Smt Pushpavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.350/2023 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1/KUMBALAGUDU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, MAGADI SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE SECOND ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICAL MAGISTRATE (II ACJM) BENGALURU, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AGAINST THE INNOCENT PETITIONERS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 418, 419, 420, 463, 467, 468, 471, 506(B), 34 OF IPC-1860 (ANNEXURE A) AND QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.350/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF SECOND ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (II ACJM), BENGALURU, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS (ANNEXURE-Y) AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:46036 WP No. 14194 of 2024

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Respondent No.2 has filed PCR No.751/2023, alleging that petitioner no.1 herein was the owner of the property in Survey No.79 of Kommaghatta Village, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and that she had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of one Channappa in respect to the said land. It is further submitted that the said Channappa has formed a layout on the said land and respondent no.1 has purchased a site bearing no.396 on the said land. It is also alleged that subsequently, the petitioners have created certain documents in respect of entire 35 guntas of land in Survey No.79 and thereby have tried to defeat the rights of Respondent no.2. It is further alleged that in spite of approaching the jurisdictional Police, they refused to register an FIR and closed the matter by recording the same to be a civil dispute. Aggrieved by the same, respondent no.2 has preferred PCR No.751/2023 on the file of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, who in turn has referred the matter for investigation and respondent no.1

¶31

4 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:46036 WP No. 14194 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

has registered the FIR in Crime No.350/2023. Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

¶35

The case of the petitioners is that, the dispute is

¶36

essentially civil in nature. They have produced a copy of the GPA alleged to have been executed in favour of Channappa in the year 1995 and thereafter cancelled in the year 1997. It is contented that Channappa had no right, title or interest over the property concerned and that if he has executed any sale deed in favour of respondent no.2 the same is not valid. It is submitted that petitioner no.1 is the absolute owner of the property concerned and no one else has any right, title or interest over the same. For the said reasons, it is prayed that the petition be allowed.

¶37

Learned High Court Government Pleader upon instructions submits that the matter is yet to be investigated.

¶38

Respondent no.2 though served has remained

¶39

absent.

¶40

The averments made in PCR No.751/2023 reveal

¶41

that the dispute between respondent no.2 and the petitioners is

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46036 WP No. 14194 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

purely civil in nature which has been sought to be given a criminal colour. Respondent no.2 has failed to produce the necessary documents to show that he has got a valid title over the property concerned and the petitioners have created certain documents which amounts to offences under Sections 417, 418, 419, 420, 463, 467, 468, 471, 506B and 34 of IPC. If certain persons go near the property and claim the property to belong to them on the strength of certain documents which they believe that to be genuine, that same does not constitute an offence under Section 506 IPC.

¶45

As a civil dispute has been sought to be given a

¶46

criminal case, I am of the opinion it is a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioners.

¶47

Hence, the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

The proceedings against the petitioners in pursuance of PCR No.751/2023 and Crime No.350/2023 pending on the file of II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru stand quashed.

¶50

The criminal petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶51

6 -

¶52

NC: 2025:KHC:46036 WP No. 14194 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

It is hereby made clear that any of the observations made herein above will not come in the way of any civil Court deciding the dispute between the petitioners and respondent no.2 and the observations made are only for the purpose of disposal of this criminal petition.

¶55

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶56

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶57

PGG

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11

Smt Pushpavathi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Pushpavathi v. the 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

P Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mahadevaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Lokesh. v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Channakeshava @ Channakeshava Murthy H a Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C Laxmipathy Vs Sri S a Sujay

Mr. Vedaraman Kailasam Vs M/S Sandur Fluid Controls Private Limited