Ms Thejavathi Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CR.NO.200/2021 REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ACMM, BENGALURU CITY.

¶26

IN CRL.P NO. 6145/2021

¶27

BETWEEN:

¶28

V. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O. LATE H. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.48, 7^TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 1^ST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011.

¶29

MS. TEJAVANTHI D/O. V.LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.252, 5^TH FLOOR, MARATHAHALLI-SARJAPUR ROAD, AGARA VILLAGE, JAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560102.

¶30

SOMAIAH S/O LATE P.S. APPACHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.24/265, PAVAMANA EXTENSION, NANDANAVANA LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA POST,

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

BENGALURU-560083.

¶34

ASHOK S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.222/A, PAVAMANA EXTENSION, NANDANAVANA LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA POST, BENGALURU-560083.

¶35

...PETITIONERS

¶36

(BY SRI. RAVI B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VIJETHA R NAIK, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))

¶37

AND:

¶38

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶39

V. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O.LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.285, 3^RD CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, 3^RD PHASE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.

¶40

...RESPONDENTS

¶41

(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶42

SRI. M. VEERABHADRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶43

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT J.P.NAGAR POLICE IN C.C.NO.15978/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 341, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SAID CASE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXX A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶44

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

¶45

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶48

ORAL ORDER

¶49

In Crl.P.No.8637/2021, the petitioner has challenged the registration of an FIR in Crime No.200/2021 for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC pending on the file of the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶50

In Crl.P.No.6145/2021, the petitioners have challenged the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 against them in C.C.No.15978/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶51

(i) The respondent No.2 in both these petitions is the wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of the petitioner No.2 in Crl.P.No.6145/2021. She informed the respondent No.1 on 18.10.2021 that she had undergone a hip replacement surgery on 02.11.2020 and was completely bedridden. At that time, her daughter used to visit her at her house under the pretext of assisting her. During one such visits, the daughter told respondent No.2 to keep some major diamond and gold jewels

¶52

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

in the locker of bank for safety as respondent No.2 would be alone at home and cannot grapple, if something untoward happened at home. She alleged that her daughter by saying so asked her to handover the keys of the almirahs and lockers. She, believing the representations of her daughter reposed faith and trust and handed over the keys to her to take diamond and gold jewels from her home and keep them in lockers for safety as suggested by her daughter. On the next day, her daughter informed her that she had taken almost all the jewels except a few items required for daily use and kept them in the locker. She also represented that she would keep keys of the almirahs with her for safety as she would be alone in the house.

¶55

(ii) The respondent No.2 alleged that after few months, she could see changes in the attitude of her daughter whenever she visited her and she used to taunt respondent No.2 as to why respondent No.2 needed so much of gold jewels at that old age and that she would sell some big items etc., Therefore, respondent No.2 alleged that she feared something fishy and asked her daughter to handover keys of the almirah. However, her daughter dragged the issue on one or the other pretext.

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

The respondent No.2 alleged that her daughter had joined the hands with her husband (petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.6145/2021) who was pressurizing her through her daughter to give divorce. She claimed that earlier her daughter had advised her not to accept for divorce as she thought that her husband would marry his kept mistress working in the office and spoil the entire family wealth. She alleged that her daughter started pressurizing her to give consent for divorce by taking money from her husband. The respondent No.2 alleged that since she feared that daughter might join the hands with her husband and deprive her of her money and property, she sent a Whatsapp message on 03.04.2021 to her daughter asking her to return gold and diamond jewels which approximately weighed 7.5 kgs. However, her daughter replied stating that she would return the same. She claimed that even after such a reply, her daughter did not return the jewels and therefore, she alleged that her daughter had cheated her.

¶59

(iii) Based on these allegations, the respondent No.1 registered an FIR in against the daughter of respondent No.2 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021) in Crime No.200/2021 for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. Being aggrieved

¶60

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

by the registration of an FIR, the daughter of the respondent No.2 has filed Crl.P.No.8637/2021.

