SMT. M . PRIYANKA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SPP

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3527 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)

/ 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT. M . PRIYANKA
W/O LATE G.MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

2. SHRI. MOHANKUMAR,
S/O R.MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

3. SHRI.V.SHIVANNA,
S/O LATE VEERANNA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,


4. SMT.BHAGYAMMA@ SOUBHAGYA
W/O LATE MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

ALL ARE R/AT NO. 546, 1ST FLOOR,
KAMAKSHIPALYA,
MALAIDESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 079

…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SUMATHI S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SPP
BY SPP,
MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
AMBEDKARA VEEDI,











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE 560 001

2. SMT.G.TEJAKUMARI,
W/O B.GOPIKUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
ND
R/AT NO.329, 2 E CROSS,
RD RD
3 BLOCK, 3 STAGE,
BASAVESHWARANAGAR,
BENGALURU 560 079

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANJITH KUMAR N., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. H.T. VASANTH KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE
TH
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2383/2023 ON THE FILE OF 6 A.C.M.M
AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(B),420,504,506 OF
IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER


1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
“Quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2383/2023 on
th
the file of 6 A.C.M.M at Bengaluru for the offence
p/u/s 120(b),420,504,506 of IPC vide Annexure-C
in so far as the petitioners are concerned.”

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025



2. Initially, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with
Mico Layout Police Station alleging irregularities in
the transfer of the khata of a residential property
situated in BTM (EWS) Layout, measuring 20 feet by
30 feet. As no action was taken on the said
complaint, respondent No.2 approached the Deputy
Commissioner of Police. Alleging that no action was
taken even thereafter, respondent No.2 filed a
private complaint in PCR No.4337 of 2022 under
Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. The said complaint was referred to Mico Layout Police
Station for investigation under Section 156(3) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, pursuant to which an
FIR came to be registered in Crime No.64 of 2022 on
29.03.2022 for offences punishable under Sections
506, 504, 120B and 420 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet
came to be filed on 12.01.2023, and the case was
registered as C.C. No.2383 of 2023, which is pending
on the file of the VI Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Bengaluru. The petitioners have
approached this Court challenging the said
proceedings.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025



5. The allegations in the complaint, in substance, are
that petitioner No.1 is the daughter-in-law of
respondent No.2, having been married to her son,
Mr. G. Manjunath, who died in 2019. It is alleged
that, subsequent to his death, petitioner No.1 caused
the khata of the aforesaid property to be transferred
exclusively into her name. According to respondent
No.2, in order to secure the transfer, petitioner No.1
submitted an affidavit dated 03.11.2020 claiming
that, upon the death of Manjunath, she was his sole
legal heir and, consequently, the sole and absolute
owner of the property, with no other person having
any right, title or interest therein.

6. Respondent No.2 alleges that the said claim was
false and that the affidavit had been fabricated or
furnished with a view to securing the transfer of the
khata exclusively in favour of petitioner No.1.

7. It is further alleged that, in connection with the
application for transfer of the khata, the concerned
officials conducted a mahazar, during which
petitioner Nos.2 to 4, who are the brothers and sister
of petitioner No.1, furnished statements and
addresses indicating that they were residing in BTM
Layout. According to respondent No.2, the said
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


statements and addresses were false, as petitioner
Nos.2 to 4 were, in fact, residing at Kamakshipalya.
The allegation is that the statements were furnished
to support the application made by petitioner No.1
and facilitate the transfer of the khata exclusively in
her name. On the basis of the affidavit and the
statements allegedly furnished in connection with the
mahazar, the khata was transferred in favour of
petitioner No.1.

8. Respondent No.2 further alleges that, after securing
the khata in her name, petitioner No.1 intended to
sell the property to third parties, thereby seeking to
appropriate the entire property despite allegedly
having no exclusive right, title or interest over it. It is
stated that respondent No.2 subsequently
approached the officials of the Bruhat Bengaluru
Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to enquire into the
transfer of the khata, whereupon the circumstances
surrounding the transfer allegedly came to light.

9. Respondent No.2 also instituted a suit in O.S.
No.3486 of 2021 seeking partition of the property.
On the basis of these allegations, respondent No.2
contends that the khata was transferred in favour of
petitioner No.1 by relying upon a fabricated affidavit
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


and false statements made during the mahazar,
pursuant to an alleged conspiracy among the
accused to secure exclusive control over the
property.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

10.1. Petitioner No.1 is a widow who has been denied
her legitimate share in the property following
the demise of her husband. It is contended that
the affidavit in question was executed in the
ordinary course of seeking transfer of the khata
and with the intention of protecting her
interests in the property, and not with any mala
fide intention or dishonest motive to usurp the
property. It is therefore submitted that the
mere execution of the affidavit, in the
circumstances stated, would not, by itself,
constitute an offence or establish the requisite
mens rea for the offence of criminal conspiracy
punishable under Section 120B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

10.2. Learned counsel further submits that petitioner
No.1 has herself instituted a suit in O.S.
No.3486 of 2021 seeking partition of the
property. It is contended that, had petitioner
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


No.1 intended to unlawfully appropriate the
entire property to the exclusion of other
claimants, there would have been no occasion
for her to seek partition through a civil suit.

