Mr. D Abhishek Reddy v. Mrs. Gowramma

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2025CRL.P/5550/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition; cognizance challenged by accused No.5/purchaser; offences under Sections 120B, 406, 418, 419, 420 IPC; cheating and criminal breach of trust allegations; civil dispute given criminal texture; abuse of process of law; partition suit OS No.6413/2017; relinquishment deed; agreement of sale with name scored out; complainant's share to be established in civil court; High Court of Karnataka; Hemant Chandangoudar J.; decided 07-03-2025; NC: 2025:KHC:9920.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in CC No.3439/2024 quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner (accused No.5); observations confined to this petition; rights of the parties to be adjudicated in the pending suit for partition on the basis of available material on record; all contentions kept open. ¶¶38

Mr. D Abhishek Reddy Vs Mrs. Gowramma — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the cognizance taken against the petitioner (accused No.5) for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 418, 419 and 420 of IPC in CC No.3439/2024 should be quashed, given that the dispute over the complainant's alleged share in the subject property is civil in nature and pending adjudication in a partition suit.

¶¶23

Court's answer

Merely scoring out the name of respondent No.1 in the agreement of sale does not establish that she had a share in the subject property; she must establish her right in the pending suit for partition.

¶¶37

Ratio / Principle

The dispute between the parties is civil in nature but has been given a criminal texture; in such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of law.

¶¶37

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings in CC No.3439/2024 are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner (accused No.5); the observations are confined to this petition, the Trial Court is to adjudicate the parties' rights in the pending partition suit on the available material, and all contentions are kept open.ratio¶¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. by accused No.5 (the purchaser) seeking quashing of cognizance in CC No.3439/2024 for offences under Ss. 120B, 406, 418, 419 and 420 IPC. The complainant (respondent No.1) claimed a share in the subject property and alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 sold it to accused No.5 to deprive her of that share; her name was scored out in the agreement of sale. She had earlier instituted partition suit OS No.6413/2017 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, and the complaint was filed during its pendency, by which time the petitioner had been impleaded as a defendant. The petitioner relied on a relinquishment deed showing the complainant had released her share in favour of her brother. Held: scoring out the complainant's name in the agreement of sale does not establish her share, which she must prove in the pending partition suit; the dispute is civil in nature but given a criminal texture, and continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. Proceedings quashed qua the petitioner/accused No.5; observations confined to this petition; contentions kept open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9920 CRL.P No. 5550 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5550 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. D ABHISHEK REDDY SON OF MR. DASHRATH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.11/2, RAMAIAH REDDY COMPOUND, CHALLAGHATTA OFF RING ROAD, DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560 071.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SYED KHAMRUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

MRS. GOWRAMMA WIFE OF LATE MUDDURAPPA DAUGHTER OF LATE GUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 049.

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WHITE FIELD POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R-2; SRI. BABU D.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 OF CP.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:9920 CRL.P No. 5550 of 2024

¶19

C.C.NO.3439/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE I ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (ACJM), AT BENGALURU RURAL FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 120B, 406, 418, 419 AND 420 OF IPC, 1860 (ANNEXURE A AND B) AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner - accused No.5 is challenging the cognizance taken for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 418, 419 and 420 of IPC.

¶24

The respondent filed a private complaint under Section 420 of IPC stating that she has got a share in the subject property, and that accused Nos.1 to 4 with an intention to deprive the respondent No.1 of her legitimate share, entered into an agreement of sale with accused No.5 and subsequently the sale deed was executed in his favour.

¶25

The learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued

¶26

summons.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent has filed a suit claiming 1/7^th share in the suit schedule properties, and whether the complainant has got a share in the suit schedule properties is the subject matter, which requires to be adjudicated before the jurisdictional Civil Court, and therefore, the cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impermissible.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:9920 CRL.P No. 5550 of 2024

¶30

In response, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.2 submitted that accused No.5 having complete knowledge that the respondent No.1 was having a share in the property, purchased the property from accused Nos.1 to 4 to deceive with an intention to cheat the complainant. Therefore, he submits that the veracity of the allegation can be considered at the time of trial, and the same cannot be gone into this petition, and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶31

The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered.

¶32

The petitioner has annexed the copy of relinquishment deed indicating that the respondent No.1 being the daughter of late Gundappa released her share in the subject property in favour of her brother, Sri G Thammaiah. Therefore, whether the respondent No.1 released her share in the subject property in the manner known to law is a matter that requires to be considered in the pending suit for consideration.

¶33

Perusal of the complaint indicates that the subject property belongs to the grandfather of the complainant, and upon his death, the complainant has a right to a share in the subject property. Before filing the private complaint before the learned Magistrate, the respondent No.1 has instituted a suit bearing OS No.6413/2017 before the Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, and in the said suit, the petitioner claims to have filed an application for impleading, and the said application came to be

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:9920 CRL.P No. 5550 of 2024

¶36

allowed, and he has been arrayed as one of the defendants. Whilst the pendency of the said suit, the subject private complaint came to be filed.

¶37

In the agreement of sale, the name of the respondent No.1 has been scored out, however, merely scoring out the name of respondent No.1 will not establish that the respondent No.1 had a share in the subject property, and the respondent No.1 has to establish her right in the pending suit for partition. The dispute between the parties is civil in nature, but is, however, given a criminal texture. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law.

¶38

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in CC No.3439/2024 pending on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM), Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the petitioner - accused No.5 is hereby quashed.

¶39

The observation made in this order is only for the purpose of this petition, and the Trial Court shall adjudicate the rights of the parties in the pending suit for partition only on the basis of available material on record.All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶40

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶41

BKM, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Mr. D Abhishek Reddy v. Mrs. Gowramma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. D Abhishek Reddy v. Mrs. Gowramma

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

Sri.Noufal M.K Vs State of Karnataka

Venkataraman Vs State of Karnataka