- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4249 CRL.P No. 9515 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9515 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. KRISHNAMURTHY R.V. S/O LATE VELLAI SWAMY AGED 62 YEARS 2. MUTHU KUMAR S/O KRISHNAMURTHY R.V. AGED 33 YEARS, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.4, 4TH MAIN, DWARAKANAGAR, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560040. 2. ANATHA RAO JADHAV S/O LATE LAXMAN RAO JADHAV AGED 51 YEARS R/AT NO.824/7, 6TH 'D' CROSS 3RD MAIN, PRAKASHNAGAR, BANGALORE-560021 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. CHITHARA B.P., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION CHANDRA LAYOUT BANGALORE-560040 Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4249 CRL.P No. 9515 of 2021 REP BY SPP, HCK, BENGALURU-1. 2. RAJENDRAN. S S/O SELVARAJ AGED 62 YEARS R/AT NO.78/61/1, 8TH MAIN SHANKARAPPA GARDEN, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-560 023. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. KUMARA R.S., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P FILED IS UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.231/2021 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE ON A COMPLAINT MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 24.09.2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 427, 420, 504, 506, 323, 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r)(s)(p)(q), 3(2)(v-a) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4249 CRL.P No. 9515 of 2021 CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.231/2021 of Chandra Layout Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 504, 506, 420, 323, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(p)(q), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SC/ST Act') are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them on the basis of the first information lodged by the respondent No.2. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the first information with Magadi Road Police Station alleging commission of an offence against the petitioners. Subsequently, complaint came to be transferred to Chandra Layout Police Station and FIR was registered in Crime No.231/2021. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that accused No.1 is familiar to him. On 23.08.2013, accused No.1 became the member of a chit transaction for Rs.1,00,00,000/- agreeing to pay the chit amount of Rs.4,00,000/- per month. Subsequently, accused No.1 obtained the chit amount of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4249 CRL.P No. 9515 of 2021 Rs.1,00,00,000/- agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 1%. As security, he mortgaged five industrial sheds. He also issued six cheques as security towards repayment of the amount he availed. Subsequently, he issued instructions to the Bank to stop payment of the cheques. It is alleged that the locks put by the complainant to the sheds were damaged by the accused. In the meantime, there were civil disputes between the parties. 3. The informant stated that accused Nos.1 to 3 promised to execute the sale deed in his favour in respect of the industrial sheds and took his signatures in Laggere Sub- Registrar's office. The informant was not provided with the copy of the document. Subsequently, informant came to know that the said industrial sheds were sold in favour of a third party. 4. It is stated that on 22.07.2021 at 6.30 p.m., the informant was called by the accused to a hotel situate at Chandra Layout, where they abused him in filthy language by referring to his caste, criminally intimidated to take away his life, assaulted him with hands and legs, caused injuries. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:4249 CRL.P No. 9515 of 2021 Thereby, they have committed the offence as stated above. Accordingly, the complainant requested the Police to register the case and to initiate legal action. After registration of F.I.R., investigation was undertaken. In the meantime, petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3, approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. 5. Heard Smt. Chithara B.P., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Karumbaiah T.A., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Sri Kumara R.S., learned counsel for respondent No.2 has remained absent. He has not addressed his argument. His argument is taken as nil. Perused the materials on record. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.1, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:4249 CRL.P No. 9515 of 2021 R E A S O N S 7. Respondent No.2 as informant has filed the first information against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of the offence as stated above. It was brought to the notice of the Court that the complainant is contending that accused No.1 had executed an agreement of sale agreeing to sell the industrial sheds in his favour. Making such allegations, respondent No.2 has filed the suit in O.S. No.2526/2016 against accused No.1 seeking specific performance of the contract. In the meantime, petitioner No.1 filed the suit in O.S. No.2563/2016 against respondent No.2 seeking permanent injunction. It is stated that both these suits are pending for consideration. In the meantime, it is the contention of the complainant that accused No.1 had issued six cheques towards discharge of legally enforceable debt, but subsequently, issued instructions to the Bank to stop payment. 8. It is the further contention of respondent No.2 that on 22.07.2021 at 6.30 p.m., he was called by accused Nos.1 to 3 to a hotel where he was abused in filthy language by referring to his caste, criminally intimidated and assaulted him. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:4249 CRL.P No. 9515 of 2021 The first information was given to the Police on 24.09.2021. There is absolutely no reasons assigned for the inordinate delay caused in filing the first information. No wound certificate is produced to evidence the fact that respondent No.2 was assaulted by accused Nos.1 to 3. 9. The materials on record disclose that there were civil disputes between the parties since 2016 and both have instituted two different suits as referred to above for specific performance of contract and for permanent injunction. Both the suits are still pending. Prima facie, the dispute between the parties is of civil nature which was given the colour of criminal offence perhaps to pressurize the petitioners for terms. 10. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that similar complaint was earlier filed by respondent No.2 making similar allegations in the year 2016. Copy of the order dated 06.08.2019 passed in Crl.P No.4738/2016 is produced before this Court. The petitioner Nos.1 and 2 herein were the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 therein along with one Sri Diraviam Natarajan @ Kannan as petitioner No.3. Respondent No.2 herein was the respondent No.2 in the said case as well. That - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:4249 CRL.P No. 9515 of 2021 was with regard to Crime No.75/2016 of Magadi Road Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 448, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC also under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. A coordinate Bench of this Court after considering the contentions of the parties, formed an opinion that registration of FIR against the petitioners therein is ulteriorly motivated and appears to have been engineered to create a ground in the suit filed by the complainant in O.S No.2526/2016 for injunction and counter suit filed by the petitioner No.1 in O.S. No.2563/2016 for eviction of the complainant. Accordingly, the criminal proceedings in the said case was quashed by allowing the petition. 11. All these facts and circumstances lead to a conclusion that respondent No.2 is in the habit of filing similar complaints one after the other only to pressurize the petitioners even though civil litigation is pending before the Trial Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that institution of criminal case is an abuse of process of Court and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:4249 CRL.P No. 9515 of 2021 12. Accordingly, I answer the point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.231/2021 of Chandra Layout Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 504, 506, 420, 323, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(p)(q), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby quashed. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A. No.1/2024 stands disposed off. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9