- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19821 CRL.P No. 7500 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7500 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI R SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS SON OF RAMANNA RESIDING AT NO. 112 1ST MAIN KALYANAGAR, 6TH CROSS VTC: MOODALAPALYA, PO NAGARABAVI BENGLAURU - 560 072. 2. SMT. LALITHAMMA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS WIFE OF R. SRINIVAS RESIDING AT NO. 112 1ST MAIN KALYANAGAR 6TH, CROS VTC MOODALAPALYA, PO NAGARABAVI BENGLAURU - 560 072. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABHISHEK KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATION HOUSE OFFICER KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 560 001. 2. SRI. MANAK SHARMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER VED VILAGNAN MAHA VIDYA PEETH ART O LIVING SALUHUNASE Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19821 CRL.P No. 7500 of 2024 UTTHARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU 560 041. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1 SRI. RAGHUPRASAD.B.S, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING CR.NO.110/2024, REGISTERED BY THE KAGGALIPURA P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 34,420,465,468,469,471 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2nd ADDITIONAL CJM, BENGALURU RURAL AGAINST PETITIONER. 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 In this petition, petitioners – accused Nos. 1 and 2 seek quashing of the impugned complaint and FIR in Crime No.110/2024 registered by the 1st respondent – Police for offences punishable under Sections 34, 420, 465, 468, 469 and 471 IPC and for other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Addl. SPP for the respondent No.1 and learned counsel for 2nd respondent and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and referred to the material on record in order to contend that the impugned complaint - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19821 CRL.P No. 7500 of 2024 and FIR do not disclose material particulars constituting the alleged offences as against the petitioners. It was submitted that the 2nd respondent had already instituted a suit in O.S.No.546/2022 against the petitioners herein, which is pending consideration and the impugned complaint and FIR which seek to give a criminal colour to the pending civil dispute deserve to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP for the 1st respondent and learned counsel for 2nd respondent submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 5. Before adverting to the rival submissions, it would be necessary to extract the impugned complaint and FIR as under:- “¢£ÁAPÀ: 12/04/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11-00 UÀAmÉUÉ ªÉÃzÀ «eÁÕ£À ªÀĺÁ«zÁå¦ÃoÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå DqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¸À®ºÉUÁgÀgÁzÀ ±ÀÄæw gÀªÀgÀÄ oÁuÉUÉ ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÀ zÀÆj£À ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ Dgï. ²æäªÁ¸À ©£ï ¸ÀA¥ÀUÀA¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¥Àwß ²æêÀÄw ®°vÀªÀÄä gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët vÁ®ÆèQ£À GvÀÛgÀºÀ½î ºÉÆç½AiÀÄ PÀUÀΰåÀÄgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 46/ ¨ÁèPï 11 gÀ°è 02 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ d«Ää£À ¤dªÁzÀ MqÉvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÁªÉà ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÉÛêÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÃzÀ «eÁÕ£À ªÀĺÁ ¦ÃoÀ læ¸ïÖUÉ ªÀiÁgÀĪÀ ¥Àæ¸Áæ¥ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ²æäªÁ¸ï, ®°vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ PÉ®ªÉÇAzÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÁzÀ d«Ää£À zÀvÀÛPÀ ¥ÀvÀæ, ªÀÄÄåmÉñÀ£ï jf¸ÁÖçgï ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr CªÀgÉ ¤dªÁzÀ d«Ää£À MqÉvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢zÁÝgÉAzÀÄ £ÀA©¹ ¥Àæw ¨ÁjAiÀÄÄ ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19821 CRL.P No. 7500 of 2024 ¥Àwß ®°vÀªÀÄägÀªÀgÀÄ §AzÀÄ d«Ää£À ªÀiÁgÁlzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁvÁ£ÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. PÉÆ£ÉUÉ 1,00,00,000/- (MAzÀÄ PÉÆÃn) gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß d«Ää£À ªÀiÁgÁlzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀiÁvÁ£ÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 1. ²æäªÁ¸ÀgÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ZÉPï ¸ÀASÉå – 773204 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 23/05/2013 gÀAzÀÄ 5,00,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ. 2. ZÉPï ¸ÀASÉå: 810069, ¢£ÁAPÀ: 22/12/2016 gÀAzÀÄ 25,00,000/- gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ. 3. ZÉPï ¸ÀASÉå:976821 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27/12/2018 gÀAzÀÄ 25,00, 000/- gÀÆUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4. ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¥Àwß ²æêÀÄw ®°vÀªÀÄä gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ 4 ZÉPï ¸ÀASÉå 976822 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 27/12/2018 gÀAzÀÄ 25,00,000/- gÀÆ.UÀ¼À£ÀÄß MlÄÖ 80 ®PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÁªÀw¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. d«Ää£À £ÉÆAzÀt¸À®ÄªÁV CªÀ±ÀåPÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉýzÁUÀ¯É¯Áè zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉ ªÀÄÄAzÀÆqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. MªÉÄä d«Ää£À PÀæAiÀÄzÀ £ÉÆAzÀtÂUÁV ¸À¨ï jf¸ÁÖçgï PÀbÉÃjUÉ DUÀ«Ä¹zÀÄÝ vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¤ÃqÀzÉ PÀæAiÀÄ £ÉÆAzÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CzsÀðPÉÌ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV ²æäªÁ¸À¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄAzÀªÀjUÉ d«Ää£À ªÉÄÃ¯É AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà MqÉvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀzÉ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ d«ÄãÀÄ vÀªÀÄäzÉAzÀÄ £ÀA©¹ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉܬÄAzÀ 80 ®PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ ²æäªÁ¸À ©£ï