Allowed¶65

Venkataraman v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2025CRL.P/541/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No. 541 of 2025, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Hemant Chandangoudar J., 07-03-2025): quashing of FIR Crime No.606/2024 (Kadugodi P.S.) under Sections 120B and 384 IPC via S.482 Cr.P.C. / S.528 BNSS; apartment maintenance-charge dispute at Prestige Shantiniketan, Whitefield, Bengaluru; essential ingredients of extortion (S.383 IPC; punishment S.386 IPC) absent — no putting in fear of injury; FIR held lodged with ulterior purpose to pressurize settlement; continuation of investigation an abuse of process; FIR quashed; petition allowed; second respondent ex parte.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR in Crime No.606/2024 registered by the Kadugodi Police Station, Bengaluru City. ¶65

Venkataraman Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the FIR in Crime No.606/2024 registered by the Kadugodi Police Station, Bengaluru City.

¶65

Issue for consideration

Whether the allegations against the petitioners satisfy the essential ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 384 IPC (extortion), in particular whether the second respondent was put in fear of injury so as to induce payment of the maintenance charges. +1 more

¶58

Court's answer

There is no allegation that the petitioners put the second respondent in fear of injury in order to induce her to pay the maintenance charges.

¶58

Ratio / Principle

The allegations, on their face, do not satisfy the essential elements required to constitute the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners.

¶61

Key takeaways

The FIR appears to have been lodged with the ulterior purpose of pressurizing the petitioners to enter into a settlement.ratio¶62
Continuation of investigation against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing of FIR — Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS) by eight residents/members connected with the Apartment Owners' Association of Prestige Shantiniketan, Whitefield, Bengaluru, to quash FIR in Crime No.606/2024 of Kadugodi P.S. registered on the complaint of the second respondent (flat owner) for offences punishable under Sections 120B and 384 IPC — Complaint alleged that the Association unlawfully demanded Rs. 10,35,212.71 towards maintenance charges dating back to May 2019 although the respondent acquired the flat only in 2023, threatened denial of clearance/discontinuation of facilities, and that accused No. 1 made obscene comments — Held: there is no allegation that the petitioners put the complainant in fear of injury so as to dishonestly induce delivery of property; the allegations on their face do not satisfy the essential elements of the offences charged (extortion defined in S.383 IPC, punishable under S.386 IPC); the FIR appeared to have been lodged with the ulterior purpose of pressurizing the petitioners to enter into a settlement, and its continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law — Petition allowed; FIR in Crime No.606/2024 quashed. (Second respondent served but unrepresented; placed ex parte.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9791 CRL.P No. 541 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 541 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

VENKATARAMAN

S/O. MUTHUKRISHNAN,

AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

R/O. FLAT NO.8022,

HUDSON HAVEN

PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN APARTMENT, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU CITY,

¶15

BANGALORE-560 048.

¶16

SOMANATH MAJUMDAR S/O N.D. MAJUMDAR

¶17

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O. 498, S T BED LAYOUT, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, 4^TH BLOCK

¶18

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶19

KORAMANGALA,

¶20

BANGALORE- 560 034.

¶21

SUDHEENDRA JAHANGIRDAR S/O R.P. JAHANGIRDAR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O. FLAT NO.10012,

¶22

PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN APARTMENT, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU CITY, BANGALORE-560 048.

¶23

ABHISHEK JAYANT PATIL S/O JAYANT PATIL,

¶24

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9791 CRL.P No. 541 of 2025

¶25

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O, NO.2702, TORINO, SOUTH AVENUE, HERITAGE GARDEN, HIRANANDANI GARDENS, POWAI LIT, MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA-400 076

¶26

SMT. NIDHI GARG W/O VIVEK GARG, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O, FLAT NO.3182, PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN APARTMENT, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 048.

¶27

AMIT MANGLA S/O RAMAVTAR MANGLA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O. FLAT NO. 21053, PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN APARTMENT, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 048.

