- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5815 CRL.P No. 13387 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13387 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMESH. G S/O. G.T. GANGAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. NA, GANAKALLU VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 130. 2. SMT. MANJULA. R W/O. RAMESH. G, RESIDING AT NO. NA, GANAKALLU VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 130. 3. SRI. RAMAIAH S/O. GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. NA, GANAKALLU VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE HOBLI, BENGALURU-562 130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.BRIJESH KALAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND SRI.KULKARNI ABDUL RASHEED SIKANDER SAB, ADVOCATE FOR P2 AND P3) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5815 CRL.P No. 13387 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KENGERI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 060, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SRI. GANGAIAH. G S/O. LATE GANGANARASIHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.1255/A, 5TH MAIN, BHARATH NAGARA, BYDARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 091. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.THEJESH.P. HCGP FOR R1 SRI.NISCHAY.S.P. FOR R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 IN KENGERI POLICE STATION CR.NO.411/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.120-B,417,419,420,465,468,471,34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED 46TH ACMM BENGALURU. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5815 CRL.P No. 13387 of 2023 ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners seek the following relief: "The Petitioners most respectfully pray that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the First Information Report registered against the petitioners-Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Kengeri Police Station Crime No.411/2023 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 120B, 417,419,420,465,468,471,34 of Indian Penal Code, on the file of the learned 46th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in the interest of justice equity." 2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that on 31.08.2023, the respondent No.2/Complainant filed the instant complaint registered as FIR in Crime No.411/2023 inter alia alleging that land bearing Sy. No.3/1 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas, Ganakallu Village, belonged to the respondent No.2 and that the petitioners created documents viz., sale deeds/gift deed dated 21.10.2006, 19.12.2007 and 02.02.2008 by impersonation and fraud and as such necessary action has to be taken as against the petitioners. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, the respondent No.1 has initiated the present proceedings which are assailed in the present petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5815 CRL.P No. 13387 of 2023 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Complainant and perused the material on record. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and invited my attention to the impugned complaint in order to point out that apart from the fact that the respondent No.2 has put forth a claim over the immovable property in relation to a dispute which is essentially predominantly and overwhelmingly of a civil nature, the same cannot be given a criminal colour/flavour which is impermissible in law as held by the Apex Court in the case of 'NARESH KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER' - 2024 INSC 196. 5. It is pointed out that in the complaint, the respondent No.2 having made allegations against the petitioners for offence in relation to the documents of the years 2006 to 2008, has not explained the delay in approaching the Police authorities and on this ground also the impugned proceedings deserves to be - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5815 CRL.P No. 13387 of 2023 quashed as held by the Apex Court in the case of 'CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL' - AIR 2023 SC 2710. It is therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Complainant submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 7. In Chanchalpati Das case supra, the Apex Court has held as under: "11. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the concerned Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata would not have taken any action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the powerful body like the ISKCON Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30.09.2006 written by the Branch Manager of the ISKCON, Kolkata. The respondent no. 2-complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the Court was filed in the year 2009. In the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5815 CRL.P No. 13387 of 2023 opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by the ISKCON, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court." 8. Similarly, in the case of 'HASMUKHLAL D VORA AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU' reported in [2022] 12 SCC 164 in paragraphs 22 to 24 has held as under: "22. There has been a gap of more than four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to sustain the claims in the complaint. As held by this Court in Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar [Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1093] , inordinate delay, if not reasonably explained, can be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The relevant extract from the judgment is extracted below : (SCC p. 153, para 7) “7. … Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the Court to minutely examine the prosecution version - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5815 CRL.P No. 13387 of 2023 for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if reasonable, plausible and sufficient explanation is tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it.” 23. In the present case, the respondent has provided no explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show-cause notice, and the complaint. In fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the Court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings. 24. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint." 9. As held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgments, in the absence of any explanation in the complaint as to the long, unexplained and inordinate delay and laches of more than fifteen years in approaching the Police authorities, I am of the considered opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the petitioners deserve to be quashed especially when the dispute between the parties as alleged in the impugned complaint arises in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5815 CRL.P No. 13387 of 2023 relation to the immovable property which is claimed by both the respondent No.2 and the petitioners thereby indicating that the dispute is essentially of civil nature/character which is sought to be given a criminal colour which is impermissible in law and consequently the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. In the result, the following: ORDER [a] The petition is allowed. [b] The impugned proceedings in Crime No.411/2023 on the file of the 46th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed. [c] Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent No.2 to take recourse to such remedies as available and in accordance with law, subject to all just exceptions and defences available to the petitioners. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE AN/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29