Partly allowed¶11

Smt Geetha R v. Sri Sadananda K

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WP/3868/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (R. Nataraj J., 15.04.2026; NC: 2026:KHC:20453) quashes FIR Crime No.29/2020 (Sections 448, 323, 380 r/w 34 IPC) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as an abuse of process: ornaments allegedly stolen on 23.02.2020 shown pledged by petitioner on 19.02.2020 and 20.02.2020 per P.F. No.27/2020 with M/s.KLM Axiva Finvest Gold Loan Ltd.; false complaint / counter-blast to Crime No.28/2020; background of witness summons in C.C.No.325/2018 and injunction suit O.S.No.4/2020; WRIT PETITION NO. 3868 OF 2021 (GM-RES); M.K.Doddi Police Station, Channapattana, Ramanagara.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the F.I.R registered by respondent No.2 in Crime No.29/2020 for offences under Sections 448, 323, 380 read with Section 34 IPC; petition against respondent No.1 dismissed as the petitioner did not press reliefs against him. ¶11

Smt Geetha R Vs Sri Sadananda K — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether the F.I.R registered in Crime No.29/2020 against the petitioner for offences under Sections 448, 323, 380 read with Section 34 IPC, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna, is an abuse of the process of law liable to be quashed. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

It was very unnatural for respondent No.4 to claim that the petitioner barged into her house and stole the very same gold articles which the petitioner had pledged with M/s.KLM Axiva Finvest Gold Loan Ltd., J.P. Nagar I Phase, on 19.02.2020 and 20.02.2020, as disclosed in P.F. No.27/2020 — three days prior to the alleged incident of 23.02.2020.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Respondent No.4 abused the process of law by lodging a false complaint accusing the petitioner of an offence punishable under Section 380 IPC.

¶10

Key takeaways

The false complaint could also be a counter-blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the daughter and son-in-law of respondent No.4 (Crime No.28/2020).ratio¶10
In order to set at nought the abusive proceeding initiated by respondent No.4, this Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.ratio¶10
The impugned F.I.R registered against the petitioner by respondent No.2 in Crime No.29/2020, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapattana, for offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 380 read with Section 34 IPC, is quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the F.I.R in Crime No.29/2020 of M.K.Doddi Police Station (offences under Sections 448, 323, 380 read with Section 34 IPC) pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapattana. Respondent No.4 alleged that on 23.02.2020 the petitioner, to prevent her from giving witness evidence in C.C.No.325/2018, breached the injunction in O.S.No.4/2020, trespassed into her house, assaulted her and her husband and stole Rs.75,000/-, gold ornaments and family-property documents. The Court noted from P.F. No.27/2020 that the very same ornaments had been pledged by the petitioner with M/s.KLM Axiva Finvest Gold Loan Ltd., J.P. Nagar I Phase, on 19.02.2020 and 20.02.2020 — three days before the alleged incident — rendering the theft allegation unnatural; the complaint was held to be an abuse of the process of law and a possible counter-blast to the petitioner's complaint in Crime No.28/2020. The F.I.R was quashed; the petition against respondent No.1 was dismissed as reliefs against him were not pressed.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:20453 WP No. 3868 of 2021

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3868 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. GEETHA R W/O SRI. KEMPARAJU D.M. D/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH M AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O AT NO.45, III FLOOR K.G.S CRYSTAL APARTMENTS OPP. TO M.G.M APARTMENTS ABBIAHNAIDU STUDIO ROAD, 3^RD MAIN ROAD, SUMUKHA BADAVANE CHIKKALLASANDRA BENGALURU-560061.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. MURALIDHAR S.R., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by 1. SRI. SADANANDA K HEMALATHA J AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, Location: HIGH COURT SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE OF M.K.DODDI POLICE STATION KARNATAKA CHANNAPATTANA TALUK-562 160 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY M.K. DODDI POLICE STATION, CHANNAPATTANA TALUK-562 160 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT KARNATAKA.

