Shivakumar. N Vs State of Karnataka by

SHIVAKUMAR .N. S/O. LATE S.K. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.12/1, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR NISARGA SCHOOL, S.R. LAYOUT, BONE MILL, SIDEDAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU NORTH - 560 073.

¶10

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

SMT. SUDHA SHIVAKUMAR W/O. SHIVAKUMAR .N., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.12/1, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR NISARGA SCHOOL, S.R. LAYOUT, NEAR BONE MILL, SIDEDHAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU NORTH - 560 073.

¶12

NAVEEN KUMAR .N @ BASAVESH S/O. NAGARAJ A.P., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.21/7, H-STREET, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, HOSAGUDDADAHALLI, MYSURU ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 026.

¶13

GIRISH KUMAR .T. S/O. THIBBAIAH S.C., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶14

2 -

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:14653 CRL.P No. 4020 of 2022

¶16

R/AT DOOR NO. 44, 5^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, KOTTIGE PALYA, BENGALURU NORTH, VISHWANEEDHAM, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶17

MANJUNATH H.S. S/O SATYANARAYA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO.40, 3^RD CROSS, SR LAYOUT, NEAR BONE MILL, SIDEDHAHALLI, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU NORTH - 560 073.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. SHIVAJI H. MANE, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOKAPURAM POLICE STATION, KRISHNARAJA SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶22

SMT. REKHA PRABHAKAR W/O. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1634, 6^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA 2^ND STAGE, MYSURU. (SINCE DEAD BY LR'S)

¶23

2(a). MR. M.S. PRABHAKAR S/O LATE T. SHRIKANTAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

¶24

2(b). M.P. SRI. CHARAN, S/O M.S. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:14653 CRL.P No. 4020 of 2022

¶27

2(c). SRI. RANJAN M.P. S/O M.S. PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS.

¶28

ALL ARE R/AT: 1634, 6^TH MAIN, 5^TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA, 2^ND STAGE, MYSORE - 570 017.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY ASMA KOUSER, ADDL.S.P.P. FOR R1

¶31

SRI. M.S. PRABHAKAR, R2(A) PARTY IN PERSON)

¶32

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING CALL FOR RECORDS IN CC. NO.8505/2021 PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MYSURU; TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.10.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY THE HONBLE V ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU IN C.C.NO.8505/2021 HAVING TAKEN THE COGNIZANCE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.380, 114, 34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY REGISTERED A CRIMINAL CASE IN C.C.NO.8505/2021.

¶33

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:14653 CRL.P No. 4020 of 2022

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

Petitioners are seeking to quash the order taking cognizance by the learned V Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysore, in CC No.8505/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 114 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and consequently, the entire proceedings pending against them.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and the party-in-person/respondent No.2(A).

¶40

Based on a complaint lodged by Smt. Rekha Prabhakar, a case was registered in Cr.No.5/2020 at Ashokpuram Police Station, Mysore City against three named accused and two others for offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 380, 448 R/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶41

It is alleged that on 05.11.2019, when the complainant, her mother and husband had gone to J.S.S.Hospital, at that time, petitioner Nos.1 to 3 along with two others trespassed into their house No.239 (New No.22, CH31), Ganesha Krupa, opposite park, 4^th main, Jayanagara,

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:14653 CRL.P No. 4020 of 2022

¶43

Mysore, by breaking open the door and took away the valuables like gold, silver and cash of Rs.1,00,000/-.

¶44

The police on conducting investigation, filed charge sheet against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5 for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 114 R/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶45

As per charge sheet allegations, the accused entered complainant's house, when she was not present, with an assertion that the said house belong to father of accused Nos.1 and 2 and took away an Indane Gas Cylinder, gas stove, Indane regulator with pipe and later got transferred the gas cylinder in their name and accused Nos.3 to 5 abetted accused Nos.1 and 2 to commit the said offence.

¶46

It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that petitioner No.1 is the sole legal representative of late SK.Nagaraj and petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1. Late S.K.Nagaraj was the lawful owner of property bearing No.239 (New No.22, CH-31), Ganesh Krupa, 4^th main, Jayanagara, Mysore, which was acquired from his father through a Will dated 10.07.1995. The said S.K.Nagaraj died in a suspicious circumstance on 06.09.2019. Upon his death,

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:14653 CRL.P No. 4020 of 2022

¶49

petitioner No.1 requested the police to take action against three individuals namely, the complainant, her husband and one Shakunthala, but no action was taken. Being the sole surviving legal representative, he took possession of the property and thereupon, submitted a requisition to transfer the gas supply in his name and the same was transferred in the name of petitioner No.1. He contended that the complainant, based on a Will dated 24.04.2019 allegedly executed by the father of petitioner No.1, lodged a complaint before the police, falsely alleging that the petitioners broke open the lock of the aforementioned house and stole the valuables, cash etc.

¶50

It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that police have not found any valuables during investigation and therefore, ingredients of section 380 of IPC are not made out and the present complaint was lodged with an ulterior motive, after petitioner No.1 gave letter to the City Corporation, Mysore not to transfer the khata of the property in question, in the name of the complainant. He contended that a civil dispute has been given a texture of criminal offence and therefore, contended that entire proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶51

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:14653 CRL.P No. 4020 of 2022

¶52

Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that police having conducted a thorough investigation and having found that the gas cylinder was taken away from complainants house and transferred in the name of petitioner No.1 and as there were no other valuable seized from the possession of the petitioner, filed charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 114 R/w Section 34 of IPC, deleting rest of the provisions mentioned in the FIR.

¶53

Party in person/respondent No.2(A) has contended that the police have not conducted investigation properly and therefore, he has filed an application for re-investigation and also for vacating the stay granted in this case. He contended that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and therefore, proceedings pending against them cannot be quashed.

¶54

The FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 454, 457, 380, 448 R/w Section 34 IPC. It is averred in the complaint that when the complainant along with her mother and husband had been to J.S.S. hospital for surgical consultation, the accused have unauthorizedly entered their

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:14653 CRL.P No. 4020 of 2022

¶56

house and broke open the locks and took away the valuables viz., gold, silver, cash etc. During the course of investigation, the police did not recover any valuables like cash, gold and silver articles from the accused. However, they found that the gas connection, which was in the name of complainant was transferred in the name of petitioner No.1, hence, filed charge sheet for offences punishable under Sections 380 and 114 R/w Section 34 of IPC, against petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 5.

¶57

At this stage, it cannot be said that the dispute is purely civil in nature. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 was the owner of the property in question and the complainant by creating a Will, has been residing in the said property, unauthorizedly. However, the rights of the parties with regard to property in question have to be established before the competent Civil Court. Since the charge sheet is filed, petitioners are at liberty to file application before the Trial Court seeking their discharge, which has to be considered by the Court in accordance with law.

¶58

Insofar as application filed by Respondent 2(A) seeking re-investigation of the matter, in the instant petition

¶59

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:14653 CRL.P No. 4020 of 2022

¶60

filed by the accused, the said prayer cannot be entertained. It is open to seek the said remedy before the Trial Court, if so advised.

¶61

With above observation, petition is dismissed . IA Nos.1/2025, 2/2025 and 3/2025 are disposed of.

¶62

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶63

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Shivakumar. N v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivakumar. N v. State of Karnataka by

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

Sri K M Thyagaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Parvinder Singh Vs the State of Karnataka by Hoskote P S

Sri. S Siddaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. O R Akshay Vs the State of Karnataka

Gowrish B. Sugur Vs the Station House Officer

Sri Nagaraju Vs State of Karnataka