- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010663902024 NC: 2026:KHC:38201 WP No. 31287 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 31287 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. DR. MAMATHA H.S., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O. RAVINDRA, R/A NO.44/2, 8TH CROSS, RELIABLE RESIDENCY, HARALUR, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102. 2. SMT. SHILPA H.S., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O RAMESH N, R/AT NO.1609, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR, SRI RAMA TEMPLE, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 796. 3. SMT. ROOPA HARLUR SREENIVASA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, W/O G.K GURU RAGHAVENDRA, R/A NO.7, COPPICE PLACE, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, NE 12 9DA, UNITED KINGDOM. Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010663902024 NC: 2026:KHC:38201 WP No. 31287 of 2024 4. SRI. GURU RAGHAVENDRA G.K., AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O G.R.KRISHNAMURTHY, R/A NO.7, COPPICE PLACE, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, NE 12 9DA, UNITED KINGDOM. 5. RAMESH N, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, S/O A NARAYANA REDDY, R/A E-1609, DEVARA CHIKKANA HALLI MAIN ROAD, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGAR, BEGURU, BENGALURU - 560 068. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAYUR D BHANU., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SHO, H.S.R LAYOUT POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. ROHAN H N, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, S/O NAGABHUSHAN R/A NO.111/2, ESHWAR NILAYA, 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010663902024 NC: 2026:KHC:38201 WP No. 31287 of 2024 RELIABLE LAKE DEW RESIDENCY, HARLUR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1; SRI.R.LOKESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 528 OF BNS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.10.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXXIX ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU IN P.C.R. NO.12550/24 DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO REGISTERE A FIR ANNEXURE - B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Mayur D Bhanu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. R. Lokesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 5 are before the Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.385/2024 registered by the son of one Nagabhushan for the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010663902024 NC: 2026:KHC:38201 WP No. 31287 of 2024 offences punishable under Sections 318, 319, 336(3) and 340 of the IPC. 3. The father of the second respondent – the complainant is said to have been given in adoption by one late Smt. Gullamma pursuant to execution of a registered Adoption Deed, after which, several civil suits have sprung between the parties. The issue that was projected by the father in a crime so registered separately in Crime No.104/2023 was with regard to forgery of a Family Tree and transfer of a car. This Court, in terms of its order dated 04.02.2026 in W.P.No.19109/2023, while narrating the entire facts, in which, the father of the complainant had registered the complaint, allowed the petition by the following order: "3. Facts adumbrated are as follows: Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2 is the complainant. The petitioners and respondent No.2 were belonging to the same family. On 18.02.1985, respondent No.2 was given in adoption by a registered Adoption Deed to one late Smt. Gullamma, the Grandmother of the petitioners. Pursuant to the Adoption Deed, it transpires that a settlement is arrived at in the family in O.S.No.92/1987 and respondent No.2 - complainant secures his share of the property from the adopted family. On 11.05.2003, it transpires that respondent No.2 receives 40% of the entire property from the petitioners and their parents in terms of a Partition - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010663902024 NC: 2026:KHC:38201 WP No. 31287 of 2024 Deed. A suit then comes to be filed by the son of respondent No.2 in O.S.No.2114/2021 seeking partition of the property from the Partition Deed dated 11.05.2003 on the score that the Will is said to have been executed by one Smt. Jayamma, the second wife of one Sri. H.N. Ramaiah Reddy, the grandfather of the present petitioners. When all these things in place, comes the complaint on 08.06.2023 against these petitioners. This becomes a crime in Crime No.104/2023 for the afore- quoted offences. The registration of the crime is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the complainant way back in the year 1985 was given in adoption to one Smt. Gullamma. The petitioners have been the said family member and has taken share of the property of the adopted family property in the year 1997 itself. A partition takes place in the family of the petitioners, to which also, respondent No.2 receives 40% of the entire share of the property. Learned counsel submits that the Family Tree is drawn for a particular purpose where the name of respondent No.2 is removed, not by these petitioners, but by the father on 01.12.2020. The father dies in 2021, then springs all these problems by respondent No.2. Learned counsel submits that between the parties, there are civil suits pending even today in O.S.Nos.2114/2021 and 1380/2024. Learned counsel submits that a seemingly civil dispute between the members of the family is sought to be rendered a colour of crime, therefore, the Court must not permit investigation even in the case at hand. 5. Per contra, learned counsel, Sri. Venkatesh R. Bhagat appearing for respondent No.2 would seek to project three contentions. The first is, deletion of the name of respondent No.2 from the Family Tree, which the complainant alleges that it is done by these petitioners. The second is, drawing of money from the account of Sri. H.R.Sreenivasa Reddy after his death by these petitioners, which according to the complainant would become a crime. The third being transferring the vehicle that stood in the name of the father to the mother. Learned counsel would thus submit that all these matters are very serious in nature and investigation in the least is - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010663902024 NC: 2026:KHC:38201 WP No. 31287 of 2024 a must. 6. Learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in seeking investigation and dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The status of the parties is germane to be noticed before entering upon the merit of the matter. The petitioners are the daughters of one Sri. H.R. Sreenivasa Reddy S/o Sri. H.N. Ramaiah Reddy. Sri. H.R. Sreenivasa Reddy had four children, the petitioners and the complainant. The complainant was given in adoption way back in the year 1985 to one of the Grandmother of the petitioners i.e., Smt. Gullamma by a registered Adoption Deed. These are matters of record. After the execution of the registered Adoption Deed and the complainant being given in adoption, the complainant gets the share of the adopted family property in O.S.No.92/1987. This is again a matter of record. A subsequent partition takes place in the family of the petitioners, in which, the complainant receives 40% of the property from the petitioners and their parents in terms of a Partition Deed. This is again a matter of record. Sri. H.R. Sreenivasa Reddy, the father of the petitioners who dies in 2021 after the drawing up of Family Tree. The first allegation of the complainant against these petitioners is that the petitioners who are the daughters of Sri. H.R. Sreenivasa Reddy are responsible for drawing of the Family Tree and removing the name of the complainant. This on the face of it, is untenable for the reason that the Family Tree is not drawn by these petitioners, but by Sri. H.R. Sreenivasa Reddy during his lifetime, who dies after the drawing of the Family Tree. Therefore, the first contention that the Family Tree is fabricated would tumble down. The second contention is that the petitioners have drawn money from the account of Sri. H.R. Sreenivasa Reddy after his death using his mobile. The petitioners have not drawn, but the wife who was alive at that point in time had drawn the money from the account of the husband and not by these petitioners. This again is the submission, which merits - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010663902024 NC: 2026:KHC:38201 WP No. 31287 of 2024 acceptance. The third is that the car standing in the name of the father is transferred to the mother. It is un- understandable as to who else it should be transferred to. If the son who was given in adoption way back in the year 1985 is now wanting to shoot from the shoulders of the criminal justice system by rendering a proceeding, which is seemingly civil dispute and giving it a colour of crime, this Court would not permit such complaints to be tried even under to be investigated even at the hands of the jurisdictional police. All the aforesaid facts being purely civil in nature, permitting crime would run foul of plethora of judgments of the Apex Court. 9. The Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA V. BHAJAN LAL1, has held as follows: "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) 1 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010663902024 NC: 2026:KHC:38201 WP No. 31287 of 2024 of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in Crime No.104/2023 pending before the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, stand quashed qua these petitioners. (iii) The observations made in the case at hand - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010663902024 NC: 2026:KHC:38201 WP No. 31287 of 2024 will not come in the way of any proceeding pending between the parties before any fora." 4. Now the son has registered a separate complaint alleging certain forgery. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent is that the electrical connection that is taken by the petitioners is after the death of the consumer. 6. Learned counsel, Sri. Mayur D. Bhanu appearing for the petitioners submits that the husband of one Sumitra, who is the mother of the petitioners, dies on 08.05.2022. The khatha is transferred to the name of Sumitra, the mother of the petitioners. She applies for change of electrical connection on 16.01.2023 and she also dies on 23.01.2023. Since the application was already filed, it was processed and electrical connections were transferred. On this very slippery slope, the complainant stands to contend that it is forgery. Therefore, after the death of Sumitra, the forgery has taken place at the hands of these petitioners. Nothing can be farther from truth, as it is contrary to the documents itself. As observed in the - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010663902024 NC: 2026:KHC:38201 WP No. 31287 of 2024 petition filed by the father, the pendency of civil suits are a matter of record, in which, the present complainant is also a party. 7. Therefore, there is no warrant to permit investigation in the case at hand against these petitioners as well, in the light of pendency of the civil suits between the parties. 8. All contentions are left to be contended in the civil proceedings. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER [I] The Writ Petition is allowed [II] Proceedings in Crime No.385/2024 stands quashed qua the petitioners. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7