- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1563 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. RAJYALAKSHMI D/O S R RAO, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O "TARAKA" NO.170, 3RD FLOOR, 10TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGLARUU - 560 080. 2. SRI. KARTHIK KRISHNA S/O M KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O "TARAKA" NO.170, 2ND FLOOR, 10TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALRUU - 560080. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUDHARSHAN L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY UPPARPET POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. VIJAYLAKSHMI AKKINA W/O LAKSHMIPATHI RAO REDDY, AGED BOUT 63 YEAR, R/O DR. NO.25, BLOCK-A, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 SEA SHELLS APARTMENT, DASPALLA HILLS, VISHAKAPATNAM - 530 003. ANDHRA PRADESH. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. PRABHULING NAVADGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.B.RAVI KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C NO. 26897/2024 ON THE FILE OF UPPARPET POLICE STATION, BENGALURU AND PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED V ACMM COURT AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 420 OF IPC. 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 by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.26897/2024 on the file of the learned V ACMM Court, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. 2. Respondent No.2, the de facto complainant, has filed a private complaint on behalf of her son, Sandeep Yelamanchi. In the said complaint, it is alleged that the petitioners have unlawfully taken possession of certain - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 properties that were allotted to her daughter-in-law, Kavya Krishna. It is contended that the petitioners orchestrated a fabricated and concocted registered Partition Deed dated 23.08.2017, which purportedly altered the lawful allotment of the properties. The complaint further asserts that, under the pretext of settling the joint family ancestral properties, the properties originally allotted to Kavya Krishna under the Partition Deed of 2015 were collusively shared between accused Nos.1 and 2. On this basis, a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C has been lodged alleging that the petitioners cheated the complainant’s son, who is the son-in-law of petitioner No.1 (accused No.1). 3. Challenging the proceedings presently pending in C.C.No.26897/2024 before the learned V ACMM Court, Bengaluru, the petitioners seek quashing of the same on the ground that the dispute is essentially civil in nature. It is highlighted that the complainant’s son has already instituted a civil suit in O.S.No.927/2019, in which the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 validity of the registered Partition Deed executed between the petitioners and the husband of petitioner No.1 is under challenge. The petitioners contend that initiating a parallel criminal proceeding by invoking the police machinery is unwarranted and constitutes an abuse of the process of law. They, therefore, pray that this Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. 4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-complainant has argued extensively, demonstrating that the petitioners—accused Nos.1 and 2 have deliberately attempted to usurp the properties allotted to Kavya Krishna. It is contended that the acts of the petitioners constitute a classic case of cheating under Section 420 of the IPC warranting a criminal trial. Reliance has been placed on the 2015 Partition Deed, particularly Schedule ‘D’, which indicates the details of the properties allotted to Kavya Krishna. Learned Senior Counsel asserts that the petitioners, taking - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 advantage of Kavya Krishna’s untimely demise due to cancer in the United States, allegedly fabricated the 2017 Partition Deed and misrepresented facts to show that Kavya Krishna had died unmarried. Reference to the Death Certificate has been made to establish the petitioners’ intent to cheat at the inception. Further, reliance has been placed on precedents of the Co-ordinate Bench to demonstrate that in appropriate circumstances, civil and criminal remedies may simultaneously be pursued. 5. It is submitted that in the present factual matrix, the complainant’s son is entitled to maintain a civil suit challenging the alleged fraudulent Partition Deed while concurrently initiating criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 420 of the IPC. The learned Senior Counsel contends that the complainant’s son has correctly exercised his right to pursue both civil and criminal remedies simultaneously and therefore, this case does not merit quashing of the criminal proceedings at this stage. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-complainant, the primary question for determination is whether the complainant’s son, having instituted a civil suit assailing the Partition Deed dated 23.08.2017, could lawfully file a private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. 7. Before proceeding further, this Court deems it appropriate to extract relevant portions of the private complaint. Paragraph Nos.8 to 10 of the complaint are particularly germane and are extracted hereunder for ready reference: "8. The complainant submits that thereafter on 23.10.2015, the accused No.1 as a first party, Accused No.2 as a second party and Late Kayva Krishna as third party, partitioned all properties among themselves. As per the said partition deed dated 23.10.2015, late Kavya Krishna was allotted the following properties; Property No.1: The House Property situated at second Floor measuring 3,750 Sq. Ft of built up area with two car parking space at ground floor at 'Taraka' building No.170/A, Bengaluru. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 Property No.2: The Commercial unit situated at Sixth Floor measuring 650 Sq. Ft of super built up area with one car parking space at ground floor at 'Barton Centre', No.84, M.G.Road, Bengaluru. Property No.3: Non-agricultural Residential land measuring to an extent of 1 Acre, 26 Guntas and 14 Guntas of Karab land situated at Sy. No.22, Chikkabellandur Village, Varthur Hobli, Begaluru East Taluk. Property No.4: Land bearing Sy. No.82 measuring 6,800 sq. ft situated at Bellandur Village, Bengaluru East and Sy. No.12 measuring 5,500 Sq. Ft situated at Amblipura Village, Bengaluru East. The copy of the partition deed is produced herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 9. As per the said partition, late Kavya the daughter in law of the Complainant secured the possession of her share and started collecting rents from the tenants. The tenants used to deposit the rents into the name of Kavya. 10. At the same time, Kavya desired that after her death, her entire properties shall go be bequeathed to her husband and minor son. Therefore, she executed a Will on 23.10.2015, explicitly expressing her desire that after her death, all her properties, Investments, Shares, Bank deposits, LIC, FD, Insurance benefits should be transferred into the account of her husband and minor son. The copy of the said Will is produced herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court." 8. The extracted portion of the private complaint clearly indicates that the complainant’s son asserts that a lawful partition of the properties took place on - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 23.10.2015. It is further alleged that the disputed properties have subsequently been inter-se partitioned by the accused through a purported 2017 Partition Deed, which is claimed to have been executed with fraudulent intent, thereby constituting an act of cheating. For a comprehensive understanding, it is also pertinent to refer to the prayers sought in the civil suit filed by the complainant’s son in O.S.No.927/2019. The prayer column from the said suit is extracted below for ready reference: "(a). For the division and separation of the 1/2 share of the Plaintiffs in the property set out in the 'A' schedule here below by metes and bounds and in accordance with user and benefits thereof into two shares and allot one share to the Plaintiffs jointly and delivery thereof (b) Directing the defendants or such of the defendant to render true and correct relating to the income and expenditure incurred from the properties set out in the schedule A here below for the past three (03) years before institution of the suit and to give Plaintiffs 1/2 share therein. (c) For mesne profits and for future profits in such sum as may be decided by the Honourable Court from the date of the suit till delivery of the properties to the Plaintiffs; (d) For return of the C-Schedule to the plaintiffs; (e) Costs of the suit; - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 (f) For such other reliefs, as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and property in the circumstances of the case.". 9. The relevant portion of Para No.12 of the plaint is also extracted, as it refers to the 2017 Partition Deed obtained by accused Nos.1 and 2. The extracted portion reads as follows: iii. At the outset, the properties allegedly partitioned inter-se the Defendants under the said impugned Partition Deed dated 23.08.2017 are exclusively the properties which otherwise devolved upon Kavya Krishna Settlement dated 23.10.2015. iv. At para III of the said impugned Partition Deed dated 23.08.2017, the Defendants have stated that ... unfortunately the said daughter of the FIRST PARTY ie. Kavya Krishna expired on 28.03.2016 leaving behind the parties herein.......... The same is palpably false and the Defendants have, with mala fide and intentions, suppressed the fact that Kavya Krishna died leaving behind the Plaintiff as her legal heirs. v. At para IV of the said impugned Partition Deed dated 23.08.2017, the Defendants have stated that, WHEREAS, the under mentioned Properties the Immovable Properties, which are purchased by the FIRST PARTY herein out of her own funds with the assistance of the SECO PARTY…. ..' It is wholly wrong to say the that the FIRST PARTY i.e., 1st defendant herein has purchased the immovable Properties mentioned in the said impugned Partition Deed dated 23.08.2017 out of her own - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 funds. The Defendants are put to strict proof of their contentions. On the contrary, the said properties are entirely procured from the funds and properties gifted by Mr. M. Krishna and of the NRK Trust. vi. At para V of the said impugned Partition Deed dated 23.08 2017, the Defendants have stated that, 'WHEREAS, the Parties herein have been jointly holding, possessing, enjoying and exercising all kinds of absolute rights of ownership and possession over the Item Nos.1 and 2 of the Schedule A property and except the Parties herein, no one else have got any kind of right, ritte, interest, share, claim possession over the same. The said contention of the Defendants is factually untenable, legally not sustainable and is false. The Defendants have to prove the same. At all times, and since Inception, it is Kavya Krishna, and thereafter upon her demise, the Plaintiffs who have had and continue to have possession and ownership of the stated Schedule-A properties, as identified in the impugned 23.08.2017. vii. At para 1 of the impugned Partition Deed dated 23.08.2017, the Defendants have stated that, The Parties above named have unanimously and amicably settled amongst themselves the issue of sharing and distribution of the Item Nos.1 & 2 of the Schedule-A properties. .'. The Parities to the impugned Partition Deed dated 23.08.2017 are by no means entitled to themselves unanimously and amicably settle the sharing and distribution of the Schedule-A properties and identified in the impugned Partition Deed dated 23.08.2017." 10. On a detailed examination of the prayer sought in the plaint and the relevant pleadings, this Court - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 observes that the petitioners and respondent No.2 are relatives and that the dispute pertains to property rights arising from inheritance under Hindu law. The core issue relates to whether the registered Partition Deed dated 23.08.2017, executed by the petitioners, affects the birthright of Kavya Krishna in the maternal property, a matter currently sub judice in the pending civil suit filed by the complainant's son. 11. In the opinion of this Court, initiating criminal proceedings under Section 420 of the IPC at this stage is premature. Property rights must first be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. The complainant's son, asserting rights in his wife’s property, could not validly resort to criminal prosecution under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. simultaneously. Moreover, police officials generally lack the expertise to investigate complex civil property disputes. Judicial precedents have consistently cautioned against police involvement in such matters, noting the risk of undue influence or intimidation. In the present case, it - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 is apparent that the police have attempted to intervene in a civil dispute. 12. During the course of the investigation, a confessional statement of accused No.1 was recorded, wherein she acknowledged that her daughter also has a share in the property. This further underscores that continuing the criminal prosecution would be futile. The intricate questions of property rights, which fall within the jurisdiction of a Civil Court, cannot be properly addressed through criminal proceedings under the guise of alleged offences, particularly under Section 4 of the IPC. 13. Although the case highlights a concerning scenario where a daughter’s rightful share in the family property is being contested by her mother and brother, allegedly taking advantage of the daughter’s demise in the United States, such matters must be resolved in a competent forum. Shortcut criminal remedies cannot substitute proper adjudication. Considering these factors, the continuation of the criminal proceedings is likely to be - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36168 CRL.P No. 1563 of 2025 unproductive and may constitute an abuse of process. To secure the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to quash the proceedings. ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The charge sheet in C.C.No.26897/2024 registered by Upparpet Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC on the file of the learned V ACMM Court at Bengaluru, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3