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20453 WP No. 3868 of 2021

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA-562 159 KARNATAKA.

¶18

YASHODAMMA W/O MANCHEGOWDA D.M. @ MILL MARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O AT NO.183, DASAVARA VILLAGE, KANVA POST, MALURU HOBLI, CHANAPATTANA TALUK-562 160 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHRAVAN MADHAV K.P., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶21

SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3;

¶22

SRI. BASAVARAJU P., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.29/2020 OF RESPONDENT NO.2/M.K.DODDI POLICE STATION, CHANNAPATTANA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT PENDING BEFORE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHANNAPATTANA, RAMANAGARA TALUK AT ANENXURE-F AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20453 WP No. 3868 of 2021

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has challenged the registration of an F.I.R by the respondent No.2 in Crime No.29/2020 pending before Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Channapatna, for offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶30

Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.4 informed the respondent No.2 on 23.02.2020, that her husband was assaulted and a case in that regard was tried in C.C.No.325/2018 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna. The respondent No.4 claimed that the Court had issued witness summons to her and that the petitioner apprehending that she would give evidence against the petitioner, trespassed into her house and threatened her not to give evidence. The respondent No.4 further claimed that the she had filed a suit in O.S.No.4/2020 for perpetual injunction against the petitioner not to enter her house. The respondent No.4 alleged that despite the order of injunction, the petitioner trespassed into the house and assaulted her and

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:20453 WP No. 3868 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

her husband and stole a sum of Rs.75,000/- and gold ornaments and some documents relating to the family properties. Based on the information, the respondent No.1 registered an F.I.R in Crime No.29/2020.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶36

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the gold ornaments allegedly stolen from the respondent No.4 on 23.02.2020 were purportedly recovered from M/s.K.L.M Axiva Finvest Gold Loan Limited on 13.03.2020 and the P.F. No.27/2020 placed before the Magistrate indicated that those gold ornaments were pledged with M/s.KLM Axiva Finvest Gold Loan Ltd., J.P. Nagar I Phase, Bengaluru, on 19.02.2020 and 20.02.2020 itself. He, therefore, contends that the allegation against the petitioner that she had stolen the gold ornaments from the respondent No.4 on 23.02.2020 is without any basis, but is concocted for the purposes of launching a false prosecution against the petitioner. He further contends that the respondent No.4 and petitioner had filed respective application for interim custody of those gold ornaments and that the Trial

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:20453 WP No. 3868 of 2021

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Court had partly allowed the application of the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that the respondent No.4 tacitly admitted that the gold ornaments seized in P.F. No.27/2020 were the ones which allegedly were stolen from the respondent No.4. Therefore, he contends that the impugned F.I.R registered against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of law and warrants interference.

¶41

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner had also lodged a complaint in Crime No.28/2020 on the same day i.e. 23.02.2020 accusing the son-in-law and daughter of the respondent No.4 and others of trespassing into her house and snatching some gold ornaments. He submits that in respect of the complaint so filed by the petitioner, an investigation was conducted and a charge sheet is already filed. He submits that the case on hand is a counter case filed by the respondent No.4 and the same also has to be investigated.

¶42

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.2 and 3 reiterated the above submissions and

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20453 WP No. 3868 of 2021

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

submitted that the information furnished by the respondent No.4 deserves to be investigated.

¶46

The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the Investigating Officer, who has registered the F.I.R and taken up investigation is unnecessarily arrayed as a respondent in this petition. He, therefore, prays that the petition against him be dismissed.

¶47

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does not press reliefs sought for against the respondent No.1.

