- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7990 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHIVAKUMAR B.C. S/O LATE CHANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. SMT. PAVITHRA G.S. S/O SHIVAKUMAR G.S. AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT BOMMEGOWDANAPALYA VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK-572128 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY KORA POLICE STATION, KORA-572128 TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. KUM. VASUNDHARA D/O CAPTAIN N. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/O BOMMEGOWDANAPALYA VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK-572128 TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP, FOR R-1; SRI T. GOVINDARAJA, ADVOCATE, FOR R-2) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.211/2024 (CR.NO.165/2023) REGISTERED BY THE KORA POLICE STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/SEC. 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C COURT, TUMAKURU, INITIATED ON THE COMPLAINT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners/accused 1 and 2 in C.C.211/2024 are at the doors of this Court calling in question the proceedings in the said C.C. registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah for the petitioners, the learned Additional SPP Sri B.N.Jagadeesha for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel Sri T.Govindaraja for respondent No.2/complainant. 3. The petitioners and the complainant are members of the same family. This fact is not in dispute. The dispute is with regard to the property which is bequeathed by way of a Will. The Will is challenged by the respondent No.2/complainant in O.S.213/2012. Notwithstanding the said proceeding, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 repeated crimes are registered against these petitioners by the complainant or the member of the family of the complainant. Those crimes so registered or charge sheets so filed have all been obliterated by an order of this Court dated 12.06.2024 in Criminal Petition Nos. 3801/2023 and 3766/2023. Those orders have become final. Just before the quashment of the proceedings, the third crime had emerged in Crime No. 165/2023. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet against these petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC accepting the allegation that there has been assault. The filing of the charge sheet in the case at hand has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition, yet again. 4. The learned counsel Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the dispute which is purely civil in nature is being arm twisted by the complainant by registering repeated crimes. Earlier also the plea of assault or forgery had been projected by the family member. The present petition forms the third in line trying to arm twist these petitioners. The learned counsel would seek quashment of the same. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant would submit that police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The petitioners have repeatedly assaulted the complainant. In the light of the charge sheet so filed, the proceedings must be permitted to be continued, failing which the assault would continue and further crimes will have to be registered. The learned counsel thus seeks dismissal of the petition. 6. The learned Additional SPP though would toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant would accept the fact of quashment of the other crimes so registered against the petitioners and would submit that there is assault in the case and therefore the petition must be dismissed. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The crime now registered springs from a complaint so registered on 08.12.2023. It reads as follows: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 “gÀªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀB 08.12.2023 vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ¸À¨ï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgïgÀªÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃgÁ ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ G¥À«¨sÁUÀ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ. ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ ²gÁUÉÃmï §qÁªÀuÉ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 38 ªÀµÀð ªÀAiÀĸÀÄì¼Àî ªÀ¸ÀÄAzsÀgÀ ©£ï ²ªÀtÚ DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ vÁ®ÆPÀÄ ¨É¼Áî« ºÉÆç½ ¸ÉÆÃgÉPÀÄAmÉ ¥ÉÇ|| ¨ÉƪÉÄäÃUËqÀ£À ¥Á¼Àå ªÀÄdgÉ, ¸ÉÆÃgÉPÀÄAmÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 48, 98/2, 99/3, 102/2, 126, 132 gÀ°è £À£Àß vÁvÀ£ÀªÀgÁzÀ ²æà gÀÄzÀæAiÀÄå ©£ï ¯Éà ºÀÅZÀÑAiÀÄå£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ £À£Àß vÁvÀ£ÀªÀjUÉ ²ªÀ£ÀAdªÀÄä JA§ M§â¼Éà ªÀÄUÀ½gÀÄvÁÛ¼É ¸ÀzÀj ²ªÀ£ÀAdªÀÄä ªÀÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄAzsÀgÀ DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ EAzÀÄ CAzÀgÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 08.12.2023 ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 8B30 gÀ ºÉÆwÛUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉƪÉÄäÃUËqÀ£À ¥Á¼Àå £À£Àß vÁvÀ£ÀªÀgÀ vÉÆÃlzÀ §½ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ KPÁKQ £À£Àß vÁvÀ£ÀªÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä£À ªÀÄUÀ£ÁzÀ ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï ºÁUÀÆ DvÀ£À ¥Àwß ¥À«vÀæ ºÀ¯ÉèUÉ ªÀÄÄAzÁzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ PÀÆqÀ¯Éà 112 ¸ÀºÁAiÀĪÁtÂUÉ PÀgÉ ªÀiÁrzÉ vÀPÀët ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ¹§âA¢ §AzÁUÀ ¥ÉÇ°Ã¸ï ¹§äA¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉAiÉÄà £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ²ªÀPÀĪÀiÁgï ºÁUÀÆ DvÀ£À ¥Àwß ¥À«vÀæ vÉAV£À JqɪÀÄmÉÖ¬ÄAzÀ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ¤£ÀߣÀÄß PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁqÀĪÀÅzÁV ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ C°èAzÀ vÀ¦à¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §AzÀÄ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ F vÀqÀªÁV §AzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ¸ÀzÀj C¸Á«ÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. EAw vÀªÀÄä ªÀ¸ÀÄAzsÀgÀ” - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 9. The subsistence of the suit between the members of the family seeking partition of the property and challenge to a Will upon which the petitioners have claimed certain benefit is not in dispute. Therefore repeated crimes are registered by the complainant, two of which formed the fulcrum of Criminal Petition Nos. 3801/2023 and 3766/2023. This Court by its order dated 12.06.2024 obliterated the proceedings by the following order : “3. The facts narrated in the petition are as follows: On 8-11-2022, the 2nd respondent/complainant and her mother filed O.S.No.213 of 2012 before the concerned Civil Court for partition and separate possession. The suit is pending consideration. The petitioners contested the suit by filing a written statement contending that they are in possession of the property on the strength of a Will that was executed in the year 1970. After the filing of the written statement comes the impugned complaint on 08-08-2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 and 149 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against these petitioners. Filing of the charge sheet - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner by taking this Court through the documents appended to the petition would seek to demonstrate that the possession being in favour of the petitioners pursuant to a Will, has driven the daughter and mother to register the complaint. He would contend that the suit filed by the 2nd respondent/complainant or her mother would clearly indicate that they are not in possession of the property and are seeking partition of the property and therefore, the incident could not have happened at all, as they have not come into the landed property of the petitioners for ages. He would contend that the projection of Section 341 of the IPC is with intention suffering from want of bona fides. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand, would seek to refute the submissions contending that the petitioners have threatened the 2nd respondent being a lady with dire consequences, if she would enter into the land belonging to the petitioners. Learned counsel would contend that since the police have filed the charge sheet, even this Court in exercise of its - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C should not interfere and the petition should be dismissed. 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would toe the lines of the 2nd respondent- complainant in seeking dismissal of the petition. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The relationship between the parties are as is borne in the civil suit in O.S.No.213 of 2012. They are admittedly members of the same family. The petitioners claim to be in possession of the property pursuant to a Will executed in the year 1970 and the respondents are seeking partition of the said property through the suit in O.S.No.213 of 2012. Therefore, the factum that is clear from the pleading in the plaint O.S.No.213 of 2012 is that the petitioners are in possession of the property. The complaint so registered that the petitioners have entered into the land of the complainant and have threatened her with dire consequences suffers from improbabilities which is incurable. The police, after conduct of investigation, have filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows: “17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À PÀ®A 341, 504, 506 gÉ/« 149 L¦¹ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 ¢:05.08.2021 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11.50 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÉÆÃgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀzÀÄÝ ¸ÉÆÃgÉPÀÄAmÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.98/2gÀ vÉAV£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CrPÉ vÉÆÃlzÀ°è F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt CAPÀt 12 gÀ°è PÀAqÀ J1, J2, J3, J4, J5 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß CqÀUÀnÖ J1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¤£Àß CªÀÄä£ÀPÁåAiÀÄ, J£Éà ¸ÀƼɪÀÄÄAqÉ, ¯Ër ªÀÄÄAqÉ JAzÀÄ CªÁåZÀå ±À§ÞUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ, EzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä¥Àà£À D¹Û PÀuÉ ¤£ÉãÁzÀgÀÄ E¯Éè EzÀÝgÉ ¤£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É mÁæPÀÖgï ºÀwÛ¹ ¸Á¬Ä¹©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É £À£ÀߣÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁUÀĪÀÅ¢®è, JAzÀÄ PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀÄÝ J2 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÁ¬Ä QüÀĪÀ gÉÆÃn¬ÄAzÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄAzÀgÁgÀªÀgÀ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ªÀÄÄAzÁV DvÀ£ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÁåZÀå ±À§ÞUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹zÀÄÝ, J3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J4 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀ ºÁUÉ CªÁåZÀå±À§ÞUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊ¢zÀÄÝ J5 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÉAV£À PÁ¬Ä¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ DgÉÆæUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀÅ zsÀÈqÀ¥ÀlÖ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À jÃvÁå ²PÁëºÀðgÉAvÁ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæ.” The summary of the charge sheet is in slight glorification of the complaint with regard to the offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC. For an action to become an offence under Section 341 of the IPC, the ingredients as found in Section 339 of the IPC is to be necessarily present in terms of which, the complainant should not be permitted to move due to restraint in any direction. That is not the allegation in the case at hand. Therefore, offence under Section 341 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioners. Same goes with the offence under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. 8. All these have sprung into action, only because the petitioners are contesting the suit - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 before the concerned Court in which the complainant and her mother have sought partition of the property. Therefore, the issue being purely civil in nature, though the offence under Section 341 of the IPC would not be a licence to unleash violence upon any victim on the strength of the civil suit pending, the case at hand does not demonstrate any of the ingredients of Section 341 of the IPC. Therefore, permitting further proceedings would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.179 of 2022 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Tumkur in respect of Crime No.125 of 2021 stands quashed. CRL.P.No.3766 OF 2023: ORDER 10. Petitioners, in this petition, are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.10471 of 2022 registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 471, 420 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. This petition is between the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 same parties as in Crl.P.No.3801 of 2023 and is an offshoot of what is contended in the said petition. 11. The fulcrum of the allegation is that accused have got the khata changed in the name of one Siddamma in the year 2004. The complaint comes to be registered in the year 2021 clearly 17 years after the change of khata. There is no plausible explanation in the complaint or in the summary of the charge sheet, as to why the complainant kept quiet for 17 long years after the change of khata. 12. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant would try to defend the action of registering the complaint after 17 years by contending that, when they went to the land of the petitioners they come to know that the khata is changed, which action would vindicate the stand of the petitioners that they are in possession of the property. If khata had been changed in the year 2004 and the complainant has been fighting for partition of the property right from 2012, it cannot be said close to 17 years they did not know what was happening with the ownership of the land. The delay that is in the case at hand, as it is not explained, is fatal to the case of the complainant. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 13. The Apex Court in the case of CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL1 in the circumstances, has held as follows: “…. …. …. ….” “13. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have power to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised and with great caution, the said powers ought to be exercised if a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out by the accused. In the State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy had held that the criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 if the court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed. 14. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark decision in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra), after considering relevant provisions more particularly Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. and the 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 650 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 principles of law enunciated by this Court relating to the exercise of extra-ordinary powers under Article 226, had laid down certain guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing, which have been followed in umpteen number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads as under: “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 give 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. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 (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) 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 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 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.” 15. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy this Court had observed that the Court would be justified to quash the - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court. 16. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu that though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint. 17. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle the personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 made in the complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-accused. 18. Before parting, a few observations made by this Court with regard to the misuse and abuse of the process of law by filing false and frivolous proceedings in the Courts need to be reproduced. In the Court. In Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh it was observed that: “1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non- violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post- Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings.” 19. In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India it was observed as under: “191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill- considered claims.” 20. We would like to add that just as bad coins drive out good coins from circulation, bad cases drive out good cases from being heard on time. Because of the proliferation of frivolous cases in the courts, the real and genuine cases - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 have to take a backseat and are not being heard for years together. The party who initiates and continues a frivolous, irresponsible and senseless litigation or who abuses the process of the court must be saddled with exemplary cost, so that others may deter to follow such course. The matter should be viewed more seriously when people who claim themselves and project themselves to be the global spiritual leaders, engage themselves into such kind of frivolous litigations and use the court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores or to nurture their personal ego. 21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, arising out of the FIR No. 33 of 2009 registered at Ballygunge Police Station, and quash the same.” (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court has delineated that the delay caused in registering the complaint would - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 undoubtedly become fatal to the case of the complainant, unless there is plausible explanation for such delay, which I do not find such explanation in the case at hand. 14. Therefore, in view of the finding that the crime is registered after 17 years of the change of the khata alleging change of khata by forging the documents, it would be highly improbable to permit the trial to continue against these petitioners, as it would become an abuse of the process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. (ii) Proceedings in C.C.No.10471 of 2022 pending before the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Tumkur in respect of Crime No.149 of 2021 stands quashed. The findings rendered in any of these cases will not bind or influence the pending civil suit or any other revenue proceedings between the parties. Consequently, pending applications if any, also stand disposed.” - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 10. These orders have become final. During the pendency of the subject proceedings, in the teeth of the interim order subsisting therein, emerges the impugned crime, complaint of which is noted herein above. The pendency of the civil suit has triggered registration of repeated crimes from the hands of the complainant against these petitioners or other members of the family is a matter of record. Therefore, the crimes are being registered for arm-twisting the petitioners in the civil suit. The suit is for partition and the petitioners have been beneficiaries of the Will which is now challenged by the complainant before the concerned Court. The unmistakable conclusion would be obliteration of these crimes as well failing which, it would amount to an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.211/2024 (Crime No. 165/2023) registered by the Kora Police Station, for the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:708 CRL.P No. 7990 of 2024 34 of IPC, pending on the file of the VI Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Tumakuru, qua the petitioners stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22