- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7885 CRL.P No. 7136 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7136 OF 2016 BETWEEN: 1. SRI V. NAGARAJ, SON OF LATE VARADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO 7, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN ROAD, HANUMANTHAPURAM SRIRAMAPURAM, BANGALORE - 560 021 2. SRI N GANDHI SON OF V NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO U-34, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURAM SRIRAMAPURA, BANGALORE - 560 021 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.M. GOPI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS DABASPET POLICE DABASPET, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7885 CRL.P No. 7136 of 2016 2. SMT SAVITHA WIFE OF M RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT KESARAGHATTA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 3. SRI M RAJANNA SON OF MUDDURANGAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT KESARAGHATTA VILLAGE, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASMA KAUSAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. M.S. MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO 1)QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.04.2016 PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, NELAMANGALA AS PER ANNEXURE-A ORDERED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 363 R/W 149 OF IPC AND REGISTERED A CRIMINAL CASE AND ISSUED ACCUSED SUMMONS. AND ETC., THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.771/2016 pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, in Crime No.254/2015 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7885 CRL.P No. 7136 of 2016 Dobbespet Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Sri P.M. Gopi, learned counsel for Sri.Siddamallappa P.M., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Asma Kouser, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - State and Sri M.S. Mohan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7885 CRL.P No. 7136 of 2016 REASONS 4. Respondent No.2 being the wife of respondent No.3 filed first information with Dobbespet Police Station on 16.09.2015, alleging that accused Nos.1 to 6 kidnapped her husband-respondent No.3. It is stated that as her husband had not picked up her call, she came to know that the accused have kidnapped respondent No.3 and had given the details of the persons who have kidnapped her husband. Based on the said information, the FIR came to be registered and the investigation was undertaken. The investigation is completed and the charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 5 for the above said offences. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered C.C.No.771/2016. It is stated that now the matter is pending for hearing for framing charge and also for production of accused Nos.3 and 5 under NBW. In the meantime, the petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement given by respondent No.3 to the Investigating Officer on 17.09.2015. As per this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7885 CRL.P No. 7136 of 2016 statement, respondent No.3 categorically states that he had dropped his wife i.e. respondent No.2 to her parents house and while returning, he met the accused and had gone with them for discussion with regard to the immovable properties. In the meantime, he was called by respondent No.2 over phone. Since he had not picked up the call, on suspicion, respondent No.2 filed the complaint. 6. Strangely on 22.09.2015, respondent No.3 has given his second statement before the Investigating Officer stating that he was kidnapped forcibly by the accused, he was blind folded, his limbs were tied, he was taken to a deserted place, was given life threat, and got his signatures both in Kannada and English and his thumb impression on the documents. He also states that the original documents pertaining to the property were also taken by the accused. Thereby respondent No.2 gives a detailed version of his kidnapping only on 22.09.2015 when the incident had occurred on 16.09.2015 and his first statement was already recorded on the very next day i.e. on 17.09.2015. If these first and second statements of respondent No.3 given before the police are taken into consideration, one cannot be reconciled with the other. There is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7885 CRL.P No. 7136 of 2016 absolutely no explanation as to why respondent No.3 at the first instance has given the statement giving clean chit to the accused stating that he had voluntarily gone with the accused for discussion regarding his landed property and his wife respondent No.2 had filed a complaint only on suspicion, but proceeded to give a detailed version of the criminal offence said to have been committed by the accused, only on 22.09.2015. 7. It is specifically stated by respondent No.3 that he had gone to drop his wife to her parents house, while returning he was kidnapped. But the allegation is that even the original documents pertaining to his landed properties were taken away by the accused. There is no reasonable explanation as to why respondent No.3 had carried the original documents of his properties along with him in the car on the date of incident. 8. It is brought to the notice of the Court that accused No.1 / petitioner No.1 had filed the suit O.S.No.732/2015 before the Trial Court against respondent No.3 seeking specific performance of contract on the basis of an agreement dated 03.05.2014 said to have been executed by respondent No.3 in his favour. Even though the said suit came to be filed on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7885 CRL.P No. 7136 of 2016 09.12.2015, the agreement relied on by accused No.1 is dated 03.05.2014. If this fact is taken into consideration in the light of the inconsistent statement given by respondent No.3 and specific allegations made by him in his second statement that was recorded on 22.09.2015, I do find considerable force in the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that deliberately a complaint came to be filed making allegations against the petitioners to have a defence against the agreement in the civil referred to above. 9. Prima-facie, I am of the opinion that, to settle the civil dispute, the criminal case came to be registered by abuse of process of law. Therefore, the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following. ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in CC.No.771/2016 (Crime - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7885 CRL.P No. 7136 of 2016 No.254/2015 of Dobbespet Police Station), pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala, registered for the offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 149 of IPC, is hereby quashed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12