gÁªÀÄtÚ, PÀ£ÀPÀ¥ÀÄgÀ ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ ¸Á®Ä ºÀÄt¸É, gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.46/¨ÁèPï, 11 d«Ää£À ¤dªÁzÀ MqÉvÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ²æäªÁ¸À ©£ï ¸ÀA¥ÀAUÀ¥Àà gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ «ZÁgÀ w½zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä PÀÄPÀÈvÀ §AiÀįÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ ºÉzÀj £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É 2022gÀ°è G¥ÁàgÀ ¥ÉÃmÉ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉ, PÀĪÀiÁgÀ¸Áé«Ä ¯ÉÃOmï ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉ ºÁUÀÆ 2024gÀ°è ZÀAzÀæ ¯ÉÃOmï ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß ºÁ¼ÀĪÀiÁr £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉܬÄAzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß zÉÆÃZÀ®Ä F jÃvÁå PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀÈvÀå ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ ²æäªÁ¸ï, ®°vÀªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀĪÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀzÀ ¥ÉÆð¸ï oÁuÉUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸Àȶֹ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉܬÄAzÀ 80 ®PÀë gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19821 CRL.P No. 7500 of 2024 ªÉÆøÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀĪÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃj EvÁå¢AiÀiÁV ¤ÃrzÀ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ.” 6. A perusal of the impugned complaint and the FIR is sufficient to come to the prima facie conclusion that necessary ingredients constituting the alleged offences have been narrated by the respondents, which warrant investigation and filing of a final report by the 1st respondent. In the light of the various allegations made in the impugned complaint and FIR, it cannot be said that the same do not disclose the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners and at this stage, it is impermissible to quash the impugned proceedings without permitting investigation to be conducted by the 1st respondent – Police and as such, the said contention urged by the petitioners cannot be accepted. 7. Insofar as the contention urged by the petitioners that the impugned complaint and FIR were registered during the pendency of the aforesaid civil suit in O.S.No.546/2022 between the petitioners and 2nd respondent, it is necessary to state that a perusal of the material on record, in particular, the plaint averments and the complaint allegations, it cannot be said that the 2nd respondent has sought to give a criminal colour to the pending civil - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19821 CRL.P No. 7500 of 2024 dispute between the parties in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 8. In the case of Kathyayani vs. Siddarth P.S. Reddy & others – 2025 SCC OnLine 1428, the Apex Court held as under: “19. We now come to the issue of bar against prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We hereby hold that no such bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit. Learned senior counsel Dr. Menaka Guruswamy has rightly placed the relevant judicial precedents to support the above submission. In the case of K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. - (2020) 14 SCC 552 this Court has reviewed its precedents which clarify the position. The relevant paragraph from the above judgment is extracted below: “8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law.” 20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar - (1985) 2 SCC 370, this Court summed up the distinction between the two remedies as under: “21. … There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19821 CRL.P No. 7500 of 2024 law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates the stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real intent of the law.” 21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. - (2002) 1 SCC 555 “17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings.” 22. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this Court in K. Jagadish (supra) set aside the holding of High Court to quash the criminal proceedings and held that criminal proceedings shall continue to its logical end. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19821 CRL.P No. 7500 of 2024 23. The above precedents set by this Court make it crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons. In present case certainly such prima facie case exists against the respondents. Considering the long chain of events from creation of family tree excluding the daughters of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, partition deed among only the sons and grandsons of K.G. Yellappa Reddy, distribution of compensation award among the respondents is sufficient to conclude that there was active effort by respondents to reap off the benefits from the land in question. Further, the alleged threat to appellant and her sisters on revelation of the above chain of events further affirms the motive of respondents. All the above factors suggest that a criminal trial is necessary to ensure justice to the appellant. 24. Therefore, we set aside the Impugned order of High Court dated 23.11.2023 in Writ Petition No. 23106 of 2021. Accordingly, we direct the Trial Court to continue its proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in accordance to law. 25. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed as above.” 9. As stated supra, in view of the material on record comprising of the impugned complaint and FIR, which disclose the commission of the offences by the petitioners, I am of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19821 CRL.P No. 7500 of 2024 considered opinion that mere pendency of the civil suit cannot be made the basis to quash the impugned proceedings as contended by the petitioners whose contention in this regard cannot be accepted. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the present petition does not warrant interference by this Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 482 Cr.P.C or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE SV List No.: 4 Sl No.: 2