Smt Seema Muthuswamy Vs State by Sanjay Nagar Police Station

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:11135 CRL.P No. 3202 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3202 OF 2025

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. SEEMA MUTHUSWAMY WIFE OF K.K. MUTHUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.D2/8, I CROSS ROAD, I.I.T CAMPUS, CHENNAI-600 035.

¶8

SRI. MUTHUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.D2/8, I CROSS ROAD, I.I.T CAMPUS, CHENNAI-600 035.

¶9

SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD SON OF KUPPUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

RESIDING AT NO.7, RAJAPRIYA MANSION, 2^ND CROSS, CHIKKATHAYAPPA LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶12

SMT. PRIYADARSHINI PRASAD WIFE OF SRI. RAJENDRA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.7, RAJAPRIYA MANSION, 2^ND CROSS, CHIKKATHAYAPPA LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. ROHAN HOSMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:11135 CRL.P No. 3202 of 2025

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE BY SANJAY NAGAR POLICE STATION REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU CITY IN C.C.NO.8452/2017 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 420, 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners-accused, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 401 and 420 of the IPC, read with Section 34 of the IPC, are before this Court seeking relief.

¶26

The prosecution alleges that a registered sale deed was executed by the deceased husband of the complainant in favour of accused No.1 (petitioner No.1) on 21.11.2011, and that after the sale deed was executed, the petitioner-accused No.1 paid only a part of the sale

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:11135 CRL.P No. 3202 of 2025

¶29

consideration, thereby defrauding the deceased husband of the complainant.

¶30

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 (State).

¶31

A registered sale deed was executed in favour of accused No.1 by the complainant’s husband on 21.11.2011. The complainant’s husband died on 7.8.2016, and a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. was allegedly filed on 1.10.2016. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation, the Police submitted a charge sheet for the offences in question. Meanwhile, the complainant also filed a suit in O.S.No.7555/2017 for the cancellation of the sale deed and for a permanent injunction, reiterating the allegations made in the private complaint.

¶32

A review of the private complaint indicates that the complainant’s deceased husband executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.1 and, during his lifetime, made no allegations against the accused regarding nonpayment of the full sale consideration. It is only after his death that the complainant filed a private complaint

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:11135 CRL.P No. 3202 of 2025

¶35

alleging that the petitioners-accused did not pay the entire sale consideration.

¶36

Notwithstanding the allegations, the charge sheet material does not establish that the petitioners induced the complainant’s deceased husband to execute the sale deed with the intention to deceive. The sole allegation against the petitioners is that the entire sale consideration was not paid under the sale deed. Even if that allegation is accepted, it does not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶37

The dispute between the parties relates to the alleged non-payment of the full sale consideration, which is essentially a civil matter. However, the matter has been given a criminal texture in order to pressure the petitioners into reaching a settlement. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶38

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i) The Criminal petition is allowed.

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:11135 CRL.P No. 3202 of 2025

¶42

5 -

¶43

ii) The Impugned proceedings in C.C.No.8452/2017 on the file of the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, insofar it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 is hereby quashed .

¶44

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶45

HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

Smt Seema Muthuswamy v. State by Sanjay Nagar Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Seema Muthuswamy v. State by Sanjay Nagar Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shantha Bai Vs the Inspector of Police

Sri Chinduluru Ajay Seshu Vs State of Karnataka by

Kelsang Sherba Vs State of Karnataka

Madhavan Raj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Dr Shilpa Gupta Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Preetha Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka