Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Mr. Vinod Dasan. J Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Mr. Vinod Dasan. J Vs the State of KarnatakaMr. Vinod Dasan. J v. the State of Karnataka

Allowed¶34

Mr. Vinod Dasan. J v. the State of Karnataka

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Offences under Sections 419, 420 IPC

Karnataka HC26 Apr 2025WP/12855/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Hemant Chandangoudar J.), WP No. 12855 of 2025 (GM-RES), order dated 26.04.2025: quashing of FIR Crime No.179/2022 (Govindapura/Govindrapura Police Station) for offences under Sections 419, 420 IPC (cheating) via petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC; FIR arose from alleged agreement of sale with Rs. Four crore advance and non-execution of sale deed; parties settled dispute in OS No.764/2023 and filed Section 320(2) CrPC compounding application; offences cognizable and non-compoundable yet investigation futile, charge sheet remote; continuation held abuse of process; proceedings before XI ACMM Bengaluru quashed. Keywords: quashing FIR, Sections 419 420 IPC, Section 482 CrPC, Section 320(2) compounding, settlement, abuse of process, non-compoundable offences.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned criminal proceedings in Crime No.179/2022 pending on the file of the learned XI ACMM Bengaluru at Annexure-C.

Why is it important?

Although the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable and non-compoundable, since the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, subjecting the petitioners to investigation would serve no purpose; in light of the settlement, the likelihood of the police filing a charge sheet is remote and bleak. ¶32

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the impugned criminal proceedings in Crime No.179/2022 pending on the file of the learned XI ACMM Bengaluru at Annexure-C.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Crime No.179/2022 (offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 IPC) should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, notwithstanding that the offences are cognizable and non-compoundable.

Court's answer

Although the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable and non-compoundable, since the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, subjecting the petitioners to investigation would serve no purpose; in light of the settlement, the likelihood of the police filing a charge sheet is remote and bleak.

Ratio / Principle

Continuing the criminal investigation against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Offences under Sections 419, 420 IPC - Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIR Crime No.179/2022 dated 18.11.2022 (Govindapura Police Station) alleging that petitioners took Rs. Four crore as advance sale consideration under an agreement of sale and failed to execute the registered sale deed - Parties amicably resolved the dispute in OS No.764/2023 and filed a compounding application under Section 320(2) CrPC, the de facto complainant receiving sale consideration and consenting to withdrawal of allegations - Held: although the offences are cognizable and non-compoundable, investigation would serve no purpose and the likelihood of a charge sheet is remote and bleak; continuing the investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law - Impugned proceedings quashed; petition allowed. (Hemant Chandangoudar J., 26.04.2025)

A

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17395 WP No. 12855 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 12855 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

MR. VINOD DASAN J., S/O. MR.JAYARAJ. D, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/A. T.NO.1000, DR.AMBEDKAR ROAD CROSS, A.K.COLONY, BANGALORE-560 005.

MRS. A. JAYASHEELA, W/O. MR.Y.THANASHEKARAN, AGED ABOUT 54 YERAS, R/AT. NO.256/3, PEACE CHURCH, PEACE GARDEN, BAGALUR, BENGALURU- 562 149.

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

MR.Y. THANASHEKARAN, S/O. MR.A.V.YESSIAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YERAS, R/AT. NO.256/3, PEACE CHURCH, PEACE GARDEN, BAGALUR, BENGALURU- 562 149.

MR.SUMAN.D.SHEKAR, S/O. MR.Y.THANASHEKARAN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT. NO.256/3, PEACE CHURCH, PEACE GARDEN, BAGALUR, BENGALURU- 562 149.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. DR M. SUNIL SASTRY, ADVOCATE)

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17395 WP No. 12855 of 2025

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA GOVINDRAPURA POLICE STATION, REP.BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR, BENGALURU - 560 045.

SRI. VINAY RAGHAVENDRA BABU, S/O. BABU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT. NO.102/55, MANAVAZHLAN SALAI, KULASEKARAPURAM, CHINMAIYANAGAR, VIRUGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 092. REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER, MOHAMMED MAJOK AHMED, S/O. MOHAMMED AKRAM.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. C.S. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILES OF THE XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BANGALORE AT ANNEXURE-C VIDE CRIME/F.I.R.NO.179/2022 DATED 18.11.2022 ALONGWITH COMPLAINT DATED 18.11.2022 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 (I.E., GOVINDAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU) AND ALL PROCEEDINGS EMANATING THEREFROM FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 419, 420 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 WHICH IS PENDING FOR INVESTIGATION BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND B.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17395 WP No. 12855 of 2025

ORAL ORDER

The learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondent No.1.

The petitioners challenge the registration of FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 of IPC.

The respondent No.2 lodged the FIR stating that the petitioners entered into an agreement of sale agreeing to convey the subject property and received a sum of Rs.Four crore towards advance sale consideration, and thereafter, the petitioners did not execute the registered sale deed.

