- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.454 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BHASKAR N. S/O. LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 2. SMT. MANJULA W/O. BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.340/B, 2ND 'D' CROSS 13TH MAIN, III STAGE IST BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 BY BASAVESHWARA NAGARA POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 079 2. SRI. N. SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O. LATE C. NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS B.A., LLB ADVOCATE NO.63, IST FLOOR, 2ND CROSS DOMALUR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 071 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHI, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1; SRI. KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN C.C.NO.8927/2018, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.8927/2018 pending trial before V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short). 2. Respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 in writing on 29.06.2017 that on 20.05.2017, he along with his brothers and sister had visited the house of the petitioners to discuss regarding the division of properties of their father. He alleged that the petitioners abused the respondent No.2 and also threatened him of his life. Respondent No.2 claimed that his nephew had died and therefore there was a delay in lodging the complaint. Based on the said complaint, respondent No.1 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019 registered Cr.No.174/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The respondent No.1 after conducting an investigation, filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and C.C.No.8927/2018 was registered. 4. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued process. The petitioners being aggrieved by the charge sheet against them and the order taking cognizance and issuing process, have filed this petition. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the father of petitioner No.1 had executed a Will dated 18.01.2013 in respect of the property owned by him and that respondent No.2 and the other brothers and sister were compelling the petitioners to part with the said property. He therefore, contends that respondent No.2 being an advocate, has given a criminal flavour to a civil dispute. He further contends that respondent No.2, his brothers and sister have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the said property, which is pending consideration. Therefore, he - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019 contends that the impugned criminal prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law and Court and hence, the same is liable to be set at naught. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners abused the respondent No.2 and also threatened him with his life when he visited the house of the petitioners to discuss about the division of the property left behind by his father. He therefore contends that respondent No.1 had rightly registered Cr.No.174/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. He further contends that after investigation, a charge sheet is filed and in the charge sheet statements of CWs.4 to 6 are recorded, which indicate that the petitioners threatened the respondent No.2 and his brothers and sister of their lives, if they ever claimed any share or visited their house to discuss about the division of the properties. He therefore, contends that respondent No.1 was justified in filing the charge sheet and the Trial Court was justified in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issuing process. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader reiterated the contentions of respondent No.2 and submits that the materials collected by the investigating officer indicates the complicity of the petitioners in the aforesaid offence and therefore the filing of the charge sheet and the consequent order taking cognizance are just and proper. 8. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 9. A perusal of the information furnished by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 indicates that the dispute arose in relation to the sharing of the properties left behind by the father of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. It also appears that respondent No.2 and his brothers and sister had visited the house of the petitioners to discuss the division of the properties and that the petitioners abused them and also threatened them. It further appears from the records produced along with this petition that petitioner No.1 claims title to the property in question in terms of a Will executed by his father. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019 Therefore, the dispute inter se relates to a property but has no criminal overtones. The respondent No.2 instead of working out his remedy before the Civil Court, has unnecessarily roped the petitioner into a criminal case and thereby abused the process of law, warranting this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set at nought the abusive prosecution. 10. Consequently, this criminal petition is allowed and the prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.8927/2018 (Cr.No.174/2017) filed for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending trial on the file V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is quashed. 11. In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15