Allowed

Manjunathaswamy v. the State by Banaswadi Police Station

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2026CRL.P/11910/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging forgery and cheating in receiving KIADB compensation for land held under a gift deed, while a title suit was pending. Holding it a civil dispute being used to settle scores, citing Apex Court precedent, the court quashed the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Investigation in Crime No.579/2023 pending before 4th ACMM, Bengaluru quashed.

Manjunathaswamy Vs the State by Banaswadi Police Station — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1923 CRL.P No. 11910 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11910 OF 2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MANJUNATHASWAMY S/O K.V. RUDRARADHYA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT NO. 60, M.R. GARDEN, OPPOSITE KEB LAYOUT, SANJAYNAGAR, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶11

&PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. M.T. NANAIAH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. N. KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

T.B. SHADAKSHARA ARADHYA S/O LATE BASAVA ARADHYA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO. 325, 8TH MAIN, HRBR LAYOUT, 1ST BLOCK, BANASAWADI,

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:1923 CRL.P No. 11910 of 2023

HC-KAR

BENGALURU - 560 043

&RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SR. COUNSEL FOR MISS. RACHITHA RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT BANASAWADI POLICE IN CR.NO.579/2023 DATED 25.09.2023 FORTHE OFFENCE P/U/S.406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 OF IPC PENDING BEFORE THE 4th ACMM BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings arising from the registration of a crime in Crime No.579/2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

¶28

Heard Sri. M.T. Nanaiah learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned Senior

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:1923 CRL.P No. 11910 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

counsel for Miss. Rachitha Rajashekar, learned counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant and Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, is in stoic silence.

¶33

The father of the petitioner is said to have executed a registered gift deed on 30.04.2010 in favour of the petitioner in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No.23/5 measuring 2 acres and 27 guntas. For close to a decade, the petitioner was in possession of the property. A notification comes to be issued by the KIADB seeking to acquire several parcels of land which includes the land of the petitioner. The acquisition results in determination of compensation at Rs.3,34,37,500/-. Till then, there was no claimant. After the acquisition process had been taken to its logical conclusion, a suit comes to be filed by respondent No.2/complainant and others in OS.No.526/2023. In the said suit, the prayer that is sought is as follows:

¶34

"(a) To declare that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 & 2 are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property.

¶35

(b) To direct to the defendant No.3 not to interfere with the plaintiffs and defendant No.1's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:1923 CRL.P No. 11910 of 2023

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

(c) To grant such other relief or relief's including costs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice."

¶40

The suit is for declaration where the plaintiffs, the present complainant, along with others, seek a declaration that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule property, and seek an injunction that the petitioner should not interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs.

¶41

The suit is pending adjudication. During the pendency or subsistence of the suit, a complaint comes to be registered on 25.09.2023 alleging that the petitioner has received the compensation of Rs.3,34,37,500/- on rendering a false declaration that there was no suit pending on the issue. In the light of the suit pending, it was a false declaration. Therefore, respondent No.2/complainant has objected to the release of compensation. The concerned Court is said to have directed the compensation to be indemnified by the petitioner by rendering an indemnity bond, which has been fulfilled by the petitioner. The issue in the case at hand is with regard to registration of the crime on the aforesaid offence.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:1923 CRL.P No. 11910 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶46

would vehemently contend that there is no warrant to invoke the offences of forgery, criminal breach of trust or cheating in

¶47

the case at hand between the petitioner and the complainant. The learned counsel would also take this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the entire issue has now sprung after the KIADB determines compensation.

¶48

The learned Senior counsel representing the respondent No.2/complainant would vehemently contend that the petitioner receives the notice in the suit by way of registered post acknowledgement due on 09.06.2023 and appears before the Court on 09.06.2023 in the aforesaid suit. In the interregnum, the petitioner submits a declaration that there is no suit pending. Therefore, the learned Senior counsel submits all the allegations are met, and investigation in the least must be permitted to be continued against the petitioner in the case at hand.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:1923 CRL.P No. 11910 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶53

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.

