Ganesh Prasad Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Ganesh Prasad Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners (accused Nos.1 to 3) in CC.No.18726/2021 on the file of XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue for consideration

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

Court's answer

The point framed for consideration is answered in the 'Affirmative': the petitioners have made out grounds to allow the petition and quash the criminal proceedings.

Ratio / Principle

When both parties are fighting litigation to establish their competing right over the property in question, initiation of criminal proceedings against them without any prima facie materials to substantiate the offences is an abuse of the process of law and serves no purpose; accordingly, the criminal case registered against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

Key takeaways

The right over the house referred to in the first information and final report is to be decided by the Civil Court, and that question is pending consideration in the Regular First Appeal before this Court; hence the Court found no reason to proceed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 of IPC.ratio¶48
None of the persons involved sustained any injuries in the incident, undermining the allegation of the offences as registered.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 53 of 2022 (neutral citation NC: 2026:KHC:1353) filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M G Uma), decided on 09.01.2026. The petitioners, accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC.No.18726/2021 (arising out of Girinagar Police Station Cr.No.86/2021) for offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 read with Section 34 IPC before the XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, sought quashing of the proceedings. The complaint arose from a property dispute: the informant (CW.1) claimed title under a registered Will dated 07.04.2021 executed by late Smt. Jayalakshmi (who died on 01.05.2021), while accused No.1 had already obtained a decree in partition suit OS.No.9665/2006 on 02.01.2012, which is under challenge in a Regular First Appeal before this Court at the instance of respondent No.2. Noting that although Sections 352 and 451 were alleged in the first information the FIR was confined to Sections 448 and 506 r/w 34 IPC, that no one sustained any injuries, and that the parties' rival rights over the house awaited adjudication in the pending civil appeal, the Court held that continuing criminal proceedings without prima facie material would be an abuse of process of law serving no purpose. Petition allowed; the entire criminal proceedings in CC.No.18726/2021 were quashed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1353 CRL.P No. 53 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 53 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

GANESH PRASAD

S/O LATE RAGHAVENDRA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.94/95, 1^ST FLOOR, SEETHA CIRCLE, SBM COLONY BSK 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560050

BABU RAGHAVENDRA S/O GANESH PRASAD AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT 94/95, 1^ST FLOOR, SEETHA CIRCLE, SBM COLONY BSK 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560050

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

SAMARTH G VASISTHA S/O GANESH PRASAD AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS R/AT 94/95, 1^ST FLOOR, SEETHA CIRCLE, SBM COLONY BSK 1^ST STAGE, BENGALURU-560050

(BY SRI. DEVARAJA M., ADVOCATE)

…PETITIONERS

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GIRINAGAR POLICE STATION REPTD BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001

VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O SATHYANARAYANA NO. 60/43, 6^TH CROSS

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1353 CRL.P No. 53 of 2022

HC-KAR

3^RD BLOCK, THYAGARAJ NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 028

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. LOKESH ANJANAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M.M. SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF THE XXXII ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.18726/2021 (CR.NO.86/2021) FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 448, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

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

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC.No.18726/2021 on the file of the learned XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are seeking to quash

the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').

Heard Sri. Devaraj M, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Soumya R, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, and Sri. Lokesh Anjanappa, learned counsel for Sri. M M

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1353 CRL.P No. 53 of 2022

HC-KAR

Swamy, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

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

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

REASONS

Respondent No.2 filed the first information with Girinagar Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 3 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The FIR came to be registered and after investigation, the charge sheet is filed. According to the final report, accused Nos.1 to 3 have break open the lock of the house and illegally trespassed into the same. When CWs.1 to 3 tried to prevent them, the accused have criminally intimidated them. According to the informant, the owner of the property

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1353 CRL.P No. 53 of 2022

HC-KAR

late Smt.Jayalakshmi, the aunt of CW.1 executed the registered Will dated 07.04.2021, bequeathing the property in question in his favour and that the accused being the brother of CW.1 has no right over the same. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the sons of accused No.1.

According to learned counsel for the petitioners, accused No.1 had filed the suit in OS.No.9665/2006 for partition and separate possession against his adopted brother. Late Smt. Jayalakshmi, referred to above is none other than the adopted mother of accused No.1. In the suit OS.No.9665/2006, the subject matter of the Will referred to in the present complaint is also one of the item of the properties. The said suit came to be decreed on 02.01.2012. The same is under challenge before this Court in Regular First Appeal preferred by respondent No.2.

Even though in the first information, it is alleged that the accused have committed the offences punishable under Sections 352, 448, 451, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, the FIR came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 448 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. Admittedly,

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1353 CRL.P No. 53 of 2022

HC-KAR

none of them have sustained any injuries in the incident. The right over the house which is referred to in the first information and the final report is to be decided by the Civil Court, which is pending consideration in the Regular First Appeal before this Court.

It is to be noticed that Smt. Jayalakshmi, who is said to have executed the registered Will dated deed 07.04.2021, has died on 01.05.2021. Respondent No.2 said to have been impleaded as her legal representative before this Court. Rights of the parties will be decided by this Court in the Regular First Appeal. In the meantime, I do not find any reason to proceed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 of IPC. When both the parties are fighting litigation to establish their right over the property in question, initiation of criminal proceedings against them without there being any prima facie materials to substantiate the same, will be in abuse of process of law and no purpose would be served by prosecuting them. Hence, I am of the opinion that the criminal case registered against the petitioners

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1353 CRL.P No. 53 of 2022

HC-KAR

are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point

in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The petition is allowed .

ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3 herein in CC.No.18726/2021 on the file of XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed.

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

PNV

CT:VS

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 12