Allowed¶53

Smt. Narayanamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2025CRL.P/3255/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

quashing of FIR; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Sections 406 and 420 IPC read with Section 34 IPC; criminal breach of trust; cheating; mutual destructiveness of Sections 406 and 420; single act cannot attract both sections; civil dispute given criminal colour; sale deed dated 13.12.2017; purchaser's duty to verify title; no valid title; land not converted for residential use; khata; Crime No.17/2021; Chennarayapatana Police Station; Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) & JMFC Devanahalli; Bengaluru Rural District; Karnataka High Court; M.I. Arun, J.; NC: 2025:KHC:47233

What did the court decide?

The FIR in Crime No.17/2021 pending on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) & JMFC Court, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners; the criminal petition is allowed and pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

Smt. Narayanamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the complaint averments disclose the ingredients of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC against the petitioners, given that the purchaser did not allege misrepresentation as to title or concocted documents. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

Verification of the title deeds before purchase was the purchaser's own responsibility; the complaint does not allege that the petitioners misrepresented their title or concocted documents, and therefore no ground is made out to invoke Sections 406 and 420 IPC.

¶37

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioners failed to convey a good title, the purchaser's remedy is to initiate appropriate civil proceedings and sue for compensation; the transaction cannot be termed criminal in nature.

¶41

Key takeaways

Sections 406 and 420 IPC, the provisions under which Crime No.17/2021 is registered, are mutually destructive, and a single act cannot attract the provisions of both.ratio¶41
This is a clear case of a civil transaction given a criminal colour; criminal proceedings against the petitioners cannot be sustained.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the FIR in Crime No.17/2021 (Ss.406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC, Chennarayapatana Police Station), registered on a complaint that the petitioners sold a site by registered sale deed dated 13.12.2017 despite having no valid title and without conversion for residential use, leaving the purchaser unable to obtain khata. Held: (i) verifying the title deeds at the time of purchase was the purchaser's responsibility, and the complaint nowhere alleges misrepresentation as to title or concoction of documents, so no ground is made out to invoke Ss.406 and 420 IPC; (ii) failure to convey good title is a matter for civil proceedings for compensation, and the transaction cannot be termed criminal; (iii) Ss.406 and 420 IPC are mutually destructive and a single act cannot attract both; (iv) the case is a clear instance of a civil transaction given a criminal colour, and the criminal proceedings cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the FIR stands quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners and the criminal petition is allowed; pending I.As. disposed of. (M.I. Arun, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47233 CRL.P No. 3255 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

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

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3255 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O SREENIVAS AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶9

RESIDING AT: BALEPUR VILLAGE

¶10

CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK

¶11

BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 129.

¶12

SRI. SREENIVAS S/O LATE BHEEMANNA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

RESIDING AT: BALEPUR VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK

¶15

BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 129.

¶16

SRI. SUNIL S/O SREENIVAS AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESIDING AT: BALEPUR VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATTANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK

¶17

BENGALURU DISTRICT-562 129.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:47233 CRL.P No. 3255 of 2021

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHENNARAYAPATAN POLICE STATION VIJAYAPURA CIRCLE BENGALURU DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU.

¶25

SRI. ANANTHARAMAYYA C S/O LATE CHIKKASHYANAYYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT: KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND COMPLAINT AND ALL PENDING AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CHENNARAYAPATANA POLICE STATION, CRIME NO.17/2021 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406 AND 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.

¶29

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:47233 CRL.P No. 3255 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Respondent no.2 filed a complaint with respondent no.1-Police alleging that the petitioners herein sold him a site by way of a registered sale deed dated 13.12.2017. However, on verification it was found that the petitioners did not have a valid title to the said property and the said property was not converted for residential use and hence, the purchaser was not in a position to obtain the necessary khata. On the said allegation, Crime No.17/2021 has been registered on the file

¶36

of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn) & JMFC Court, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District.

¶37

It is seen from the complaint averments that, respondent no.2 has purchased an immovable property from the petitioners. At the time of the purchase it is his responsibility to verify the title deeds and thereafter purchase the same. It is not the case of the complainant that the petitioners have misrepresented to respondent no.2 as to their title. It is also not the case of the complainant that

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47233 CRL.P No. 3255 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

petitioners have concocted certain documents and believing

¶41

them to be true the complainant has purchased the property. If petitioners have failed to convey a good title to respondent no.2, he is always at liberty to initiate appropriate civil proceedings against them and sue them for compensation. However, the transaction cannot be termed criminal in nature. No ground is made out to invoke the provisions of Sections 406 and 420 of IPC in the instant case. Further, Sections 406 and 420 of IPC, the provisions under which Crime No.17/2021 is registered, are mutually destructive and a single act cannot attract the provisions of both 406 and 420 of IPC.

¶42