SRI ANKUSH DADHA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56889
CRL.P No. 6271 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372192024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6271 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. SRI. ANKUSH DADHA
S/O MAHER DADHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 105, DADHA HOUSE
136, 7TH MAIN ROAD,
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041.

2. SRI. APOORVA DADHA
S/O MAHER ADHA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
RESIDING AT 136, DADHA HOUSE
7TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR GOOD SHEPERD SCHOOL
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041.

3.
SRI. MAHER CHAND DADHA
S/O LATE MILAPCHAND DADHA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.136,
106, DADHA HOUSE
7TH MAIN ROAD,
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041.












Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56889
CRL.P No. 6271 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372192024



4. SMT. MADHU DADHA
W/O SRI. MAHER DADHA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 136
39TH A CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 041.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DHANANJAYA C.M, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 041,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SRI. DR. P.V. REDDY
S/O LATE V. PAPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 107, 2ND FLOOR
"DHADHA HOUSE", NO. 69/2
(OLD NO. 136), 7TH MAIN ROAD
5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR EXTENSION
BENGALURU - 560 011.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH P, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. H.K. SRIVASTHAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR DATED 26.06.2024 IN CR.NO.225/2024
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ACMM BENGALURU
(ANNEXURE A).

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56889
CRL.P No. 6271 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372192024



THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash the FIR
registered by Jayanagar Police Station in Crime
No.226/2024, against the petitioners/accused, for the
offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 149,
448, 323 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), pending
on the file of the II Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru (for short, “the learned
Magistrate”).

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent
No.2 lodged complaint on 26.06.2024, alleging that he had
purchased Flat No. 107 in the property bearing No. 69/2,
39th 'A' Cross, 7th Main Road, 5th Block, Jayanagar, from
Sai Durga Developers. There was a joint development

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56889
CRL.P No. 6271 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372192024



agreement between the said developers and the petitioner
herein. According to respondent No. 2, after the execution
of the absolute sale deed and delivery of possession of the
property to him, the petitioner, along with his henchmen,
entered the said property, locked the main gate and
prevented respondent No.2 from entering his flat. It is
further alleged that they physically assaulted respondent
No.2 and his wife and subsequently threw them out of the
house. Hence, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR came
to be registered in Crime No. 225/2024 on 26.06.2024 for
the aforesaid offences. The registration of the FIR is
challenged by the petitioner in this petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.

5. The primary contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that a dispute concerning the subject
property is pending between the petitioner and respondent

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56889
CRL.P No. 6271 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372192024



No.2 in Commercial O.S. No.810/2021 before the
Commercial Court, Bengaluru. It is further contended that
respondent No.2 had previously lodged a similar complaint
against the petitioner. The learned counsel also submitted
that the petitioner No.2/accused No.2 herein had filed a
complaint against one Ekambaram Reddy and others,
which was registered as Crime No.377/2023. In such
circumstances, it is contended that respondent No. 2 has
lodged a false complaint against the petitioner to give a
criminal colour to a civil dispute. Accordingly, the learned
counsel prays that the petition be allowed.

6. The prayer is opposed by the learned counsel
for respondent No. 2 and the learned HCGP on the ground
that the investigation is still at nascent stage and that
serious allegations have been made against the petitioner,
including outraging the modesty of respondent No.2's wife,
assaulting respondent No.2 and his wife, and throwing
them out of the house. It is contended that these

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56889
CRL.P No. 6271 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372192024



allegations require investigation by the Police. Accordingly,
they pray that the petition be dismissed.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the FIR and the averments
made in the complaint.

8. As could be gathered from records, it is alleged
that the petitioner, along with his henchmen, threw
respondent No.2 and his wife out of the house and locked
the main gate. There is also an allegation that they
assaulted respondent No.2 and his wife.

9. The matter is at a nascent stage, and the
investigation has not progressed beyond the preliminary
steps taken immediately after the registration of the case.
The relevant evidence is yet to be collected through a
thorough investigation and placed before the Court. At this
stage, this Court cannot anticipate the outcome of the
investigation or record a finding on the allegations of false

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56889
CRL.P No. 6271 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372192024



implication or mala fides merely on the ground that a civil
dispute exists between the parties.

10. The complaint cannot be rejected at the
threshold on the basis of an unsubstantiated defence. In
the case on hand, the complaint and the material collected
thus far, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable
offences by the petitioner. Hence, at this stage, the FIR
does not warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly,
dismissed
the petition is devoid of merits and is .

SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE











TMP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0