Allowed¶55

Smt Devamma v. State by Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station

Karnataka HC1 Jun 2026CRL.P/2301/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; joint memo of compromise; purely civil dispute without societal effect; offences under Sections 120B, 448, 406, 420, 506 IPC; Crime No.392/2018 Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station; O.S.No.1137/2018 Principal Senior Civil Judge Bengaluru; abuse of process; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303 followed; Karnataka High Court, single judge (Ravi V Hosmani, J.).

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; FIR and all proceedings in Crime No.392/2018 quashed (impugned proceedings set at naught); joint memo of compromise accepted. ¶55

Smt Devamma Vs State by Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Criminal petition allowed; FIR and all proceedings in Crime No.392/2018 quashed (impugned proceedings set at naught); joint memo of compromise accepted.

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Crime No.392/2018 (Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station) for offences under Sections 120B, 448, 406, 420 and 506 IPC, arising out of a civil dispute between the parties, should be quashed in view of the joint memo of compromise recording settlement.

¶40

Court's answer

The impugned proceedings are purely civil in nature and without any societal effect; in view of the joint memo of compromise there would be no impediment for quashing the proceedings, as their continuation would be futile and an abuse of process.

¶49

Ratio / Principle

The joint memo is accepted; the petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings are set at naught.

¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.392/2018 registered by Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station for offences under Sections 120B, 448, 406, 420 and 506 IPC, pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. The dispute arose out of civil proceedings: respondent no.2/complainant had filed O.S.No.1137/2018 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru in respect of Site No.86A, in which the petitioners were defendants, and the complaint alleged interference with possession over the said property. Counsel filed a joint memo stating that the parties had settled their disputes and intended to file a compromise petition in the pending suit; the learned HCGP for respondent no.1 did not oppose. Holding the proceedings purely civil in nature and without any societal effect, the Court found no impediment to quashing, their continuation being futile and an abuse of process, in tune with the ratio in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another, (2012) 10 SCC 303. Joint memo accepted; petition allowed; impugned proceedings set at naught.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:25413 CRL.P No. 2301 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2301 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. DEVAMMA D/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA C AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. NARAYANSWAMY N S/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA C, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

¶12

SRI. PUNEETH K N S/O SRI NARAYANSWAMY N AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶13

SMT. RADHAMMA W/O SRI MUNIRAJA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,

¶14

Digitally signed by SUSHMA LAKSHMI B S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SMT. KAVYA M D/O SRI MUNIRAJA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶16

SMT DIVYA M D/O SRI MUNIRAJA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶17

SMT. BHAVYA M D/O SRI MUNIRAJA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶18

SRI. N SHIVAPPA S/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA C AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶19

SRI. N SRINIVAS S/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA C, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:25413 CRL.P No. 2301 of 2019

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

SMT. SHAKUNTALA, W/O SRI N SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶23

KUMARI MADHUSHREE S D/O SRI N SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶24

SRI. N ANJANAMURTHY S/O LATE SRI NAGAPPA C AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶25

SMT. SOWMYA, W/O SRI N ANJANAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶26

ALL ARE R/O KALKERE VILLAGE, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, HORAMAVU POST, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶27

…PETITIONERS

¶28

(BY SRI. SUDHAKAR V .,ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

STATE BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶31

SMT. PADMAVATHI W/O SRI P NARASHIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT 32,8^TH CROSS, GURU REDDY LANE, AKASHANAGAR,B NARAYANAPURA, DOORAVANI NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 016. …RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRABHUGOUD B TUMBIGI, A/W SRI. BALASUBRAMANYA B N., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶33

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.392/2018 BY THE RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION (1^st RESPONDENT) U/S 120B, 448, 406, 420, 506 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV A.C.M.M., BANGALORE AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ALL ACTS ARISING PURSUANT THEREOF.

¶34

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:25413 CRL.P No. 2301 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

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

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

Seeking for quashing of proceedings in Crime no.392/2018 by Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station for offences under Sections 120(B), 448, 406, 420, 506 of IPC presently

¶41

pending on the file of IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru as per Annexure A, this petition is filed.

¶42

Sri V.Sudhakar, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.T.Nanaiah, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Prabhugoud B.Tumbigi and Sri Balasubramanya B.N, learned counsel for respondent no.2 submit that they have filed a joint memo stating that respondent no.2/complainant filed O.S.no.1137/2018 pending before Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru, in respect of property bearing Site no.86A - suit schedule property in plaint. Petitioners herein were defendants in said suit.

¶43

In impugned complaint, complainant made allegations against petitioners herein about interference with

¶44

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25413 CRL.P No. 2301 of 2019

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

possession over said property. Thus, dispute arose out of civil proceedings between parties. Though, complaint is registered for offences under Sections 120(B), 448, 406, 420, 506 of IPC, lis was purely inter parties without bearing on society at large and parties have decided to settle their disputes and intend to file a compromise petition in pending suit, therefore prayed that petition may be allowed.

¶47

Smt.Sowmya.R, learned High Court Government

¶48

Pleader for respondent no.1 does not oppose submissions or joint memo.

¶49

On going through material on record and finding that proceedings impugned herein are purely civil in nature and without any societal effect, in view of joint memo of compromise, there would be no impediment for quashing proceedings. Their continuation would be futile and abuse of process. Same would be in tune with ratio laid down by Hon'ble

¶50

Supreme Court in case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab & another reported in (2012) 10 SCC 303 .

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:25413 CRL.P No. 2301 of 2019

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

In view of above, joint memo is accepted. Petition is

¶55

allowed, impugned proceedings are set at naught.

¶56