Allowed¶46

Sri Bhaskar.N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2026CRL.P/454/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (R. Nataraj J., 04-03-2026) allowed CRL.P No. 454 of 2019 and quashed criminal proceedings in C.C.No.8927/2018 (Cr.No.174/2017) under Sections 341, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 IPC, holding that a threat/abuse complaint rooted in a family property-partition dispute (title claimed via Will, civil suit pending) had no criminal overtones and constituted abuse of process of law; Section 482 Cr.P.C. jurisdiction invoked to set the prosecution at nought.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.8927/2018 (Cr.No.174/2017) pending trial before V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru; pending interlocutory applications dismissed as not surviving. ¶46

Sri Bhaskar.N Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.8927/2018 for offences under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is an abuse of the process of law and Court, being essentially a civil dispute over division of family property, warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶33

Court's answer

The dispute between the parties relates to sharing of the properties left behind by the father of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 and has no criminal overtones; respondent No.2, instead of working out his remedy before the Civil Court, unnecessarily roped the petitioners into a criminal case and thereby abused the process of law.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The abusive prosecution warranted this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set at nought the prosecution.

¶45

Key takeaways

The criminal petition is allowed and the prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.No.8927/2018 (Cr.No.174/2017) for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending trial before V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed.ratio¶46
In view of the disposal of the main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand dismissed.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Quashing of prosecution. Petitioners (husband and wife) were charge-sheeted in C.C.No.8927/2018 (arising out of Cr.No.174/2017) for offences under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, on the complaint of respondent No.2 (an advocate and brother of petitioner No.1) that during a visit on 20.05.2017 to discuss division of their father's properties they abused and threatened him. The Court found that petitioner No.1 claimed title to the property under a Will executed by the father, that a suit for partition was already pending, and that the dispute related purely to sharing of family property with no criminal overtones. Holding that respondent No.2 had unnecessarily roped the petitioners into a criminal case instead of pursuing his civil remedy, thereby abusing the process of law, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution in C.C.No.8927/2018; pending interlocutory applications were dismissed as not surviving. (R. Nataraj J.; decided 04-03-2026.)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.454 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. BHASKAR N. S/O. LATE NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

¶9

SMT. MANJULA W/O. BHASKAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.340/B, 2^ND 'D' CROSS 13^TH MAIN, III STAGE I^ST BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SRINIVAS N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA signed by BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HEMALATHA J BENGALURU-560 001 Location: BY BASAVESHWARA NAGARA HIGH COURT OF POLICE STATION KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 079

¶14

SRI. N. SRINIVASAMURTHY S/O. LATE C. NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS B.A., LLB ADVOCATE NO.63, I^ST FLOOR, 2^ND CROSS DOMALUR LAYOUT BENGALURU-560 071

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHI, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1; SRI. KEMPANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN C.C.NO.8927/2018, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners have sought for quashing proceedings in C.C.No.8927/2018 pending trial before V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short).

¶24

Respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 in writing on 29.06.2017 that on 20.05.2017, he along with his brothers and sister had visited the house of the petitioners to discuss regarding the division of properties of their father. He alleged that the petitioners abused the respondent No.2 and also threatened him of his life. Respondent No.2 claimed that his nephew had died and therefore there was a delay in lodging the complaint. Based on the said complaint, respondent No.1

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

registered Cr.No.174/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶28

The respondent No.1 after conducting an investigation, filed a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and C.C.No.8927/2018 was registered.

¶29

The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and issued process. The petitioners being aggrieved by the charge sheet against them and the order taking cognizance and issuing process, have filed this petition.

¶30

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the father of petitioner No.1 had executed a Will dated 18.01.2013 in respect of the property owned by him and that respondent No.2 and the other brothers and sister were compelling the petitioners to part with the said property. He therefore, contends that respondent No.2 being an advocate, has given a criminal flavour to a civil dispute. He further contends that respondent No.2, his brothers and sister have filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the said property, which is pending consideration. Therefore, he

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

contends that the impugned criminal prosecution of the petitioners is an abuse of the process of law and Court and hence, the same is liable to be set at naught.

¶34

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners abused the respondent No.2 and also threatened him with his life when he visited the house of the petitioners to discuss about the division of the property left behind by his father. He therefore contends that respondent No.1 had rightly registered Cr.No.174/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. He further contends that after investigation, a charge sheet is filed and in the charge sheet statements of CWs.4 to 6 are recorded, which indicate that the petitioners threatened the respondent No.2 and his brothers and sister of their lives, if they ever claimed any share or visited their house to discuss about the division of the properties. He therefore, contends that respondent No.1 was justified in filing the charge sheet and the Trial Court was justified in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issuing process.

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶38

reiterated the contentions of respondent No.2 and submits that the materials collected by the investigating officer indicates the complicity of the petitioners in the aforesaid offence and therefore the filing of the charge sheet and the consequent order taking cognizance are just and proper.

¶39

I have considered the submissions of learned

¶40

counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶41

A perusal of the information furnished by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 indicates that the dispute arose in relation to the sharing of the properties left behind by the father of petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. It also appears that respondent No.2 and his brothers and sister had visited the house of the petitioners to discuss the division of the properties and that the petitioners abused them and also threatened them. It further appears from the records produced along with this petition that petitioner No.1 claims title to the property in question in terms of a Will executed by his father.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:13228 CRL.P No. 454 of 2019

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Therefore, the dispute inter se relates to a property but has no criminal overtones. The respondent No.2 instead of working out his remedy before the Civil Court, has unnecessarily roped the petitioner into a criminal case and thereby abused the process of law, warranting this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set at nought the abusive prosecution.

¶46

Consequently, this criminal petition is allowed and the prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.8927/2018 (Cr.No.174/2017) filed for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending trial on the file V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is quashed.

¶47

In view of disposal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.

¶48

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Sri Bhaskar.N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Bhaskar.N 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nasir Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Nayeemullah @ Nayeem Vs Sri. Syed Waseem

Imran Khan @ Sri Yousuff Shariff @ D Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Rambabu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Jayalakshmi Vs M/S Bren Corporation

Sri K K Krishna Vs Smt Chandramma