- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19429 CRL.P No. 2379 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2379 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. M. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O LATE CONTRACTOR MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, KODIMANCHENAHALLI VILLAGE, 23RD WARD, DEVANAHALLI TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SRI. G.K. MANJUNATHA IYYER S/O LATE G.N.K.IYYER AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.311, FORT, DEVANAHALLI TOWN - 562 110 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. SRI. RAJANNA S/O LATE HANUMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, ANNIGHATTA VILLAGE, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19429 CRL.P No. 2379 of 2019 BIDALUR POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 (ABSENT)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2654/2018 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI AS BEING NOT SUSTAINABLE, ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 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 to quash the proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.2654/2018 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423 of IPC. 2. (i) The respondent No.2 lodged a private complaint against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 406, 415, 420, 423, 503 and 506 of IPC. He - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19429 CRL.P No. 2379 of 2019 contended that he was the owner of 2 acres 39 guntas of land in Sy.No.157 of Bidaluru Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk. He claimed that as the borewell sunk in the property went dry, he could not undertake any agricultural activity in the land. Therefore, he approached the petitioner No.2/accused No.2, who was his good friend and expressed difficulty and sought financial assistance. The accused No.2 expressed his inability to help, but advised him that he would extend financial assistance if 1 acre of land out of the aforesaid 2 acres 39 guntas is transferred to the petitioner No.1/accused No.1. The respondent No.2 claimed that in good faith, he executed a sale deed dated 10.08.2005 in respect of 1 acre of land in favour of accused No.1. He contends that on the date of the execution of the sale deed, the accused No.2 had paid only a sum of Rs.2,15,000/- and that the sale was subject to the condition that as soon as the amount is repaid with interest at the rate of 2% per month, the sale would be cancelled and the balance amount would be repaid. He contended that this sale was brought about based on the inducement by the accused No.2, who colluded with accused No.1 in bringing about the sale deed dated 10.08.2005. He thereafter, contended that the accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19429 CRL.P No. 2379 of 2019 No.2 had created another sale deed dated 17.02.2006 as if he purchased the property in question from the accused No.1. The respondent No.2 alleged that he had paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the accused No.2 after raising a loan from VSSN Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bidaluru and requested him to re-convey the property through the accused No.1. At that juncture, the accused No.2 brought up an undertaking duly typed wherein it was stated that if the sum of Rs.3,80,000/- is repaid along with interest at the rate of 2%, the property would be conveyed in favour of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 claimed that since he was illiterate and was pressurized to sign the said undertaking, he signed it. He contended that he was thereby cheated by the accused. (ii) The Trial Court after recording the sworn statement of the respondent No.2, directed registration of a criminal case against the petitioners/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423 of IPC and issued summons. (iii) Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19429 CRL.P No. 2379 of 2019 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the sale by the respondent No.2 in favour of the accused No.1 was in the year 2005. However, after nearly thirteen years, he has filed a private complaint alleging that the petitioners/accused had cheated him in obtaining the sale deed dated 10.08.2005. He contends that the respondent No.2 has already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.435/2018 for a declaration that the sale deed dated 10.08.2025 is fraudulent and not binding upon him, which is pending consideration before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli. He therefore, contends that the prosecution launched against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and mischievous and warrants interference by this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 is absent and therefore, this Court did not get the benefit of his submissions. 5. A perusal of the private complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 would go to show that he had sold the property in question in terms of a sale deed dated 10.08.2005. It also appears that the said property was sold by the accused - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19429 CRL.P No. 2379 of 2019 No.1 to the accused No.2 on 17.02.2006. However, the respondent No.2 has lodged the private complaint after nearly thirteen years from the date of the first sale of the property in question. A perusal of the private complaint does not show that there was any entrustment of the property by the respondent No.2 to the accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, an offence under Sections 406 and 420 was not made out. Nonetheless, the Trial Court mechanically proceeded to register a criminal case and issued process to the accused. The Trial Court must have been alive to the fact that the facts pleaded in the private complaint indicated that the dispute between the parties was civil in nature and the respondent No.2 ought to have availed the remedy before the Civil Court. Since the respondent No.2 is already before the Civil Court in O.S.No.435/2018 seeking for a declaration that the sale deed dated 10.08.2025 is fraudulent and not binding upon him, continuation of the prosecution of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.2654/2018 would tantamount to perpetuating the abuse indulged in by the respondent No.2. 6. In that view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The prosecution of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19429 CRL.P No. 2379 of 2019 C.C.No.2654/2018 pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 423 of IPC is quashed. 7. Any observation made by this Court in the course of this Order will not come in the way of the respondent No.2 establishing his reliefs before the Civil Court. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23