- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37335 WP No. 28638 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 28638 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: JANARDHAN S/O LATE SANNA HUCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO. 122/2, BOVI COLONY, AREKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AJAY KADKOL T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BOMMANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE- 560 068. 2. SMT. YASHODHAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.3, SIDHESHWARA NILAYA, BEGUR MAIN ROAD, HONGASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. NATARAJU T., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS PRAYING TO DIRECTION OR ORDER REVERSING AND SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 12.09.2024 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37335 WP No. 28638 of 2024 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY IN PCR NO. 8313 OF 2024 ORDERING THE REFERENCE OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE R-2 FOR INVESTIGATION AND FINAL REPORT, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNX-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in PCR No.8313/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 156(3), 420, 504 and 506 of Cr.P.C and consequential registration of the case in Crime No.338/2024 by the respondent No.1 - Police. 2. Respondent No.2 – complainant, who is the elder sister of the petitioner, instituted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. Along with the complaint, she sought a direction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to refer the matter to the jurisdictional police for investigation. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37335 WP No. 28638 of 2024 3. The gist of the complaint is that the petitioner (accused) purchased a site, in connection with which respondent No.2, at his request, assisted him and issued cheques as collateral security for a loan raised from a financier. It is further alleged that the petitioner procured a Relinquishment Deed from the female members of the family regarding ancestral property; however, the complainant did not execute the said deed. The petitioner is alleged to be unlawfully retaining the complainant’s cheques, security documents and jewellery and to be threatening her to sign the Release Deed. On these allegations, the complainant presented the private complaint. 4. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel representing respondent No.2 and the learned Additional SPP for the State. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37335 WP No. 28638 of 2024 5. Before proceeding further, it is appropriate to extract paragraphs Nos.5 to 7 of the private complaint, which read as follows: 5. The complainant submits that, during August 2021, the accused has purchased a site measuring 30'x40' located at Kithaganahalli Village from its owner Mr.Rudraprasad, at that time, the accused sought financial help to complete the sale transaction, as such the complainant took him to a Financier by name one Jagannatha Shetty and managed to fetch loan of Rs.8 Lakhs and at the time of lending loan said Mr.Jagannatha Shetty collected 6 Blank signed cheques for security and they are (1) 434542, (2) 434541, (3) 434542, (4) 434544, (5) 434545, (6) 4344546. The accused had cleared the said loan to the financier and collected all the security cheques and documents from the Financier. 6. The complainant submits that, the accused managed to obtain Relinquish Deed from the female children of the family with respect to the ancestral property, but the complainant has not signed the Release Deed, due to which the accused intentionally detained the cheques and security documents and now threatening the complainant for having not signed the Release Deed in favour of the complainant. 7. The complainant submits that, as the complainant failed to execute the Release Deed with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37335 WP No. 28638 of 2024 respect to the ancestral property, the accused intentionally detaining the jewelry of the complainant and also the security cheques with him and now the accused threatening the complainant, hence the complainant approached the jurisdictional Bommanahalli PS on 27.05.2024 whereas the police have registered NCR No.131/2024 dated 21.05.2024 but till today, the police have not taken any steps against the accused. The copies of the complaint and NCR are herewith produced as DOCUMENTS - 1 & 2. 6. On a careful examination of the averments contained in the private complaint, as extracted hereinabove, it is apparent that respondent No.2 – complainant and the petitioner are siblings and there is an underlying dispute regarding their ancestral properties. The complainant alleges that she financially assisted the petitioner-accused in acquiring immovable property by issuing blank cheques and parting with her jewellery so that the petitioner could purchase a site. She further asserts that other female members of the family have executed a Relinquishment Deed in respect of their shares in the ancestral property, whereas she has refrained from - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37335 WP No. 28638 of 2024 executing such a deed on the ground that the petitioner has not yet returned her cheques or jewellery. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint does not furnish particulars of the jewellery allegedly entrusted, whereas the complainant maintains that such details were disclosed when the matter was first reported to the police. 7. Having regard to the substance of the allegations in the complaint read conjointly with the written representation submitted to the jurisdictional police, this Court is of the considered view that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in character. The complaint lacks the core ingredients necessary to constitute an offence under Section 420 IPC; it neither demonstrates dishonest inducement at the inception nor discloses fraudulent intent. The Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court have repeatedly held that the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 IPC cannot ordinarily co-exist unless there are clear and distinct allegations satisfying the ingredients of each. This principle - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37335 WP No. 28638 of 2024 stands reaffirmed in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P and another1, wherein it has been held that criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes or exert pressure in property matters. 8. What further emerges from the record is that the learned Magistrate, upon receipt of the private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., has mechanically referred the matter to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., without first applying his judicial mind to ascertain whether the dispute, as presented, disclosed the commission of any cognizable offence or was merely of a civil complexion. The law is now well-settled that a Magistrate, before invoking his power under Section 156(3), must carefully evaluate the allegations in the complaint and the materials produced, and record a prima-facie satisfaction that the case involves a cognizable offence warranting investigation by the police. The exercise of power under Section 156(3) is not intended to 1 2024 SCC Online SC 2248 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37335 WP No. 28638 of 2024 be a matter of routine, especially where the dispute, on its face, is one of civil nature inter se private parties. 9. In the present case, the complainant has sought to convert what is essentially a property dispute between a brother and a sister into criminal proceedings, by invoking the coercive process of law. Such an attempt is impermissible. Though the petitioner has raised other procedural infirmities in the manner in which the Magistrate dealt with the complaint, this Court finds it unnecessary to examine them in detail, as the very foundation of the complaint is devoid of criminality. The allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, only reveal a dispute concerning ancestral property and certain financial transactions arising therefrom, and do not constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the initiation of criminal proceedings, and the subsequent referral of the complaint under Section 156(3) - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37335 WP No. 28638 of 2024 Cr.P.C. for investigation, were wholly unwarranted. The impugned proceedings are, therefore, liable to be quashed. ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City in PCR No.8313/2024 as per Annexure-A and the FIR in Crime No.338/2024 registered by Bommanahalli Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 of IPC as per Annexure-C are hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12