- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION NO. 8953 OF 2022 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 5606 OF 2022 (GM-RES) IN WP No. 8953/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ROOPA W/O. K. S. MAHESH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO. 184, AMRUTHA NILAYA, KITHAGANURU, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 049. 2. SRI. R. DEVARAJ S/O. LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT BIDARE AGRAHARA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, VIRGO NAGAR POST, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 049. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAVEEN REDDY M V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KRISHNARAJAPURA POLICE STATION, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 KRISHNARAJAPURA, BENGALURU-560 036, REPRESENTED BY SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. 2. SRI. SHIVAKUMARA. A S/O T. ANANTHA PADMANABHA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 173, DODDAKANNAHALLI COLONY, CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 035. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DTD 4.3.2022 IN CRIME NO.60/2022 OF R1 POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 504 AND 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTION 3(1) (g)(r) AND 3(2) (va) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989 VIDE ANNEXURE-G. IN WP NO. 5606/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAMAPPA SON OF ANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 4/1, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, KR PURAM, BENGALURU-36 2. KRISHNAPPA SON OF MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, 4/1, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 KR PURAM BENGALURU-36 ...PETITIONERS (BY SMT. LEELA P, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY K R PURAM POLICE STATION REPT BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER K R PURAM, BANGALURU-560036 REPT BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. SRI SHIVAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, SON OF T.ANANTHA PADMANABHA NO 173, DODDAKANNALI COLONY, CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560035 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-G, FIR IN CRIME NO.60/2022, DATED 04.03.2022, REGISTERED BY THE R1 AND SUCH OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CH-71 BENGALURU. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 ORAL ORDER These petitions are filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings in Cr.No.60/2022 of K.R.Puram PS, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 420 IPC and Sections 3(1)(g)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC/ST (POA) Act' for short). 2. While Crl.P.No.8953/2022 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2, Crl.P.No.5606/2022 is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4. 3. Since these petitions are arising out of same crime number and involve common discussion, they are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order. 4. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks in the FIR. 5. In support of the petition, accused Nos.1 and 2 have contented that they are the absolute owners in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 possession and enjoyment of land in Sy.No.42, measuring 1 acres 33 guntas of Kodihalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. They acquired the same through registered sale deed dated 09.07.2014. Prior to the sale deed, the owners of the land had executed General Power of Attorney dated 16.08.2013 in their favour. Their ownership is admitted by the land owners in FDP.No.4/2012 by filing a memo. Complainant is neither the owner nor having any interest in the property in question. Such being the case question of accused persons committing the alleged offence would not arise. In fact, Muninarayana H.G and others tried to interfere with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property of accused Nos.1 and 2 and they filed O.S.No.1373/2016 for declaration and other relief and interim order directing maintaining status is granted. 5.1 Accused Nos.1 and 2 have entered into joint development agreement dated 08.07.2021 with accused Nos.3 and 4 and it is being executed. When things stood - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 thus through the accused, complainant has filed the complaint dated 04.03.2022. The petition filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking anticipatory bail is rejected. 5.2 Seven years after executing the sale deed, with an ulterior motive, complainant has filed a false complaint to make unlawful gain. There are no specific averments as to who abused the complainant referring to his caste. The said allegations are made only to take advantage of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. The property in question is the absolute property of accused Nos.1 and 2 and question of complainant having right over the same would not arise. 5.3 So far as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, in addition to the grounds urged by accused Nos.1 and 2, they have contended that having entered into a joint development agreement with accused Nos.1 and 2, they are putting up construction in the property in question and have invested huge amount. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have filed O.S.No.1405/2016 against the family members of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 original owner and it is pending. In respect of the said property O.S.No.27014/2013 and MFA.No.1376/2022 are pending. The dispute is purely civil in nature which is trying to be given a colour of criminal offence. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and pray to allow the petitions. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2 has relied upon the decision in Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. by the Dy.Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi Trichy and Ors. (Karuppudayar)1. 7. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State would submit that respondent No.2 belong to schedule caste. In Sy.No.42, totally measuring 11 acre 20 guntas, his mother Gowramma was awarded 1/6th share measuring 1 acre 33 guntas. After her death, her children came in possession and enjoyment of the same. Khata is also made 1 Spl.Leave(Crl)No.8778-8779/2024 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 out in their favour. Complainant and others are enjoying the same jointly. During 2013, accused Nos.1 and 2 approached them with a promise to get it sold for higher price on the ground that it is located in a very strategic point and fixed the rate at Rs.15 Crores and secured GPA from respondent No.2 and other sharers. However, they paid only Rs.24 lakhs and issued 10 cheques for total sum of Rs.5 Crores. When presented, the said cheques are dishonoured. 8. Even though time and again they requested accused Nos.1 and 2 to pay the balance and get the sale deed executed, they went on postponing. Therefore, they issued notice canceling the GPA. However, on 09.07.2014, accused Nos.1 and 2 got sale deed executed in their favour as GPA holders by falsely stating that on 09.08.2013, a sum of Rs.5,23,50,000/- is paid. In order to gobble the property, accused Nos.1 and 2 have got GPA and based on it, also got the sale deed executed in their own favour. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 9. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have also entered into joint development agreement with accused Nos.3 and 4. Based on fake documents, they have deprived complainant and others from the said property. When confronted, they were abused referring to their caste. In this regard, respondent No.2 has filed complaint, based on which case is registered and investigation is taken upon. The allegations made in the complaint are very grave. It requires full fledged investigation and trial. On account of the stay, investigation could not be proceeded with and pray to dismiss the petition. 10. Heard arguments and perused the records. 11. Undisputedly, the dispute relates to 1 acre 33 guntas in Sy.No.42 of Kodigehalli, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bengaluru. Originally the said property belong to Kenchamma. After her death, her daughters Jayamma, Nagamma, Gundamma and Gowramma succeeded to the same. Respondent No.2 is the son of Gowramma. Petitioners are claiming right over the said property - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 through registered Generel Power of Attorney dated 19.08.2013 and registered sale deed dated 09.07.2014. 12. Respondent No.2 admit the fact that he and other sharers executed the registered GPA dated 19.08.2013. However, he has claimed that petitioners promise to get the property sold for Rs.15 Crores and paid only a sum of Rs.24 lakhs. The 10 cheques issued for a total sum of Rs.5 Crores came to be dishonoured. He has alleged that when he and other co-owners of the property choose to issue notice canceling the registered General Power of Attorney, accused Nos.1 and 2 got the sale deed executed in their own favour on 09.07.2014. The sale consideration referred to in the sale deed is not paid to them and when questions, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused them referring to their caste. 13. Admittedly, accused Nos.1 and 2 have entered into a joint development agreement dated 08.07.2021 with accused Nos.3 and 4. The photographs produced by them - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 clearly demonstrate that construction is being put up in the said property. Though the respondent No.2 has claimed that the General Power of Attorney dated 19.08.2013 is cancelled, no documents are produced to that effect. Since it is a registered power of attorney, it has to be canceled through a registered document. 14. After lapse of nearly 9 nine years, respondent No.2 has come up with this complaint. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 2, the complaint does not state the date on and the place at which the incident took place, who were all present and out of the accused persons, whether all or any of them used the words abusing them referring to their caste. Omnibus allegations are made. Having regard to the fact that the dispute is civil in nature, respondent No.2 has tried to give it a cloak of criminality. Admittedly, the respondent No.2 and other members of his family who claim right over the property in question have not approached the Civil Court for redressal. In the above facts and circumstance, this - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30819 WP No. 8953 of 2022 C/W WP No. 5606 of 2022 Court is of the considered opinion that continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and same is liable to be quashed and accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Crl.P.No.8953/2022 filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and Crl.P.No.5606/2022 filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C are hereby allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings in Cr.No.60/2022 of K.R.Puram PS, for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 420 IPC and Sections 3(1)(g)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62