¶63

(i) The respondent No.2 also lodged a complaint with the respondent No.1 on 21.04.2021 stating that she was residing in a house which belonged to the joint family but was conveyed to her daughter in terms of a gift deed. She alleged that attempts were made to dispossess her from the house by causing a notice dated 31.03.2021 requiring her to vacate the house that was gifted in favour of her daughter. On 03.04.2021, her daughter had sent another Whatsapp message asking her to vacate the house. On 07.04.2021, she had caused a reply to the said notice and also filed caveat before the Civil Court. She claimed that on 21.04.2021 at 1.30 p.m.

¶64

her husband along with Mr. Somaiah, Mr. Shashi Patil, Mr. Praveen, Mr. Chandrashekar and her daughter came near her home and broke open the lock of the gate and the entrance door and forcibly entered the house and abused her. She alleged that her husband threatened her that he would kill her, if she did not vacate the house. Likewise, she alleged that one Mr. Somaiah and another goonda were deputed at the house to keep a watch on her and her husband threatened her that his

¶65

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

henchmen would kill her. He thereafter, locked the door and went away.

¶68

(ii) Based on these allegations, respondent No.1 registered Crime No.67/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The police thereafter took up investigation and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance and issued process. The petitioners in Crl.P.No.6145/2021 are therefore, before this Court challenging the charge sheet filed and the order taking cognizance and issuing process.

¶69

(i) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners

¶70

in both these petitions submitted that the respondent No.2 had earlier lodged a complaint before the Home Minister of the Government of Karnataka on 12.07.2021 alleging that her daughter had stolen diamond and gold ornaments weighing 7.5 kgs. He therefore, contends that the subsequent complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 accusing her daughter of cheating her of the jewels, is an improvement of her case so as to implicate the daughter in a sordid offence. He also contends

¶71

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

that there is nothing to show that the respondent No.2 was in possession of 7.5 kgs of gold and diamond ornaments and there is also nothing to show that the same was entrusted to her daughter/petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021. Thus, he contends that the registration of an FIR by the respondent No.1 is without going into the veracity of the allegations made by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 has abused the process of law by lodging a false complaint.

¶74

(ii) Besides this, he contends that the respondent No.2 is residing in a house which belongs to her daughter/petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 and that the respondent No.2 has devised this oblique method to ensure that her daughter does not take steps to evict her from the said property. He therefore, contends that the impugned complaint as well as FIR drawn against the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 is a clear case of abuse of process of law and Court and therefore, this Court may exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set at nought the wrongful proceedings initiated against her.

¶75

(iii) In addition, he contends that the petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.6145/2021 is the husband of the respondent No.2. He

¶76

10 -

¶77

NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

contends that a matrimonial dispute between the petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 is pending consideration in M.C.No.640/2016. He therefore, contends that the question of invocation of Section 448 of IPC as against the husband of the respondent No.2 does not arise. He also contends that even as per the case of the respondent No.2, the house where she is living belongs to the joint family. Therefore, the respondent No.2 cannot contend that her husband cannot enter such a joint family house. This apart, he contends that the house where the respondent No.2 is residing is admittedly gifted to the daughter in terms of an instrument of gift duly registered and therefore, the property cannot be claimed to be property of respondent No.2. Therefore, an offence under Section 448 of IPC is not attracted. As regards other allegations, he contends that except the self-serving statement of the respondent No.2 that she was threatened of her life, there is nothing to establish the same. Therefore, he contends that the charge sheet filed against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.6145/2021 is again an abuse of process of law and Court and warrants interference by this Court.

¶80

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

(i) Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent

¶83

No.2 submitted that there is no dispute regarding relationship between the petitioner Nos.1, 2 in Crl.P.No.6145/2021 and respondent No.2. He submits that there was an income tax raid, where the husband declared before the authorities of income tax that a large quantity of gold jewelry was owned and possessed by the respondent No.2. He submits that the respondent No.2 was given away a sum of Rs.2,00,00,000/- in terms of a settlement between her and her husband while apportioning the properties of the family. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.2 was in possession of sufficient gold ornaments as well as sufficient cash. He contends that the fact that the daughter of the respondent No.2 had taken away the gold and diamond ornaments, is evident from a WhatsApp reply sent by her where she admitted that she had taken them for safe keeping. He therefore, contends that there is prima facie evidence to show that the gold ornaments belonging to the respondent No.2 were entrusted to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 for safe keep. However, the said petitioner has not returned the gold ornaments and has now claimed that she is not in possession of any. He

¶84

12 -

¶85

NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

therefore, contends that an offence under Section 420 of IPC is made out. This apart, he contends that the respondent No.1 has only registered an FIR and has not taken up investigation. He contends that if the investigation is undertaken, the truth would follow. He also referred to objections filed by the daughter of respondent No.2 to an application filed for vacating the order of stay in Crl.P.No.8637/2021, where she stated as follows:

¶88

"4. In the WhatsApp messages sent by the petitioner, the petitioner has not admitted the quantum of gold ornaments but has only stated whatever the gold was given to her will be returned. Even now she is ready to return the said gold which was given to her by her mother i.e., Complainant/Respondent No.2 to deposit in a safe locker but however, the allegation made by the Complainant/Respondent No.2 that it was 7.5 kgs of gold is at the instance of the Police Sub-Inspector of J.P. Nagar Police and brother of the petitioner Sri. V.L. Bharathraj, who has suffered an order of statusquo by the Civil Court in a suit filed by the petitioner herein against him."

¶89

(ii) He therefore, contended that the fact of entrustment of gold jewels is admitted by the petitioner in

¶90

NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶91

13 -

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

Crl.P.No.8637/2021 and thus, the case requires investigation. He also invited the attention of the Court to a letter dated 07.04.2021 addressed by the daughter to the respondent No.2, where she stated as follows:-

¶94

"Regarding jewelry, I am not aware of the value of the jewellery that you have claimed in your message. All I have done is to execute your request to move some of your jewellery to a bank locker from my house for your safety and security."

¶95

(iii) He therefore, contends that the fact of entrustment of jewels by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 is admitted in more than once in categorical terms. He therefore, contends that the information furnished by the respondent No.2 to the police that her daughter had cheated her, warrants an investigation. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others [1992 Supp (1) SCC 335], where it was held a case which presents commission of cognizable offence cannot be set at nought in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶96

14 -

¶97

NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

(iv) He contends that respondent No.2 is bed-ridden and her husband has contracted a promiscuous relationship with another women. He contends that respondent No.2 has been residing in a house which belonged to the family and in order to evict her from the house, her husband along with a few goons had forcibly entered the house and threatened respondent No.2 of her life if she did not vacate the house. He therefore, contends that it was in the light of such unauthorized entry and threat that a complaint was lodged and the police rightly registered an FIR. He contends that the case deserves an investigation.

¶100

(i) The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners

¶101

while replying to the above submitted that the daughter of respondent No.2 has not admitted about the weight of the gold ornaments and she had nowhere admitted that the weight of the gold ornaments was 7.5 kgs. He submitted that respondent No.2 has attempted to strong arm her daughter to force her into a settlement in so far as the house, where respondent No.2 is staying despite it being gifted to the daughter. Therefore, he contends that the impugned FIR drawn against the daughter is liable to be set at nought. As regards Crl.P.No.6145/2021,

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶103

15 -

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

he contends that the charge sheet filed is a clear abuse of process of law and that this Court is empowered to set at nought such a mischievous proceedings. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments :-

¶106

(i) State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Suppl (1) SCC 335]

¶107

(ii) Manoj Mahavir Prasad Khaitan vs. Ram Gopal Poddar [(2010) 10 SCC 673]

¶108

(iii) Arshad Neyaz Khan vs. State of Jharkhand and another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2058]

¶109

(iv) Ahmad Ali Quraishi vs. State of U.P. [(2020) 13 SCC 435]

¶110

(v) Krishna Lal Chawla vs. State of U.P. [(2021) 5 SCC 435]

¶111

(vi) Abhishek vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2023) 16 SCC 666]

¶112

He contended that all the aforesaid judgments deal with the power of the High Court to quash proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He thus contends that this Court should not hesitate to set at nought criminal proceedings that are which is clearly an abuse of process of law.

