K.S Kumaraswamy @ Jayanna Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.55/2025 COMPLAINT (ANNEXURE-A) AND THE DATED 11.05.2025 (ANNEXURE-B) ON 11.05.2025 BY RESPONDENT NO.1 I.E., YESLUR POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 115(2), 118(1), 119(1), 133, 190, 303(1), 329(4), 351(2) 352 OF THE BNS, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SAKLESHPURA.

¶40

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

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶45

ORAL ORDER

¶46

The petitioners are seeking quashing of the

¶47

proceedings pending in Crime No.55/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 119(1), 133, 190, 303(1), 329(4), 351(2) and 352 of BNS on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Sakleshpura.

¶48

On a complaint lodged by respondent No.2 – the defacto complainant, who is the sister-in-law of petitioner No.1, K.S. Kumarswamy @ Jayanna, alleging that petitioner No.1, along with other co-accused, committed the theft of 863 coffee bags valued at Rs.1,16,50,500/and cash amounting to Rs.20,00,000/- and also assaulted family members, Crime No.55/2025 was registered pursuant to the said complaint.

¶49

The petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the complaint is false and has been

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

lodged in retaliation to a complaint filed by petitioner No.1 against the family members of respondent No.2 and others under Crime No.48/2025. It is contended that the FIR resulting in registration of Crime No.55/2025 is a counterblast to Crime No.48/2025 initiated at the instance of petitioner No.1. The petitioners further contend that the chronology of events, as reflected in the FIRs, clearly demonstrates that the present complaint by petitioner No.1’s sister-in-law is an afterthought, intended to influence the investigation into the earlier FIRs.

¶53

It is also submitted that the matter is sub-judice in the pending partition suit in O.S.No.29/2025. Further,

¶54

since the ex-parte temporary injunction granted on 09.04.2025 in I.A.No.3 was vacated by the Civil Court vide order dated 29.04.2025, respondent No.2 and her daughter lodged a subsequent complaint on 02.05.2025, resulting in registration of Crime No.51/2025, which is being challenged in the connected petition bearing Criminal Petition No.9294/2025.

¶55

6 -

¶56

NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

The petitioners assert that the dispute, which is essentially civil in nature, is now being impermissibly converted into criminal proceedings and therefore, seek quashing of the said proceedings.

¶59

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and the Additional SPP representing the State.

¶60

This Court has given anxious consideration to the orders passed by the Civil Court on the application filed in I.A.No.3 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC as well as to the interim order passed by the Appellate Court in M.A.No.1/2025.

¶61

On a close examination of the records, it is noted that the ex-parte injunction was vacated by the Trial Court, which also rejected I.A.No.3 filed by the defacto complainant’s son - K.P.Manoj in O.S.No.29/2025.

¶62

7 -

¶63

NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Before this Court proceeds to examine whether

¶66

the core dispute is essentially civil in nature and whether the parties have attempted to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case, it deems appropriate to extract paragraphs 12 and 13 of the interim order passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.29/2025, while rejecting the application filed by the defacto complainant’s son in I.A.No.3.

¶67

"12. At this stage, the plaintiff has produced the Xerox copy of the license issued by the Yesaluru Mandal Panchayath dated 06.12.2024 to run the trading company. He has also produced the Xerox copy of the GST purchase invoices, Form No.3, cash/credit purchase bills for the year 2025. He has also produced the Xerox copy of the photos pertaining to the suit schedule B property. Apart from that he has also produced the E-copy of the registered sale deeds. On perusal of the same, it is seen that the item No.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties are purchased by the defendant No.5 by way of registered sale date dated 17.01.2025. The defendant No.5 has also purchased the item No.4 of the suit schedule property by way of registered sale deed dated 21.01.2018. As per the registered sale deed dated 23.01.2023, the item No.5 of the suit schedule property purchased by defendant No.2. As per the registered sale deed dated 02.09.2022, the defendant No.6 has

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

purchased item No.6 of the suit schedule property. At this stage, the defendant has also produced the Registration certificate pertaining to the Chitra Coffee Trading business standing in the name of defendant No.5. He has also produced the purchase invoice for the year 2025. They have also produced the letter issued by the PSI of Yesaluru Police Station wherein as per the Right to Information Act, sought by the defendant No.5, it is stated that from the year 2008 to 2025, there are totally 3 cases registered against the father of the plaintiff i.e., defendant No.2 and they are pending for consideration. They have also produced a xerox copy of the FIR in crime No.62/2009, crime No.90/2008. Apart from that, they have also produced the xerox copy of the complaint and the FIR in crime No.48/2025 pertaining to the Yesaluru police station which is registered against the plaintiff and his father i.e., defendant No. 2.

