Allowed¶69

Smt Rathnamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jan 2026CRL.P/4585/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of charge sheet; S.482 CrPC; S.420 r/w S.149 IPC; abuse of process of law; bald final report / Column No.7; no specific allegation of concocted document; cheating; forgery/concoction of documents; site dispute Site No.138 (Sy.No.44/1) and Site No.38 (Sy.No.45), Doddakallasandra village; parallel civil litigation O.S.No.1534/2014, O.S.No.25547/2014, RFA.No.667/2019, RFA.No.2476/2015 pending; BBMP officials not cited as witnesses; permanent injunction suits; Karnataka High Court; M G Uma, J.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in CC.No.1257/2022 pending on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 149 IPC, quashed against the petitioners. ¶69

Smt Rathnamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?

¶35

Court's answer

There are no prima facie materials to accept respondent No.2's contention that the accused are laying their hands over Site No.38 belonging to respondent No.2, since the petitioners claim right over Site No.138 formed in Sy.No.44/1 and never disputed respondent No.2's claim over Site No.38 in Sy.No.45.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The categorical finding recorded in O.S.No.1534/2014 that the plaintiff (accused No.1) is in possession and enjoyment of Site No.138 goes a long way in considering the contentions of both parties and supports the petitioners.

¶57

Key takeaways

The specific finding in the decree in O.S.No.25547/2014 that Site Nos.138 and 38 are separate properties enures to the benefit of the accused, as the suit was decreed in respect of Site No.38.ratio¶58
Column No.7 of the charge sheet/final report is bald and does not make out any specific allegation as to which document was concocted by the accused and how the offence of cheating was committed to attract Section 420 IPC; none of the BBMP officials are cited as witnesses and no independent witness speaks of the offence.ratio¶62

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 CrPC by accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC No.1257/2022 (I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru), for offences under S.420 r/w S.149 IPC — allowed; criminal proceedings quashed. The dispute concerned rival claims of petitioner No.1 to Site No.138 formed in Sy.No.44/1 of Doddakallasandra village and of respondent No.2 to Site No.38 formed in Sy.No.45 of the same village; civil suits O.S.No.1534/2014 (by accused No.1, dismissed 27.02.2019 with a finding that she is in possession of Site No.138) and O.S.No.25547/2014 (by respondent No.2, decreed in respect of Site No.38, with a finding that Site Nos.138 and 38 are separate properties), and appeals RFA.No.667/2019 and RFA.No.2476/2015, were pending. Held: (i) no prima facie material that the accused laid claim over respondent No.2's Site No.38; (ii) Column No.7 of the final report is bald — no specific allegation as to which document was concocted or how cheating under S.420 IPC was made out, and no BBMP officials or independent witnesses are cited; (iii) filing a criminal complaint amid pending civil litigation over the very same sites cannot be accepted; initiation and continuation of proceedings is an abuse of process of law.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2199 CRL.P No. 4585 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4585 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O. NARASIMHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.138, SURVEY NO.44/1, SIDDAPPA LAYOUT, DODDA KALLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 062.

¶10

SRI. NARASIMHAIAH S/O CHANNE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.33/1 (9), K.P.T.C.L., QUARTERS, PALM GROVE ROAD, VIVEKNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 047.

¶11

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

(BY SRI. V.S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR

¶13

SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR .S., ADVOCATE)

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 061, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

SRI. MUNIVEERAIAH,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:2199 CRL.P No. 4585 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

S/O VEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT NOS.1 AND 2, HEMANTH RESIDENCY, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, DODDAKALLASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 062.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. K. DIWAKARA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ABHISHEK .K., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. HITESH GOWDA B.J., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO I) QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS PENDING AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CC NO 1257/2022, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 420 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC 1860, AT ANNEXURE A, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU. II) QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AT ANNEXURE B IN CC NO. 1257/2022, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 420, R/W SECTION 149 OF THE IPC, 1860, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.

¶25

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in CC.No.1257/2022 pending on the file of the learned I Additional

¶28

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 149 of Indian

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:2199 CRL.P No. 4585 of 2022

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC'), are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

¶33

Heard Sri. V.S.Hegde, learned counsel for Sri.Prasanna Kumar S., learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.K. Diwakara, learned senior advocate for Sri. Abhishek K., along with Sri. Hitesh Gowda B.J., learned counsels for respondent No.2 and Sri.Rangaswamy R., learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.

¶34

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

¶35

"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

¶36

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

¶37

REASONS

¶38

The learned counsel for the petitioners referring to the voluminous documents that are produced by him and contends that, accused No.1 is the owner of Site No.138

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:2199 CRL.P No. 4585 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

formed in Sy.No.44/1 of Doddakallasandra Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, whereas respondent No.2 is the owner of Site No.38 formed in Sy.No.45 of Doddakallasandra village. This fact is not in dispute. However, the learned Senior advocate for respondent No.2 contends that, even though accused No.1 is claiming Site No.138 in Sy.No.44/1, in fact she is laying her claim in respect of Site No.38 formed in Sy.No.45 owned by respondent No.2.