¶54

The afore-narrated facts link in the chain of events and the dates are a matter of record. The petitioner is the beneficiary of a gift deed executed by his father. On 30.04.2010, all was well between everyone till the KIADB notifies the land for acquisition. The final notification is issued on 26.05.2023 and huge compensation close to Rs.3,34,37,500/- is sought to be determined. It is then the two proceedings spring, one a suit for declaration with the afore-

¶55

quoted prayer and the other setting the criminal law into motion. The issue is whether the petitioner is guilty of the offences of forgery or cheating or criminal breach of trust, as the case would be. The issue is at large before the Civil Court in OS.No.526/2023 on the same allegations as the complaint in

¶56

the present case. The petitioner is the beneficiary of a registered gift deed, on the strength of which he is in possession of the property from 2010 to the date of acquisition and possession being taken by the KIADB. The issue with

¶57

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:1923 CRL.P No. 11910 of 2023

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

regard to compensation is being thrashed out before the concerned Court.

¶61

Using the criminal justice system for the purpose of

¶62

settling certain civil scores cannot be permitted in the light of a plethora of judgments rendered by the Apex Court from time to time, reference of which will only bulk the subject judgment. I deem it appropriate to quote a recent judgment of the Apex Court, rendered in the case of INDER CHAND BAGRI v.

¶63

JAGDISH PRASAD BAGRI¹ , wherein it is held as follows:

¶64

24. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has an alternative remedy of filing a civil suit to set aside the sale deed dated 20.06.2011 and claim damages for the alleged violation of his contractual rights which he is already pursuing vide Title Suit No. 160 of 2012 against the appellant-accused which is currently pending adjudication and hence the route through criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made out, cannot be permitted. Criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas. The appellant-accused therefore, in our view, could not be attributed any mens rea and therefore, the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant-accused are unsustainable.

¶65

25. Furthermore, in Inder Mohan Goswami , it was held by this Court that the Court must ensure that criminal prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for seeking private

¶66

1 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2529

¶67

¶68

NC: 2026:KHC:1923 CRL.P No. 11910 of 2023

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise the accused. It was further held by this Court that it is neither possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion that to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellant-accused herein would cause undue harassment to him because as observed hereinabove, no prima facie case for the offence under Sections 406 or 420 of the IPC is made out.

¶71

26. In this regard, it would be apposite to rely on the judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 (<Bhajan Lal=) with particular reference to paragraph 102 therein, where this Court observed:

¶72

<102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power Under Article 226 or the inherent powers Under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶73

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶74

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers Under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶75

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:1923 CRL.P No. 11910 of 2023

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶79

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated Under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶80

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused.

¶81

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶82

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the Accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. =

¶83

27. On a careful consideration of the aforementioned judicial dicta, we find that none of the offences alleged against the appellant-accused herein is made out. In fact, we find that the allegations of criminal intent and other allegations against the appellant-accused herein have been made with a mala-fide intent and therefore, the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhajan Lal extracted above, squarely applies to the facts of these cases. It is neither expedient nor in the interest of justice to permit the present prosecution to continue.

¶84

28. At this juncture, we find it apposite to mention the observations of this Court in Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2024) 14 SCC

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:1923 CRL.P No. 11910 of 2023

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

112 wherein it was observed that in recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of omission and commission having an adverse impact on the fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud. We say so for the reason that while the complainant/respondent No. 1 has made grave allegations against the appellant herein, he has failed to justify the same before this Court. Such actions would create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly criminal courts. =

¶89

(Emphasis supplied)

¶90

The Apex Court in terms of the afore-quoted judgment holds that criminal proceedings instituted to settle civil scores shall not be permitted to be continued when the ingredients of the offences alleged in the criminal proceedings are not made out. Therefore, permitting further proceedings on an issue that is purely civil in nature, which is also pending adjudication at the hands of the concerned Court in OS.No.526/2023, would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice. All the petitioners and the respondents are at liberty to urge all the contentions before the concerned Court.

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:1923 CRL.P No. 11910 of 2023

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶95

ORDER

¶96

(i) The criminal petition is allowed .

¶97

(ii) The investigation in Crime No.579/2023 pending on the file of 4^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed.

¶98

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., which will not bind, influence or alter any order that is passed in OS.No.526/2023.

¶99

Ordered accordingly.

¶100

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶101

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Manjunathaswamy v. the State by Banaswadi Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjunathaswamy v. the State by Banaswadi Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yedu Kishore G. L Vs State by

Smt. Sharadamma Vs State of Karnataka

Girish H Vs State by Honnali Police Station

Sri. Irfan Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

K Seetharaman Vs M Hanumanna

Dhananjaya Vs State of Karnataka