¶72

13. On perusal of the pleadings of both the parties and the documents produced by them at this stage, it is seen that the relationship between the parties is not in dispute. According to the plaintiff, the suit schedule A property consisting of item Nos.1 to 7 are the joint family properties of the parties to the suit. The suit schedule B property is his exclusive property and he is the sole proprietor of the said property. Per-contra the defendant Nos.5 and 6 have contended that in the item No.1 property both the defendant No.5 and father of the plaintiff i.e., defendant No.2 have orally divided the said property and accordingly, they are in possession of

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

1 acre each in the same from past 8 years. The item Nos.2 to 5 properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.5 and the item No.6 of the suit schedule property is the self-acquired property of defendant No.6. It is also to be seen that there is a godown measuring 40x40 feet situated in the item No.7 of the suit schedule property and he is running Chitra trading company and also doing coffee and pepper business and he has stored 980 bags of coffee seeds which is claiming by the present plaintiff as if it is belonging to the plaintiff. Regarding the same he has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police station. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the defendant, the plaintiff has not shown boundaries to the suit schedule B property. Further the measurement of the suit schedule B property is also not mentioned in the plaint schedule. Apart from that it is also pertinent to note that plaintiff has produced the xerox copy of the genealogical tree. The plaintiff is not the only son of defendant Nos.2 and 3. He is having a sister by name Dhanushree. But they said Dhanushree is not made as party to this suit. It is to be seen that this is a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, Hence, all the parties to the joint family are necessary parties to the suit. Further, it is to be seen that as per the documents produced by the defendant No.5, complaints are lodged by against the plaintiff and defendant No.2 stating that they are trying to illegally transport the coffee bags which are stored in the item No.7 of the suit schedule property. It is to be seen that pertaining to the suit schedule A properties,

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶78

10 -

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

whether the said properties are the joint family properties as contended by the plaintiff or whether it is the self-acquired properties of the defendant Nos.5 and 6 as contended by the defendant Nos.5 and 6 is a matter to be decided only after trial. In so far as suit schedule B property is concerned, it is to be seen that the plaintiff except producing the trading license to run the shop in the name and style as a MD coffee trading business but has not mentioned the boundaries of the said property and also the measurement. The defendant Nos.5 and 6 in their written statement have clearly mentioned the measurement and boundaries of the property and they have also produced the Registration of certificate pertaining to the Chitra Trading Company. If the defendants alienate the suit schedule A property, it will lead to multiplicity of proceedings. But insofar as suit schedule B property, this court is of view that the plaintiff has not made out any prima-facie case for temporary injunction. Hence, this point is answered affirmative for I.A.No.I and in the negative for I.Α.Νo.II."

¶81

This Court also deems it fit to extract the

¶82

operative portion of the order.

¶83

"ORDER

¶84

I.A.No.II filed by the plaintiff U/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 R/W Sec.151 of CPC is hereby allowed.

¶85

The defendants are hereby restrained by way of ad-interim temporary injunction from alienating the suit

¶86

11 -

¶87

NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

schedule A properties to third parties till disposal of the suit.

¶90

I.A.No.III filed by the plaintiff U/O XXXIX Rule 1

¶91

and 2 R/w Sec.151 of CPC is hereby dismissed.

¶92

The exparte temporary injunction granted by this Court on 09.04.2025 is hereby vacated.

¶93

No order as to costs."

¶94

The respondent No.2' son, namely K.P.Manoj, feeling aggrieved by the rejection of I.A.No.3 has preferred an appeal in M.A.No.01/2025. This Court deems it fit to extract the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Appellate Court in M.A.No.1/2025, which reads as under;

¶95

"Sri.IEP Advocate files vakalath for R5 and 6 along with objections to IA No.III and memo with documents.

¶96

Heard Appellant and R.5 and 6 advocates on I.A.No.III.

¶97

Appellant and R.5 and 6 are directed not to sell the coffee, where coffee is alleged to be stored in B schedule property and Chitra Coffee Traders till next date of hearing.

¶98

Issue emergent notice on I.A.No.III to R1 to 4 by 12.05.2025."

¶99

12 -

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

It is also crucial for this Court to extract the

¶103

prayer sought in the suit filed in O.S.No.29/2025, which reads as under;

¶104

"Wherefore, the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff most respectfully prays that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for partition and separate possession of plaintiff's share as contemplated under the provisions of the act with mean profit and such other relief deem to fit to grant in the circumstances of the case with cost, in the above case, in the interest of equity and justice."

