Sathisha S B Vs State by Konanakunte Police Station

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.205/2022, DATED 08.07.2022 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 THEREBY i.e, KONANAKUNTE POLICE STATION, THEREBY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR.NO.11415/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506,341,504,323,354 R/W 34 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:33631 CRL.P No. 7013 of 2022

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

Petitioners who are brothers and father of respondent No.2 and who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3, have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Cr.No.205/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 323 and 354 r/w 34 IPC, arising out of PCR No.11415/2022 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶35

In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that based on a false complaint filed by respondent No.2, Konanakunte police have registered case in Cr.No.205/2022 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 323 and 354 alleging that since the petitioners are very influential, the concerned police are not registering case as per the complaint filed by her and therefore she had filed PCR No.11415/2022. The trial Court after taking cognizance

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:33631 CRL.P No. 7013 of 2022

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

has referred the complaint for investigation under Section

¶40

156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶41

2.1 Respondent No.2 has managed to get a gift deed executed through petitioner No.3 in respect of a site, even though major sale consideration for purchasing the site was paid by petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The sale deed was standing in the name of petitioner No.3. After coming to know about the illegal and fraudulent act of respondent No.2, petitioner No.3 has filed petition in MSC(Senior citizen) CR.No.53/2022 before the Assistant Commissioner.

¶42

2.2 As a counterblast, respondent No.2 has filed complaint on 15.03.2022. However, the concerned police have issued NCR No.38/2022. Similarly, when respondent No.2 filed complaint before DCP, ACP South Division, Bengaluru on 15.03.2022, NCR.No.38/2022 was issued. On 26.06.2022, respondent No.2 filed one more complaint, alleging threat given by petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:33631 CRL.P No. 7013 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The police have issued NCR.No.176/2022. Once again she has filed complaint before DCP, ACP South division. As a last resort, respondent No.2 has filed PCR No.11415/2022.

¶46

2.3 The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are permanently residing in USA and petitioner No.3 is residing in Bengaluru. Intentionally respondent No.2 has given his address as resident of Shivamogga. Since petitioners are the brothers and father of respondent No.2, the provisions of Section 354 would not arise. Even though there is allegation that, petitioners used to make telephonic calls and given threat, their cell phones are not seized. Only after petition was filed before the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.2 has chosen to file this complaint to force the petitioners yield to their demand. Continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition.

¶47

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:33631 CRL.P No. 7013 of 2022

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

On the other hand learned High Court

¶50

Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State and learned counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant submit that petitioners are no other than the brothers and father of respondent No.2. Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are resident of USA. Respondent No.3 is a retired teacher. He is also owning agricultural property worth Crores of rupees. Out of love and affection towards respondent No.2, petitioner No.3 executed a gift deed in respect of site in Bengaluru. In fact, petitioners Nos.1 and 2 are owning several properties in USA, Bengaluru, Shivamogga, Sangali, Thavaralli and other places worth Crores of rupees.

¶51

However, they are demanding and forcing respondent No.2 return the site gifted by petitioner No.3 with lot of love and affection. They are making phone calls and giving threat. On 27.11.2021, they made phone calls. When she did not pick up the calls, they visited the house of respondent No.2 and abused her in filthy language,

¶52

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:33631 CRL.P No. 7013 of 2022

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

assaulted her and caused physical and mental agony. It was witnessed by the children of respondent No.2. Even though respondent No.2 tried to file complaint, due to the influence of petitioners the concerned police as well as the higher police officers have failed to register the case. Without any alter alternative she has approached the Court and filed private complaint. It is referred for investigation. Matter requires detailed investigation to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations made in the complaint. In fact, the Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the petition filed by petitioner No.3 under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶55

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶56

The relationship between the parties is not in

¶57

dispute. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are working and residing at USA and petitioner No.3 is retired teacher. Respondent No.2 has claimed that he is

¶58

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:33631 CRL.P No. 7013 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

owning several agriculture properties in native place which are worth Crores of rupees. It is also not in dispute that petitioner No.3 executed a registered gift deed in favour of respondent No.2 with regard to site measuring 40 X 60 feet situated at Banashankari, 5^th phase, 5^th stage coming under ward No.184.

¶61

It appears after executing the gift deed in respect of the site in question, petitioner No.3 approached the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Senior Citizens Act alleging that after the gift deed, respondent No.2 has failed to maintain him and therefore the gift deed shall be cancelled. Respondent No.2 has alleged that it is done at the instigation of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. In respect of the said gift deed, petitioners used to make telephonic calls to respondent No.2 and gave threat and demand that site should be returned to them. She has also alleged that on 27.11.2021, they barged into her house and abused her in filthy language, assaulted her by pulling

¶62

9 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:33631 CRL.P No. 7013 of 2022

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

her hair and kicked with legs. They left the place only after children of respondent No.2 came and started shouting.

¶66

Since the jurisdictional police as well as the higher police officers failed to take action on the complaint filled by respondent No.2, she was forced to file the private complaint supported by affidavit and it is referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Matter requires detailed investigation to ascertain the truthfulness of the allegations. There is prima facie material to conduct investigation. Vide Order 12.03.2025, the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the petition filed by petitioner No.3 under the provisions of Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 for cancellation of the gift deed. It is submitted that appeal is pending.

¶67

Anyhow, in the light of allegations made in the complaint, matter requires a thorough investigation by the concerned police. It is not a case for quashing the criminal

¶68