- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6410 CRL.P No. 6638 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6638 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SMT. VASUNDARA W/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O HOUSE NO.526/2726, 2ND MAIN, 2ND CROSS, 5TH STAGE, BMEL LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 098. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GIRISH B. BALADAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HASSAN EXTENSION POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001. 2. C.S. HANUMANTHAIAH S/O LATE PATEL SANJEEVEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O MARUTHI NILAYA, GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD, GAYATHRI EXTENSION, CHANNARAYAPATNA TOWN, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; V/O DATED 06.10.2025 NOTICE TO R2 IS Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6410 CRL.P No. 6638 of 2017 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2016 IN P.C.R.NO.97/2014 AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.83/2017 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HASSAN (ANNEXURE-A AND B) IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.1 in CC.No.83/2017 (in PCR.No.97/2014) pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her for the offences punishable under Sections 383, 393, 404, 415, 420, 423, 441, 463, 468, 469, 471, 481, 489 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Heard Sri. Girish B Baladar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Sowmya R, learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record. 3. Respondent No.2 - complainant has filed the private complaint in PCR.No.97/2014 against accused Nos.1 to 4 contending that the complainant is the owner of the site - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6410 CRL.P No. 6638 of 2017 measuring 3000 Sq.ft situated in Sy.No.80/3B1.A1.A1.A2 as it was purchased by him under the sale deed dated 12.04.2007 from one Smt.Manjula. He was in possession of the property after purchase of the same. The Hassan Development Authority proposed to form a road measuring 80 feet. Accused No.1 was sure that the proposed road run though her property. Therefore, she forged and concocted the documents to show the boundary belonging to the property of the complainant. Accused Nos.2 to 4 have joined hands in commission of the offences in manipulating the documents, extracting money, committing forgery etc,. It is stated that the accused on the basis of the forged and concocted documents started demanding money from the complainant thereby indulged in criminal extortion. It is stated that, accused No.1 had filed OS.No.53/2012 before the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan, but has subsequently withdrawn the same. The accused have illegally trespassed into the land belonging to the complainant and committed various offences. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences, registered CC.No.83/2017 and summoned the accused to appear before - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6410 CRL.P No. 6638 of 2017 the Court. The petitioner being accused No.1 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her. 4. 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 petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that accused No.1 has not committed the offence as alleged. Infact she purchased the property from one Visvesvaraya under sale deed dated 09.03.1989 and sold it in favour of accused No.2 on 30.10.1992, who in turn sold it to accused No.3 and thereafter to accused No.4. No offence what- so-ever is made out and therefore, the criminal proceedings against accused No.2 to 4 is already quashed. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for similar relief. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6410 CRL.P No. 6638 of 2017 6. On perusal of the complaint filed by respondent No.2, it is clear that there are allegations for having committed serious offences. Learned Magistrate has passed the detailed order for taking cognizance of the offences. 7. At the time of addressing the arguments learned counsel for the petitioner produced the copy of judgment passed in OS.No.106/2014 passed by the Trial Court, according to which respondent No.2 has filed suit against the present petitioner and others seeking declaration and permanent injunction. The suit came to be decreed vide judgment dated 26.11.2025. It is pertinent to note that additional issue No.2 was framed by the Trial Court as to whether the plaintiff i.e., respondent No.2 herein proves that the sale deeds dated 30.10.1992, 30.01.1997 and 02.05.2006 entered into between defendant Nos.1 to 4 who are accused Nos.1 to 4 herein, in respect of the suit schedule property are null and void and answered the same in the affirmative. It answered issued Nos.1 to 4 in the affirmative and answered additional issue No.1 in the negative, where defendant No.1 had taken the contention that the suit was barred by limitation. As a result the suit filed by respondent No.2 herein is decreed declaring - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6410 CRL.P No. 6638 of 2017 that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the defendants are restrained by granting permanent injunction. Thus, the Trial Court has given specific finding on additional issue No.2 which prima facie goes against petitioner herein. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copy of the order dated 28.03.2023 passed in Crl.P.No.1223/2020 to contend that the criminal proceeding against accused Nos.2 to 4 was already quashed. On perusal of the said order the Court formed an opinion that the offences if any is committed by accused No.1 and not by accused Nos.2 to 4. However, liberty is reserved with the prosecution to invoke Section 319 of Cr.P.C, even against accused Nos.2 to 4. It is also stated that the prosecution is at liberty to cite accused Nos.2 to 4 as witnesses in the case against the present petitioner. In view of the above, quashing of criminal proceedings against the co-accused is not helpful to the petitioner. The present petitioner is the main accused against whom serious allegations are made. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6410 CRL.P No. 6638 of 2017 9. Considering all the above facts and circumstances, I find strong prima facie materials against the petitioner, which are supported by various documents and the findings recorded by the Civil Court. Under such circumstance, I do not find any reason to quash the criminal case initiated against the petitioner. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10