¶105

This Court deems it fit to extract schedule 'B'

¶106

property, which is the subject matter of the criminal proceedings also.

¶107

"The property described in schedule B is the property of the plaintiff running with the name and style M.D Coffee Trading, Sole Proprietor Manoj K.P and bearing GST No.29GWTPM2806KIZQ situated at Kumbralli Village, Yashaluru Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk storing coffee to the tune of 963 bags which has been purchased by the growers."

¶108

13 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

On perusal of the extracted portions of the plaint,

¶112

it is evident that respondent No.2 and her son admit that the 963 coffee bags, referred to as Schedule ‘B’ property, are now claimed by them as ancestral property. The present petitioner No.1, who is arrayed as defendant No.5 in the civil suit, asserts that the Schedule ‘B’ property is his self-acquired property, acquired in the ordinary course of his business as a trading company engaged in purchasing coffee from various owners. To substantiate his claim, petitioner No.1 produced, in support of resisting I.A.No.3, xerox copies of GST purchase invoices, Form No.3, and cash credit purchase bills evidencing the lawful acquisition of the said property. In light of this prima-facie rebuttal evidence, the Trial Court found no merit in the application filed by respondent No.2’s son and accordingly rejected I.A.No.3.

¶113

A careful scrutiny of these facts reveals that, assuming the complainant’s version that the property is ancestral, the essential ingredients of an offence under

¶114

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

Section 303(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Suraksha (BNS)

¶117

Act, 2023, which deals with theft, are prima-facie not made out. Furthermore, given that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 are closely related, and that the partition suit in O.S.No.29/2025 is pending adjudication, the question of criminal trespass under Section 329(4) of BNS, 2023, does not arise. It is further apparent that the allegations of criminal intimidation, unlawful assembly, and overt acts of assault are exaggerated, given the ongoing civil litigation, and that both parties have filed complaints and counter-complaints against each other in the course of the dispute.

¶118

This Court is mindful of the gravity of the injuries sustained by a relative of the complainant, which led to registration of Crime No.51/2025. Taking cognizance of the charge sheet filed in the connected crime, the Court was not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioners in that case. The connected Criminal Petition bearing No.9294/2025 was accordingly dismissed, recognizing that

¶119

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

there were prima-facie materials to proceed against the petitioners in Crime No.51/2025, and that trial should take its course in respect of the allegations therein.

¶122

Insofar as Crime No.55/2025 is concerned, this

¶123

Court notes that the rejection of I.A.No.3 in O.S.No.29/2025 constitutes an adverse order suffered by respondent No.2 and her son in the pending civil suit. Learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the interim arrangement made by the Appellate Court in M.A.No.1/2025, wherein the parties were directed not to sell the Schedule ‘B’ coffee bags until the next date of hearing. However, any alleged violation of such interim arrangements, by itself, cannot constitute an offence, much less an offence of theft under Section 303(1) of BNS, 2023. Should respondent No.2 or her son consider that there is any breach of the interim arrangement, they may pursue appropriate remedies before the Appellate Court, as provided under the civil procedure.

¶124

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

On an overall consideration of the prima-facie materials, it is evident that the claim of respondent No.2 and her son over the 963 coffee bags is already seized before the competent Civil Court in a comprehensive suit filed by respondent No.2’s son. In these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the second respondent has unnecessarily attempted to convert a dispute which is essentially civil in nature into criminal proceedings by giving it the color of a criminal prosecution. This constitutes a clear abuse of the process of law, warranting judicial intervention. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to exercise its inherent jurisdiction and grant relief by quashing the proceedings pending under Crime No.55/2025.

¶127

19. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court

¶128

proceeds to pass the following order:

¶129

17 -

¶130

NC: 2025:KHC:37337 CRL.P No. 9270 of 2025

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

ORDER

¶133

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶134

(ii) The FIR in Crime No.55/2025 registered on 11.05.2025 by Yeslur Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 119(1), 133, 190, 303(1), 329(4), 351(2) and 352 of BNS pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Sakleshpura is hereby quashed insofar as the present petitioners are concerned.

¶135

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶136

NBM

¶137

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

K.S Kumaraswamy @ Jayanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.S Kumaraswamy @ Jayanna 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

Rekha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kiran Mohan Jiragyala Vs the State by Lokayukta Police

Wortgage Finance Private Limited Vs State by Thalaghattapura P S

Dharmaraj H R Vs State by Hosanagar Police

Sri Venkataramana Vs the State of Karnataka

Usha Kumari Vs the State of Karnataka