Bindamma Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE ALUR POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01

¶16

PARVATHAMMA W/O PUTTEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O KUMBARHALLI VILLAGE YASALLURU HOBLI, ALUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1

¶19

SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:1072 CRL.P No. 4380 of 2019

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PCR NO.109/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ALUR FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.420, 464, 467, 468 OF IPC.

¶24

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner being the accused in PCR No.109/2018 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Alur, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 467 and 468 of IPC, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her.

¶28

Heard Sri. Yadunandhan N., learned counsel for Sri.Gururaj R., learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Abhinay Y.T., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶29

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶30

3 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:1072 CRL.P No. 4380 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her?"

¶34

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

¶35

REASONS

¶36

Respondent No.2 filed the private complaint in PCR No.109/2018 before the Trial Court, against the petitioner, alleging commission of the offences punishable under various provisions of IPC as referred to above.

¶37

It is the contention of respondent No.2 in the private complaint that, the petitioner had managed to obtain the Mutation Entry in MR.No.4/1966-97 and she transferred the property in dispute in her name and in the name of her daughter, relying on a false and fabricated document, thereby committed the offences under Sections 420, 464, 467 and 468 of IPC.

¶38

My attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the copy of the plaint in OS.No.247/2018 filed before the Trial Court, seeking declaration of her title and for

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1072 CRL.P No. 4380 of 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

permanent injunction. She also sought for declaration that the document dated 11.08.2016 registered as document No.776 is not the Gift Deed executed in favour of her daughter and the same is not binding on her.

¶42

The materials on record disclose that respondent No.2-complainant is aggrieved by the mutation entry effected by the revenue officials in favour of the petitioner and based on such revenue entry, the petitioner executed the registered Gift Deed dated 11.08.2016 in favour of her daughter. Admittedly, the suit O.S.No.247/2018 was filed seeking necessary reliefs. It is pertinent to note that the private complaint is filed only against the petitioner and not against the revenue officials who effected mutation entry. Prima facie the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature.

¶43

It is stated that no supporting affidavit is filed by respondent No.2 nor she had approached the police station before filing the private complaint as per the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava V/s State of Uttar Pradesh¹ . These facts are not seriously disputed by

¶44

1 2015 (6) SCC 287

¶45

5 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:1072 CRL.P No. 4380 of 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

respondent No.2. Considering all these facts and

¶49

circumstances, I am of the opinion that the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed.

¶50

It is brought to the notice of the Court that during the pendency of this petition, based on the order passed by the Trial Court for referring the matter for investigation, Crime No.246/2022 of Alur Police Station came to be filed on 28.09.2022 and under such circumstances, even the FIR is also liable to be quashed. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that if in case, the Trial Court finds that the petitioner has committed a criminal offence, liberty may be reserved with respondent No.2 to initiate criminal action. I do not find any difficulty in reserving such liberty on the basis of the finding that may be recorded by the Trial Court, but not otherwise.

¶51

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:1072 CRL.P No. 4380 of 2019

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

(ii) The Private Complaint in PCR No.109/2018 on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Alur and the FIR in Crime No.246/2022, registered by the Alur Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 467 and 468 of IPC, are hereby quashed against the petitioner.

¶58

(iii) Liberty is reserved with respondent No.2 to initiate criminal action against the petitioner if there is finding by the Civil Court in the suit O.S.No.247/2018 pending consideration that the petitioner has committed the criminal offence.

¶59

In view of disposal of main petition, pending

¶60

I.A.No.1/2025 seeking vacating stay also stands disposed off.

¶61

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶62

MKM CT:VS

¶63

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

Bindamma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bindamma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanna Reddy Prasad Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Francis Clavier Vs State of Karnataka

Narendra Babu K L Vs State by

Sri. Naveed Pasha @ Pasha Aj Naveed Pasha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sampath Raj Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Chandrappa K Vs State of Karnataka