¶48

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and the learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶49

A perusal of the information furnished by the respondent No.4 with the respondent No.1 shows that the petitioner had allegedly trespassed into the house and assaulted respondent No.4 and her husband also snatched

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:20453 WP No. 3868 of 2021

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

away the cash of Rs.75,000/- and gold ornaments stated therein and property documents belonging to her. The respondent No.4 furnished detailed information about the nature of the ornaments and its respective weight. It appears that the Investigating Officer after registration of an F.I.R, seized the gold ornaments on 13.03.2020. In the P.F. No.27/2020 submitted before the Magistrate, the Investigating Officer has disclosed that the gold ornaments were pledged with M/s.KLM Axiva Finvest Gold Loan Ltd., J.P. Nagar I Phase, by the petitioner on 19.02.2020 and 20.02.2020. Therefore, it was very unnatural for the respondent No.4 to claim that the petitioner had barged into her house and had stolen the very same gold articles which the petitioner had pledged 3 days prior to the alleged incident. It is hence clear from the above that the respondent No.4 has abused the process of law by lodging a false complaint and accusing the petitioner of an offence punishable under Section 380 of IPC. This could also be a counter-blast to the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the daughter and son-in-law of the respondent No.4. In that view of the matter, in order to set at nought an abusive

¶54

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20453 WP No. 3868 of 2021

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

proceeding initiated by the respondent No.4, it is imminent that

¶57

this Court exercises jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶58

The petition in so far as it relates to the reliefs sought against the respondent No.1 is dismissed. The petition in so far as it relates to reliefs sought against respondent Nos.2 to 4 is allowed . The impugned F.I.R registered against the petitioner by the respondent No.2 in Crime No.29/2020 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Channapattana, for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is quashed.

¶59

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶60

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Registration of an F.I.R in Crime No.29/2020 by respondent No.2 (M.K.Doddi Police Station) for offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 380 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapattana.¶1
Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapattana
Prior proceeding
On 23.02.2020 respondent No.4 informed respondent No.2 (police) about the incident complained of.¶2
Prior proceeding
Background criminal case: assault on respondent No.4's husband was tried in C.C.No.325/2018 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Channapatna.¶2
Prior proceeding
Witness summons issued to respondent No.4 in that case; she alleged that the petitioner, apprehending she would give evidence against the petitioner, trespassed into her house and threatened her not to give evidence.¶2
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.4 filed suit O.S.No.4/2020 against the petitioner for perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner from entering her house.¶2
Prior proceeding
Alleged offence of 23.02.2020: despite the injunction, petitioner trespassed into the house, assaulted respondent No.4 and her husband, and stole Rs.75,000/- in cash, gold ornaments and family-property documents.¶2
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 registered the F.I.R in Crime No.29/2020 based on that information.¶2
Prior proceeding
After registration of the F.I.R, the Investigating Officer seized the gold ornaments on 13.03.2020.¶10
Prior proceeding
In P.F. No.27/2020 submitted before the Magistrate, the Investigating Officer disclosed that the gold ornaments were pledged with M/s.KLM Axiva Finvest Gold Loan Ltd., J.P. Nagar I Phase.¶10
Prior proceeding
The ornaments had been pledged by the petitioner on 19.02.2020 and 20.02.2020, i.e., before the alleged incident of 23.02.2020.¶10
Prior proceeding
Counter-case: petitioner lodged complaint in Crime No.28/2020 on the same day (23.02.2020) accusing respondent No.4's son-in-law, daughter and others of trespassing into her house and snatching gold ornaments.¶5
Prior proceeding
In respect of the petitioner's complaint (Crime No.28/2020), investigation was conducted and a charge sheet is already filed.¶5
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.4 and the petitioner filed respective applications for interim custody of the seized gold ornaments.¶4
Prior proceeding
The Trial Court partly allowed the petitioner's interim-custody application.¶4
Prior proceeding
In-course development: petitioner did not press the reliefs sought against respondent No.1 (the Investigating Officer).¶8

Smt Geetha R v. Sri Sadananda K

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Geetha R v. Sri Sadananda K

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

Smt. Sarasa Vs Sri. Anand Kumar

Sri.Basavaraju Vs Sri.Basavaraju

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Mohammad Aseem

B S Ummar Vs the State of Karnataka

Vishwanatha Hadapada Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B S Somanath Vs Smt B S Shantha Bai