- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27065 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4419 OF 2018 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI NANJUNDAIAH S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VEERASAGARA EXTENSION, MELEKOTE MAIN ROAD, TUMAKURU EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572102 2. SRI. NAGABHUSHAN S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O VEERASAGARA EXTENSION, MELEKOTE MAIN ROAD, TUMAKURU EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572102 3. SRI. S.M SHIVAKUMARASWAMY S/O. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KIRAN INDUSTRIES, NEAR BUS STAND, BH ROAD, GUBBI TOWN, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572216 (SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M B CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27065 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2018 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, GUBBI POLICE STATION, GUBBI, REP BY THE STATE PUBIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT ANNEX BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O LATE. KODAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O HABBATTANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALLASANDRA POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST-572101 3. SRI. RANGASWAMAIAH S/O LATE. KODAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O HABBATTANAHALLI VILLAGE, MALLASANDRA POST, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK AND DIST-572101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.J.D.KASHINATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN P.C.R.NO.2/2018 ORDER DATED 22.02.2018 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., GUBBI AND REGISTRATION OF CRIME IN CR.NO.97/2018 ON THE FILE OF GUBBI POLICE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA PROHIBITION OF CHARGING EXORBITANT INTEREST ACT 2004 (UNDER SECTION 3, 4) OF IPC 1860 AND SECTION - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27065 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2018 504,506,419,415,416,477,340,348,420,352,339,426 AND 417 R/W 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the complaint in PCR.No.2/2018 (Cr.No.97/2018) of Gubbi P.S, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi for the offences punishable under Sections 339, 340, 348, 352, 415, 416, 417, 419, 420, 426, 477, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3 and 4 of Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act 2004. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that the respondents have filed the complaint making false allegations. They have also filed O.S.No.51/2007 on the file of Civil Judge, Gubbi, for declaration of their ownership over land in Sy.No.41/5 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27065 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2018 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas and sought for cancellation of sale deed dated 08.04.1982 and also for permanent injunction, alleging that through the said sale deed petitioner No.3 has purchased the said property and he was put in possession and Khata is also made out in his name, thereby admitting his ownership and possession. After lapse of 25 years, respondents have filed the frivolous suit and also the complaint. The averments made in the complaint does not make out any offence. Without examining the contents of the complaint, the trial Court has mechanically referred it for investigation. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition. 3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P (Priyanka Srivastava)1 (ii) Babu Venkatesh and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (Babu Venkatesh)2 1 (2022) 5 SCC 639 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27065 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2018 4. On the other hand learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State would submit that property in Sy.No.41/5 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas and Sy.No.41/6 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas originally belong to grandfather of respondent No.2. After his death his only son Baguraiah inherited it. Baguraiah mortgaged the same through registered deed dated 12.01.1946 and also redeemed it. After the death of Baguraiah, his sons Hanumanthaiah and Kodappa succeeded to the said property. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and others have succeeded to the said property. Petitioners are utter strangers to the said property. One Ramaiah, son of Olekar Rangappa has illegally obtained Khata and sold Sy.No.41/5 in favour of accused No.3 Shivakumaraswamy. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have secured a GPA from accused No.3 Shivakumaraswamy and got transferred the Khata in the name of accused No.1 Nanjundaiah. 2 (2015) 6 SCC 287: AIR 2015 SC 1758 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27065 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2018 4.1 They would further submits that so far as Sy.No.41/6 is concerned, accused No.4 Srinivas @ Obli Seena with a promise to save the said land, engaged services of an advocate and got executed a sale agreement by paying Rs.9 lakhs to Siddalingaiah - the second son of respondent No.2. When he failed to repay the said amount, he was abducted and under threat got executed a GPA through the respondents and a document dated 10.03.2016 as though they have consented for the sale deed in favour of accused No.1. Later respondent Nos.2 and 3 came to know that though in the document consideration is noted as Rs.25 lakhs, Siddalingaiah was paid only Rs.15 lakhs and remaining Rs.10 lakhs was taken by Srinivas @ Obli Seena. In turn he has executed a sale agreement for Rs.75 lakhs. The petitioners and other accused are giving threat to respondent Nos.2 and 3 and their family members. When they approached the concerned police, they have failed to register the complaint. The higher police officers have also not taken - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27065 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2018 any steps and therefore, a private complaint is filed. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 and others have also filed O.S.No.51/2017 against the petitioners and others. The trial Court has referred the complaint for investigation. A thorough investigation is required to unearth the truth and pray to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record. 6. Thus, petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 have come up with this petition to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them contending that the dispute is civil in nature. Already suit is filed. After lapse of 25 years, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed a false complaint and without making proper enquiry, the trial Court has referred it for investigation and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 7. From the complaint averments and the documents placed on record, it is evident that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27065 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2018 respondent Nos.2 and 3 and her family members are claiming ownership and possession over land in Sy.No.41/5 and 41/6 and alleging that a false document is concocted with respect to Sy.No.41/5 and challenging the same, they have filed O.S.No.51/2007. At the same time, they have also alleged that in respect of land in Sy.No.41/6, the accused persons have got executed some agreement and on the basis of it, have forcibly got executed a consent deed dated 10.03.2016, as though they are agreeing for the alienation made on 14.05.1982 in favour of accused No.3. The complaint averments also reveal that Rs.9 lakhs were paid when the agreement was executed and while the consent deed was executed only Rs.15 lakhs were paid, though in the document it is noted as Rs. 25 lakhs. Though the complaint is not happily worded, the above said information could be gathered from the complaint. Already respondent Nos.2 and 3 along with other members of their family have filed - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27065 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2018 O.S.No.51/2007. Only a civil Court can decide as to what transaction have taken place between the parties. 8. Even though in the complaint, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have pleaded that they have approached the Gubbi Police with a complaint they have not taken steps and when they gave representation to the higher police officer namely superintended of Police Tumakuru, and Inspector General of Police Bengaluru Central Division, through post, they have not any steps, the copy of the said complaint and representation as well as postal acknowledgement are not produced. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have also not filed supporting affidavit reiterating that they tried to give complainant to the jurisdictional police and higher police officer and on their failure to take steps they have filed the private complainant. Thus respondent Nos.2 and 3 have not complied with the requirement of directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava, referred to supra. Since the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and for - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27065 CRL.P No. 4419 of 2018 the above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and as such liable to be quashed and accordingly the following; ORDER (i) Petition filed by petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is allowed. (ii) The proceedings initiated against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in PCR No.2/2018, order dated 22.02.2018 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gubbi and registration of Cr.No.97/2018 is hereby quashed. (iv) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48