¶28

SMT. SURABHI PODDAR C/O AMITHAB PODDAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O, NO.17042, PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN APPARTMENT, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 048.

¶29

SMT. RICHA ADITYA KULAKARNI W/O ADITYA RAJEEV KULAKARNI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O, FLAT NO.21072, PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN APARTMENT,

¶30

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:9791 CRL.P No. 541 of 2025

¶32

WHITEFIELD BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 048.

¶33

…PETITIONERS

¶34

(BY SRI. DEEPA J., ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶37

BY KADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE.

¶38

RUPALI RAI,

¶39

W/O ALOK KUMAR SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O, FLAT NO.23111, PRESTIGE SHANTINIKETAN APARTMENT, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 048

¶40

…RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶42

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.606/2024 OF THE KADUGODI P.S., REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B) AND 384 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBEL ACJM, BENGALURU RURAL.

¶43

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶44

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:9791 CRL.P No. 541 of 2025

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

In the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the registration of an FIR relating to offences punishable under Sections 120B and 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The contention arises from the fact that the second respondent lodged the FIR on 30.10.2024. In her FIR, the second respondent stated that she is the owner of a flat in Prestige Shantiniketan, located at Whitefield, Bangalore. According to her complaint, members of the Apartment Association—as well as certain occupants of the complex—have been unlawfully collecting maintenance charges. She further alleged that the petitioners, through the Association, unlawfully demanded that she pay an amount of Rs. 10,35,212.71 via email, threatening that no clearance would be granted unless this sum was paid. Notably, although the second respondent acquired ownership of the flat in 2023, the petitioners have been pressurizing her to pay maintenance charges dating back to May 2019. Additionally, it is alleged that accused No. 1 made obscene comments directed at her.

¶50

It is noted that Respondent No.2, despite being served notice, chose not to appear through counsel. Therefore, she has been placed ex parte.

¶51

The Court has duly heard submissions from the learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as from the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State.

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:9791 CRL.P No. 541 of 2025

¶54

The allegations advanced against the petitioners are that the office bearers of the Apartment Association have consistently pressured and threatened the second respondent to pay the demanded maintenance charges, despite her having taken possession of the flat only in 2023. The allegations further claim that failure to pay would result in the discontinuation of essential facilities provided in the complex.

¶55

Section 383 of the IPC defines “extortion” as follows:

¶56

“Whoever, by putting any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other, dishonestly induces that person to deliver any property, valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits the offence of extortion.”

¶57

This offence is punishable with imprisonment for up to 10 years and a fine, as prescribed under Section 386 of the IPC.

¶58

In the instant matter, there is no allegation that the petitioners put the second respondent in fear of injury in order to induce her to pay the maintenance charges. The dispute between the parties centers on the payment of maintenance charges, and it is also submitted that the respondent was effectively penalized for conducting commercial activities within her residential complex. This allegation underscores the coercive nature of the demand and the pressure exerted on the second respondent. The allegations on

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:9791 CRL.P No. 541 of 2025

¶61

the face of does not satisfy the essential elements to constitute the commission of offences alleged against he Petitioners.

¶62

In light of the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the FIR appears to have been lodged with the ulterior purpose of pressurizing the petitioners to enter into a settlement. As a result, the continuation of investigation against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶63

ORDER

¶64

i. Accordingly, petition is allowed.

¶65

ii. The impugned FIR in Crime No.606/2024 registered by the Kadugodi Police Station, Bengaluru City, is hereby quashed.

¶66

Sd/-

¶67

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶68

KNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 82 CT:SNN

Venkataraman v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkataraman v. State of Karnataka

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

Madhu @ Madhava Vs State by H.A.L. Police

Sri Jamburaj L Vs Smt N Renuka

Vijitha B Vs State by

Venkatesh R Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. D Abhishek Reddy Vs Mrs. Gowramma

Sri.Noufal M.K Vs State of Karnataka