, during his lifetime, made no allegations against the accused regarding non- payment of the full sale consideration. It is only after his death that the complainant filed a private complaint - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11135 CRL.P No. 3202 of 2025 alleging that the petitioners-accused did not pay the entire sale consideration. 6. Notwithstanding the allegations, the charge sheet material does not establish that the petitioners induced the complainant’s deceased husband to execute the sale deed with the intention to deceive. The sole allegation against the petitioners is that the entire sale consideration was not paid under the sale deed. Even if that allegation is accepted, it does not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. 7. The dispute between the parties relates to the alleged non-payment of the full sale consideration, which is essentially a civil matter. However, the matter has been given a criminal texture in order to pressure the petitioners into reaching a settlement. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11135 CRL.P No. 3202 of 2025 ii) The Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.8452/2017 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, insofar it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2