- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9875 CRL.P No. 5531 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5531 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MR. D. ABHISHEK REDDY SON OF MR DASHRATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 11/2, RAMAIAH REDDY COMPOUND, CHALLAGHATTA OFF RING ROAD, DOMLUR BANGALORE - 560 071. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MRS. NETRAVATI WIFE OF MR MANJUNATH DAUGHTER OF LATE RATNAMMA & MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS RESIDING AT NO 80, 1ST CROSS, MARGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE AMBEDKAR STATUE BANGALORE - 560 036. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WHITE FIELD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. BABU D R.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R2) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9875 CRL.P No. 5531 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3440/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE C.J.M (A.C.J.M)AT BENGALURU RURAL ALLEGING OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 406, 418, 419, 420 OF IPC (ANNEXURE A AND B) THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner - accused No.5 is challenging the cognizance taken for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 418, 419 and 420 of IPC. 2. The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 420 of IPC stating that she has got a share in the subject property, and accused Nos.1 to 4 and with an intention to deprive the respondent No.1 of legitimate share entered into an agreement of sale with accused No.5 and subsequently the sale deed was executed in his favour. 3. The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued summons. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has filed a suit claiming 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties, and whether the complainant has got a share in the suit schedule properties is the subject matter, which requires to be adjudicated before the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9875 CRL.P No. 5531 of 2024 jurisdictional Civil Court, and therefore, the cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impermissible. 5. In response, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.2 submitted that accused No.5 having complete knowledge that the respondent No.1 was having a share in the property, purchased the property from accused Nos.1 to 4 to deceive with an intention to cheat the complainant. Therefore, he submits that the veracity of the allegation can be considered at the time of trial, and the same cannot be gone into this petition, and sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 7. Perusal of the complaint indicated that the subject property belongs to the grandfather of the complainant, and upon his death, the complainant has right to a share in the subject property. Before filing the private complaint before the learned Magistrate, the respondent No.1 has instituted a suit bearing OS No.6413/2017 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, and in the said suit, the petitioner claims to have filed an application for impleading, and the said application came to be allowed, and he has been arrayed as one of the defendants. Whilst the pendency of consideration of the suit, the private complaint was filed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9875 CRL.P No. 5531 of 2024 8. In the agreement of sale, the name of the respondent No.1 has been scored, however, mere scoring out the name of respondent No.1 will not establish that the respondent No.1 had a share in the subject property, and the respondent No.1 has to establish his right in the pending suit for partition. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature, but however, given criminal texture. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. 9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.3440/2024 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the petitioner - accused No.5 is hereby quashed. 10. The observation made in this order is only for the purpose of this petition, and the Trial Court shall adjudicate the rights of the parties in the pending suit for partition only on the basis of available material on record. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 114