The parties are present before this Court, and have filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.PC for compounding stating that they have amicably resolved the dispute among themselves in OS No.764/2023 filed by the respondent No.2 for permanent injunction and declaration of ownership. In terms of the settlement, the de facto complainant received sale consideration. As per the settlement, the de facto complainant has agreed to withdraw all the allegations, and has no objection to quashing the impugned proceedings. The said application is placed on record.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:17395 WP No. 12855 of 2025

Although the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable and non-compoundable, considering that the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, subjecting the petitioners to investigation would serve no purpose. In light of the settlement, the likelihood of the police filing charge sheet is remote and bleak.

In view of the above, continuing the criminal investigation against the petitioners would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned criminal proceedings in Crime No.179/2022 pending on the file of the learned XI ACMM Bengaluru at Annexure-C is hereby quashed.

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)

JUDGE

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2

BKM

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the criminal proceedings in Crime No.179/2022 (offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 IPC) should be quashed in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, notwithstanding that the offences are cognizable and non-compoundable.¶32
The court held
Although the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable and non-compoundable, since the parties have amicably resolved the dispute, subjecting the petitioners to investigation would serve no purpose; in light of the settlement, the likelihood of the police filing a charge sheet is remote and bleak.ratio¶32

Statutes considered

5 provisions across 3 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶20
Code of Criminal Procedure482¶20 320(2)¶29
Indian Penal Code, 1860419, 420¶20 419, 420¶27

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Registration of FIR Crime/F.I.R. No.179/2022 dated 18.11.2022 alongwith complaint dated 18.11.2022 by respondent No.1 (Govindapura Police Station) for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 IPC, pending for investigation.¶20
XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (Annexure-C); investigation by respondent No.1 police station · 18.11.2022
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioners entered into an agreement of sale for the subject property, received Rs. Four crore as advance sale consideration, and thereafter did not execute the registered sale deed.¶28
Prior proceeding
Parties appeared before the Court and filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.PC for compounding, stating they had amicably resolved the dispute among themselves in OS No.764/2023, respondent No.2's suit for permanent injunction and declaration of ownership.¶29
Prior proceeding
Terms of settlement: the de facto complainant received sale consideration and agreed to withdraw all allegations, with no objection to quashing the impugned proceedings; the application was placed on record.¶29

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Mr. Vinod Dasan J.¶7
Dr M. Sunil Sastry
petitioner
Mrs. A. Jayasheela¶8
Dr M. Sunil Sastry
petitioner
Mr. Y. Thanashekaran¶10
Dr M. Sunil Sastry
petitioner
Mr. Suman D. Shekar¶11
Dr M. Sunil Sastry
respondent
State of Karnataka (Govindrapura Police Station, rep. by its Police Inspector)¶16
Lakshman B.
respondent
Sri. Vinay Raghavendra Babu (represented by his GPA holder Mohammed Majok Ahmed)¶17
C.S. Prakash

Coram

AI extract

Hemant Chandangoudarauthor¶22

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 26 Apr 2025 · April
Registered: 25 Apr 2025
Case no.: WP/12855/2025
CNR: KAHC010262872025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
Disposal: ALLOWED
Case type: Writ Petition (GM-RES)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Hemant Chandangoudar

Vishnusharan Bhatt Vs State of Karnataka
25 Apr 2025
Sri Veerabhadrappa M C Vs Smt Shruti K C
25 Apr 2025
Nxtgen Datacenter and Cloud Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ninth Dimension It Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
25 Apr 2025
Smt Sumera Khanum Vs Smt Rajashree
26 Apr 2025
Sachin Bharadwaj @ Sachin Vs the State of Karnataka
26 Apr 2025
Smt Aishwarya Vs State of Karnataka
26 Apr 2025

Cite this judgement

Mr. Vinod Dasan. J v. the State of Karnataka, WP/12855/2025 (KA), decided on 26 April 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes5

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226
Code of Criminal Procedure482 · 320(2)
Indian Penal Code, 1860419, 420 · 419, 420

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Registration of FIR Crime/F.I.R. No.179/2022 dated 18.11.2022 alongwith complaint dated 18.11.2022 by respondent No.1 (Govindapura Police Station) for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 IPC, pending for investigation.XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (Annexure-C); investigation by respondent No.1 police station · 18.11.2022
Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR alleging that the petitioners entered into an agreement of sale for the subject property, received Rs. Four crore as advance sale consideration, and thereafter did not execute the registered sale deed.
Parties appeared before the Court and filed an application under Section 320(2) of Cr.PC for compounding, stating they had amicably resolved the dispute among themselves in OS No.764/2023, respondent No.2's suit for permanent injunction and declaration of ownership.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hemant Chandangoudar

Parties & counsel