¶43

It is not in dispute that accused No.1 filed the suit in O.S.No.1534/2014 against the vendor of respondent No.2, seeking permanent injunction in respect of Site No.138 of Doddakallasandra village. It is the contention of accused No.1 that she purchased Site No.138 measuring 40x48 under the registered Sale Deed dated 18.03.2013. The said suit came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 27.02.2019 by the Trial Court holding that the interference by the vendor of respondent No.2 is not proved. However, the Court opined that the plaintiff i.e. accused No.1 is in possession of the said Site No.138. It is stated that RFA.No.667/2019 is preferred by accused No.1 and the same is still pending consideration before this Court.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:2199 CRL.P No. 4585 of 2022

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

It is also not in dispute that respondent No.2 filed suit O.S.No.25547/2014 in respect of Site No.38 of Doddakallasandra village against accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking permanent injunction. The said suit came to be decreed holding that respondent No.2 is the owner in possession of Site No.38 of Doddakallasandra village. It is stated that accused No.1 challenged the said judgment and decree by preferring RFA.No.2476/2015, which is also pending consideration.

¶48

In the meantime, after dismissal of the suit O.S.No.1534/2014 on 27.02.2019, the present complaint came to be filed on 11.05.2019, alleging commission of the offences under Sections 420, 472, 465, 471 and 468 read with Section 149 of IPC. The only allegation made against the accused by respondent No.2 is that, even though respondent No.2 is the owner of Site No.38, which was purchased under the registered sale deed, accused No.1 who has no authority over the same has concocted and forged the documents to claim Site No.38 as the very same Site No.138. After investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section 420 read with Section 149 of IPC while dropping the other penal provisions.

¶49

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:2199 CRL.P No. 4585 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

As per Column No.7 of the charge sheet, the accused with a common intention concocted the documents and committed cheating in respect of Site No.38 formed in Sy.No.45 of Doddakallasandra village, projecting it as Site No.138 formed in Sy.No.44/1 of Doddakallasandra village. Interestingly, the learned senior advocate for respondent No.2 is referring to various revenue documents and the letters said to have been written by the Bengaluru Bruhath Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). But none of the BBMP officials are cited as witnesses in the charge sheet or none of the independent witnesses speak about the commission of the offence by these petitioners.

¶53

When respondent No.2 claims right over Site No.38 formed in Sy.No.45 of Doddakallasandra village and when the same was never disputed by the petitioners, on the other hand, they claim right over Site No.138 formed in Sy.No.44/1 of Doddakallasandra village, I do not find any prima-facie materials to accept the contention of respondent No.2 that the accused are laying their hands over Site No.38 belonging to respondent No.2. Even though accused No.1 and respondent No.2 have filed different suits as referred to above seeking

¶54

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:2199 CRL.P No. 4585 of 2022

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

permanent injunction, but in none of the suits, the parties have sought for appointment of the Court Commissioner for the purpose of identifying their respective Sites.

¶57

It is pertinent to note that in O.S.No.1534/2014 where accused No.1 sought for permanent injunction in respect of Site No.138 against the vendor of respondent No.2, the Court has recorded a categorical finding that the plaintiff therein i.e. accused No.1 is in possession and enjoyment of the said Site. These observations go a long way in considering the contentions taken by both the parties.

¶58

Learned senior advocate for respondent No.2 has drawn the attention of the Court with regard to the findings recorded in the judgment passed in O.S.No.25547/2014, which is the suit filed by respondent No.2 against accused Nos.1 and 2, seeking permanent injunction. Admittedly, the subject matter of the said suit is Site No.38 of Doddakallasandra Village. But the Court has specifically recorded a finding that Site Nos.138 and 38 are separate properties. This finding also will enure to the benefit of the accused, as the suit came to be decreed in respect of Site No.38.

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC:2199 CRL.P No. 4585 of 2022

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Admittedly, both the parties are litigating before this Court in RFA.No.667/2019 and RFA.No.2476/2025, which are pending consideration in respect of the very the same Site Nos.38 and 138 of Doddakallasandra village. In the meantime, filing a criminal complaint alleging commission of the offence under Section 420 read with Section 149 of IPC, cannot be accepted. Even though there was investigation by the Investigating Officer, column No.7 of the final report is bald and it does not make out any specific allegation as to which is the document that was concocted by the accused and how the offence of cheating was committed to attract Section 420 of IPC. When there are no prima-facie materials to constitute the offence in question, I am of the opinion that the initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings is in abuse of process of law. Hence, the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed.

¶63

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

¶64

ORDER

¶65

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:2199 CRL.P No. 4585 of 2022

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

(ii) The criminal proceedings initiated in CC.No.1257/2022, pending on the file of the learned I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court, Bengaluru, registered for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 149 of IPC, is hereby quashed against the petitioners.

¶70

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶71

MKM

¶72

CT:VS

¶73

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4

Smt Rathnamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rathnamma 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

Minopharm Laboratories Vs the Drugs Inspector II

Sri Sree Balaji H. Vs the State of Karnataka

B O Thimmesh Vs Smt. Shakunthalamma

M/S S P M Granites Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. T. Manoharan

Paramesh Nandhan D C Vs State of Karnataka by

Lokesh R Vs State by