- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38672 CRL.P No. 11920 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11920 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. MR. P.RANGA RAJU S/O SATHYANARAYANA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. SMT. P. USHA W/O P. RANGA RAJU AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, BOTH R/AT: 27A-3-21/1 KRISHNA NAGAR, 12TH WARD PALAKOL, WEST GODAVARI, ANDHRA PRADESH-534260 (ADDRESS AS PER AADHAR CARD) PRESENTLY R/AT: PLOT NO.33, BHAVANA COLONY, 3RD PHASE, NEW BOWENPALLY, SECUNDERABAD-500011. 3. SMT. LALITHA PERICHERLA W/O PAVAN PERICHERLA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT PLOT NO.33, BHAVANA COLONY, 3RD PHASE, NEW BOWENPALLY, BEHIND SUB-REGISTRAR OFFICE, TIRUMALAGIRI, BOWENPALLY SECUNDERABAD-500011. (ADDRESS AS PER AADHAR CARD) …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SAKSHA BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38672 CRL.P No. 11920 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001. 2. MR. PERICHERLA PAVAN S/O RAMABHADRI RAJU P AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.912, 5TH BLOCK, BEL LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE-560097. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. M.J.ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 (FILED UNDER SECTION 528 BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, 2023) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.27305/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE III ACJM, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, 427 AND 448 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38672 CRL.P No. 11920 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the proceedings in C.C. No.27305/2025 registered against them pending trial before the III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 427, 448 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’). 2. The respondent No.2 had reported the commission of cognizable offences by the petitioners in Crime No.376/2019 which after investigation, was closed in terms of a ‘B’ report submitted by the respondent No.1 – Police. The notice of the ‘B’ report was issued to the respondent No.2 who appeared and filed his protest memo against acceptance of the ‘B’ report. The IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, (henceforth referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) in terms of the order dated 06.12.2021, rejected the ‘B’ report dated 27.09.2020 and thereafter, recorded the sworn statement of the respondent No.2 and took cognizance and registered C.C No.27305/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38672 CRL.P No. 11920 of 2025 406, 420, 427 and 448 read with Section 34 of IPC and issued process to the petitioners. 3. Being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against them, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioner No.1 is the father of the petitioner No.3, who is the wife of the respondent No.2. He contends that prior to filing of the private complaint by the respondent No.2, there was already a complaint lodged by the petitioner No.3 against respondent No.2 herein and his parents for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 354, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and that the XXIX Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru, had taken cognizance and the proceedings were under way in C.C. No.52952/2019. He contends that thereafter the petitioner No.3 had filed a petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short, ’the Act, 2005’) against the respondent No.2 and his parents in Crl. Misc. No.42/2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class-III, Bengaluru. He contends that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38672 CRL.P No. 11920 of 2025 as a counterblast to these complaints, the respondent No.2 had filed the private complaint against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 herein alleging the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 427 and 448 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He contends that the averments made in the private complaint show a deliberate attempt on the part of the respondent No.2 to implicate the petitioners in a false case. He also contends that an offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC is not attracted against the petitioner No.3, who is the wife of the respondent No.2. He also contends that the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC were not made out as there was no entrustment of any property to the petitioners. He contends that the Trial Court without considering the past complaints by the petitioner No.3 against the respondent No.2, blindly took cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. He also contends that the Trial Court did not comply with the procedure prescribed for rejecting the ‘B’ report and taking cognizance. Thus, he contends that the entire procedure adopted by the Trial Court is irregular and improper and therefore, the impugned proceedings against the petitioners is liable to be halted. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38672 CRL.P No. 11920 of 2025 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that as per the complaint lodged by the petitioner No.3 under the provisions of the Act, 2005, the petitioner No.3 had specifically stated that she was chased out of the house by the respondent No.2 on 14.03.2017. He contends that the petitioners thereafter trespassed into his house when he was residing along with his aged parents. He contends that therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to explain as to how and under what circumstances, they gained entry into the house. He contends that since the locks applied to the front door of the apartment were broken down, it was invariable that the petitioners had trespassed into the apartment of the respondent No.2. In so far as the contention of the petitioners that the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC were not made out, it is submitted that after the petitioners gained access into his apartment, they had carried away valuables and household articles and therefore, they had committed the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. He contends that the Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited (‘HDFC’) which had initiated recovery proceedings against the respondent No.2 took possession of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38672 CRL.P No. 11920 of 2025 apartment and the petitioners had removed all the movables mentioned in the list of inventories attached to the private complaint as well as a motorcycle bearing registration No.KA- 51-EM-8055 belonging to the respondent No.2. Thus, he contends that the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC were made out against the petitioners. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the Trial Court after considering the averments made in the private complaint and also the evidence of the witnesses examined before it, rightly took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 427 and 448 read with Section 34 of IPC. He, therefore, submits that there is no error warranting interference in this petition. 7. I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. 8. A perusal of the private complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners herein shows that he had alleged that he had locked the apartment and was - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38672 CRL.P No. 11920 of 2025 temporarily residing with his aged parents. He claimed that on 01.08.2017, the petitioners had forcibly entered his apartment by breaking open the lock without his consent or knowledge. He also claimed that the petitioners had taken away the movables mentioned in the list attached to the private complaint as well as the motorcycle referred supra. In support of this contention, the respondent No.2 had examined a witness (CW.3 in PCR No.9538/2019) who purportedly stated that the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 had taken away all the movables from the house that too when the respondent No.2 was not there in the house. Therefore, it was for the petitioners to explain under what circumstances and how they entered the apartment belonging to the respondent No.2. Therefore, the Trial Court was in a way justified in taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC against the petitioners. The contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners that there can be no offence under Section 448 of IPC against the wife / petitioner No.3, cannot be accepted presently since in Crime No.288/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 354 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 was lodged by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38672 CRL.P No. 11920 of 2025 petitioner No.3 against respondent No.2 and his parents prior to 01.08.2017. In the complaint in Crl. Misc. No.42/2019 lodged under the Act, 2005, the petitioner No.3 was stated to be residing in Hyderabad. She also stated that she was chased out of the house by the respondent No.2 on 14.03.2017. Therefore, it appears that there was no love lost between the petitioner No.3 and the respondent No.2. The petitioner No.3 has nowhere mentioned in this petition as to how she gained access into the house that was locked by the respondent No.2. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to prove before the Trial Court as to how and when they entered possession and whether the said entry was lawful or authorized. The order passed by the Trial Court taking cognizance for an offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC, therefore does not warrant interference. 9. However, in so far as the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC are concerned, there is no material to show as to when and how these articles were entrusted to the custody of the petitioners. At the most, there could have been an offence under Section 379 of IPC if the respondent No.2 had alleged that the petitioners had - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38672 CRL.P No. 11920 of 2025 committed theft of the articles in his apartment. So long as there was no entrustment of the articles by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner No.3, an offence punishable under Section 406 or Section 420 of IPC or an offence under Section 427 of IPC or mischief was not made out. To that extent, the contention of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners merits acceptance. 10. In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed in part. The order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in PCR No.9538/2019 (registered as C.C No.27305/2025) in so far as it relates to taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 427 of IPC against the petitioners herein deserves to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. The Court of III Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, shall, however, proceed with trial in C.C. No.27305/2025 registered against the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Section 448 of IPC in accordance with law. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38672 CRL.P No. 11920 of 2025 11. It is needless to mention that the Trial Court shall proceed with the trial of the said case without being influenced by any observations made in the course of this order. 12. In view of disposal of this petition, I.A. No.1/2025 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed off. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE SMA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20