¶113

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶116

reiterated the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶117

I have considered the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶118

The facts that can be gathered from the petitions filed before this Court give an impression that all is not well amongst the family members of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 alleged that her husband has contracted relationship with another woman and that he had tried to disown her and had brought about various unconscionable deeds and documents to deprive her of her right to live in the joint family abode. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 claims that her father namely, petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.6145/2021 had gifted the said house to her where respondent No.2 is presently residing. Therefore, it is clear that there is an attempt to one-upmanship between the petitioners and the respondent No.2 to gain control over some assets of the family.

¶119

17 -

¶120

NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

It also appears from the material placed on record that the family was affluent and there was some settlement between the respondent No.2 and other members of the family. It is also evident that the respondent No.2 was residing in the house, which was gifted to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021. The fact that certain jewels were handed over to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 is admitted by her in communications exchanged between her and respondent No.2. The only issue is whether the weight of these gold ornaments was 7.5 kgs or not. The fact remains that those gold and diamond ornaments were handed over by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 for safe keep.

¶123

As a matter of fact, in order to bring about compromise between the parties, this Court appointed a Commissioner to visit the locker, where gold ornaments were purportedly kept by the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021. The Commissioner has submitted a report stating that there were no gold ornaments found at the time of inspection. She also reported that the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 had operated the bank locker for nearly 39 times. Therefore, the

¶124

18 - NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶125

HC-KAR

¶126

possibility of petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 moving out gold ornaments which were kept in locker, cannot be ruled out. The fact that the gold ornaments were entrusted to the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 is admitted. Therefore, if the petitioner in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 now claims that she is not in possession of any gold ornaments, would be nothing short of an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. The respondent No.1 has therefore, rightly registered an FIR for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC and hence, the same cannot be set at nought. Consequently, the petition filed in Crl.P.No.8637/2021 does not merit any interference and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶127

So far as Crl.P.No.6145/2021 is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, there is no dissolution of marriage between the respondent No.2 and petitioner No.1. The petitioner No.2 in Crl.P.No.6145/2021 is the daughter of respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that the house where the respondent No.2 is residing is a house which is owned by the petitioner No.2 in Crl.P.No.6145/2021. Consequently, the respondent No.2 could not have accused the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 for an offence

¶128

NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶129

19 -

¶130

HC-KAR

¶131

punishable under Section 448 of IPC. As regards other offences, there is no material procured by the investigating officer to accuse the petitioners of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 of IPC. Consequently, a criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.6145/2021 deserves to be set at nought. This apart, it is seen from the charge sheet that further statement of respondent No.2 was recorded which discloses that the accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 were not present in the house, where the respondent No.2 was residing, which gives an impression that they were roped into the case to seem as if all of them conspired to threaten respondent No.2 of her life. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the registration of Crime No.67/2021 and the consequent charge sheet registered and the order dated 15.07.2021 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC deserves to be quashed.

¶132

Hence, the following order is passed:

¶133

ORDER

¶134

(i) Crl.P.No.8637/2021 is dismissed .

¶135

NC: 2026:KHC:19936 CRL.P No. 8637 of 2021 C/W CRL.P No. 6145 of 2021

¶136

20 -

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

(ii) Crl.P.No.6145/2021 is allowed . The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.15978/2021 by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed.

¶139

(iii) In view of disposal of the petitions, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.

¶140

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶141

PMR

¶142

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Ms Thejavathi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Thejavathi 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

Sri Venkatesh C J Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Santhosh Shetty Vs Smt Mamatha R

Sri Krishnaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B C Shivegowda Vs Smt Lakshmamma

Manu Vs State by Town Police.

Ms Jennifer Joel Vs Mr.Amjad Pasha