- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3116 CRL.P No. 11490 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11490 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT NARAYANAMMA WIFE OF LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAGENAHALLI, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, WARD NO. 2 YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560064. 2. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR SON OF LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAGENAHALLI, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, WARD NO. 2, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE - 560064. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PUNITH C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP GOVT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3116 CRL.P No. 11490 of 2023 2. SMT N MANJULA DAUGHTER OF LATE D NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 168, 3RD CROSS, BSV REDDY LAYOUT, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560016. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL SPP FOR R1; R2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.58397/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE X ACMM AT BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.354,323,448,504,506,34 OF IPC IN CR.NO.239/2023 BY THE RAMAMURTHYNAGAR POLICE AS PER ANNEXURE A BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by accused Nos.1 and 3 in C.C.No.58397/2023 pending on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, seeks quashing of the impugned proceedings for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 448, 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material on record. The respondent No.2 having been served - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3116 CRL.P No. 11490 of 2023 with notice of the petition, has chosen to remain unrepresented and has not contested the petition. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that petitioner No.1 - accused No.3 is the mother of respondent No.2 - complainant, while petitioner No.2 - accused No.1 as well as accused No.2 are the brother and sister-in-law of respondent No.2 - complainant. 4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that petitioner No.1 - accused No.3 being the mother of respondent No.2-complainant instituted the proceedings against respondent No.2 under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 seeking cancellation of a Gift Deed dated 21.03.2016 executed by petitioner No.1 in favour of respondent No.2. 5. After contest of the said proceedings by respondent No.2, Assistant Commissioner, vide final order dated 06.07.2022 allowed the said petition. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that respondent No.2 filed an appeal which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner - Appellate Authority and is - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3116 CRL.P No. 11490 of 2023 pending before this Court. Subsequent to the aforesaid order dated 06.07.2022, respondent No.2 - complainant has also instituted one more suit in O.S.No.4942/2022 before the civil Court against the petitioners and accused No.2 for permanent injunction and other reliefs in relation to the very same property and an order of temporary injunction is passed in favour of respondent No.2 against the petitioners before the City Civil Court. 6. It is contended that despite the aforesaid civil proceedings and orders passed in the year 2022 itself, respondent No.2 - complainant has filed a private complaint dated 21.09.2023 with a malafide intention of converting an essentially civil dispute by giving it a criminal color, which is not permissible in law as held by the Apex Court in the case of Naresh Kumar and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Another reported in [2024] 3 S.C.R. 740. It is therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings qua the petitioner deserve to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be quashed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3116 CRL.P No. 11490 of 2023 8. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners, prior to respondent No.2 - complainant lodging the instant private complaint, the petitioner No.1 had already instituted proceedings against respondent No.2, her daughter under the provisions of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which had culminated in favour of petitioner No.1 and pending before this Court; so also respondent No.2 has already approached the jurisdictional civil Court and obtained an order of temporary injunction in O.S.No.4942/2022 against the petitioners and accused No.2. 9. It is therefore clear that the present complaint filed by respondent No.2 tantamounts to giving the criminal color to an essentially, predominantly and overwhelmingly civil dispute which is not permissible in law as held by the Apex Court in Naresh Kumar's case and consequently, the impugned proceedings qua the petitioners would amount to abuse of process of law warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. 10. Hence, the following: ORDER a. The petition is hereby allowed. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3116 CRL.P No. 11490 of 2023 b. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.58397/2023 pending on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 448, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC, insofar as the petitioners are concerned are quashed. RB Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE