Smt Anasuyamma Vs State of Karnataka

DR MANJUNATH REDDY S/O LATE SUNDARARAMA REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 207, 2^ND FLOOR, BINDIYA RESIDENCY, 24^TH MAIN, 6^TH FACE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560078.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI AJITH KALYAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 19.03.2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.6701/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL. C.J.M., BENGALURU ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.211/2018 OF BASAVANAGUDI PS, AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 418, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 AND 120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶25

IN CRL.P NO. 10052/2023

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

MANJUNATHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O LATE SUNDARA RAMA REDDY R/A NO.207, 2^ND FLOOR, BINDIYA RESIDENCY, 24^TH MAIN, 6^TH PHASE,

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35788 CRL.P No. 11929 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10052 of 2023

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

J.P.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560078

¶31

N. DEVENDRA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH, R/AT NO. 1116, 17^TH MAIN, 30^TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI 2^ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560070.

¶32

M. RAGHAVENDRA PRASANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O RAMU R/AT NO.45, 24^TH MAIN, 1^ST PHASE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560076.

¶33

...PETITIONERS

¶34

(BY SRI. MAHESH Y L., ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVANAGUDI P.S. REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶37

SRI RAGHUPATHI REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O RAMASWAMY REDDY, R/AT NO.115, 3^RD CROSS, NEAR SRI SAI RAM PG, OUTER RING ROAD, MAHADEVAPURA, BENGALURU - 560048.

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI DILIP KUMAR.I.S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35788 CRL.P No. 11929 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10052 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE I.E., BASAVANAGUDI POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.49/2021 DATED 02.03.2021 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 441, 442, 443, 445, 380, 417, 420, 395, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE FO XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED IN P.C.R NO.55254/2019 AND ETC.,

¶43

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶45

ORAL ORDER

¶46

In Criminal Petition No.11929/2024

¶47

This petition is filed by the mother, sister and brother-inlaw of respondent No.2/complainant seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.6701/2019 pending on the file of IV ACJM Court, Bengaluru.

¶48

Today, an application has been filed under Section 320(8) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accompanied by an affidavit and a compromise petition in O.S.No.6167/2018.

¶49

Pursuant to the compromise, the parties have voluntarily effected partition, and the properties have been

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35788 CRL.P No. 11929 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10052 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

allotted to the respective family members in terms of the compromise decree. The same is reflected in the decree passed in O.S.No.6167/2018. In view of the amicable settlement in the said suit, the complainant, who is present before this Court, has expressed willingness to withdraw all allegations and to bring an end to the criminal prosecution, there being a comprehensive settlement recorded before the competent Civil Court.

¶53

4. Although the complaint alleged offences under

¶54

Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC, this Court is of the opinion that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and was given a criminal colour at the instance of respondent No.2, who happens to be the son of petitioner No.1. Since the civil dispute has already been resolved by way of a compromise decree and the complainant has withdrawn all allegations, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the proceedings to prevent abuse of process of law.

¶55

In Criminal Petition No.10052/2023

¶56

This petition is filed by the brother-in-law of respondent No.2/complainant, seeking quashing of the

¶57

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35788 CRL.P No. 11929 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 10052 of 2023

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

proceedings in C.C.No.33756/2022 pending before the Court of the 37th ACMM, Bengaluru.

¶60

Today, an application under Section 320(8) read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C, supported by an affidavit, has been filed.

¶61

The complainant, who is the brother-in-law of the petitioner, has submitted that the dispute has been amicably settled in a civil suit, culminating in a compromise decree.

¶62

This Court is of the view that the controversy, though couched as allegations of criminal trespass and theft of documents relating to joint family property, is essentially civil in nature. As the partition suit has already been compromised and a decree drawn, it would be just and proper to quash the criminal proceedings to avoid abuse of process of law.

¶63