10.3. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that
the dispute essentially concerns the civil rights
of the parties in respect of the property and
that the same has been given a criminal colour.
Accordingly, it is contended that continuation of
the criminal proceedings would amount to an
abuse of the process of law and that the
proceedings are liable to be quashed.

10.4. She relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in G. Saminathan and Anr vs.
The State, Rep by the Sub-Inspector of
Police and Anr (2026 INSC 772), more
particularly para 8.9 and 8.10 thereof, which
are reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

8.9 Thus, on perusal of the material on record as well
as from the aforesaid discussion, we hold that
continuation of criminal proceedings instituted against
the accused by the complainant would be nothing but
a sheer abuse of the process of law inasmuch as on a
consideration of the allegations, none of the offences
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


invoked in the FIR as well as the chargesheet appear
to be made out against the accused.
8.10 This Court in Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC
India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736, while taking judicial
notice of the surge of civil disputes being given a
criminal flavour, observed as follows:
“13. While on this issue, it is necessary to take notice
of a growing tendency in business circles to convert
purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This is
obviously on account of a prevalent impression that
civil law remedies are time consuming and do not
adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors.
Such a tendency is seen in several family disputes
also, leading to irretrievable breakdown of
marriages/families. There is also an impression that if
a person could somehow be entangled in a criminal
prosecution, there is a likelihood of imminent
settlement. Any effort to settle civil disputes and
claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by
applying pressure through criminal prosecution should
be deprecated and discouraged. In G. Sagar Suri v.
State of U.P. [(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri)
513] this Court observed: (SCC p. 643, para 8)
“It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of a
civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal
offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of
other remedies available in law. Before issuing
process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal
of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This
Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which
the High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this
section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the
process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice.”
14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance
should be prevented from seeking remedies available
in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or
persists with a prosecution, being fully aware that the
criminal proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy
lies only in civil law, should himself be made
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


accountable, at the end of such misconceived criminal
proceedings, in accordance with law. One positive
step that can be taken by the courts, to curb
unnecessary prosecutions and harassment of innocent
parties, is to exercise their power under Section 250
CrPC more frequently, where they discern malice or
frivolousness or ulterior motives on the part of the
complainant. Be that as it may.”

10.5. By relying on Saminathan , her submission is
that when on the material on record, the
continuation of criminal proceedings would be a
sheer abuse of the process of law and none of
the offences in the FIR are made out, the High
Court is required to intervene and quash the
proceedings.

10.6. She relies upon the decision in S.N.
Vijayalakshmi & Ors. vs State of Karnataka
(2025 INSC 917), more particularly para 42
thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference:

42. Coming to the second question i.e., whether civil
and criminal proceedings both can be maintained on
the very same set of allegations qua the same
person(s), the answer stricto sensu, is that there is
no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal
proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a
civil case can co-exist with a criminal case on the
same facts. The fact that a civil remedy has already
been availed of by a complainant, ipso facto, is not
sufficient ground to quash an FIR, as pointed out,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


inter alia, in P Swaroopa Rani v M Hari Narayana,
(2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali
Augustine Imam v State (Delhi Admn.), (2009) 5
SCC 528. The obvious caveat being that the
allegations, even if having a civil flavour to them,
must prima facie disclose an overwhelming element
of criminality. In the absence of the element of
criminality, if both civil and criminal cases are
allowed to continue, it will definitely amount to abuse
of the process of the Court, which the Courts have
always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such
criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have
already been instituted with regard to the same
issue, and the element of criminality is absent. If
such element is absent, the prosecution in question
would have to be quashed. In this connection,
Paramjeet Batra v State of Uttarakhand, (2013) 11
SCC 673 can be referred to:
‘12. … Whether a complaint discloses a criminal
offence or not depends upon the nature of facts
alleged therein. Whether essential ingredients of
criminal offence are present or not has to be judged
by the High Court. A complaint disclosing civil
transactions may also have a criminal texture. But
the High Court must see whether a dispute which is
essentially of a civil nature is given a cloak of
criminal offence. In such a situation, if a civil remedy
is available and is, in fact, adopted as has happened
in this case, the High Court should not hesitate to
quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of
process of the court.’ (emphasis supplied)

10.7. By relying on SN Vijayalakshmi , she
reiterates her submission that when civil and
criminal proceedings both can be maintained on
the same allegation, if the criminal proceedings
are filed only to give the criminal flavour to a
civil dispute, those criminal proceedings are
required to be quashed.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025



10.8. She relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Mitesh Kumar J. Sha vs.
The State of Karnataka and Ors. (Criminal
Appeal No. 1285 of 2021), more particularly
para 41 and 43 thereof, which are reproduced
hereunder for easy reference:

41. Having considered the relevant arguments of the
parties and decisions of this court we are of the
considered view that existence of dishonest or
fraudulent intention has not been made out against
the Appellants. Though the instant dispute certainly
involves determination of issues which are of civil
nature, pursuant to which Respondent No. 2 has even
instituted multiple civil suits, one can by no means
stretch the dispute to an extent, so as to impart it a
criminal colour. As has been rightly emphasised upon
by this court, by way of an observation rendered in
the case of M/s Indian Oil Corporation Vs. M/s. NEPC
India Ltd & Ors.7, as under :-
“14. While no one with a legitimate cause or grievance
should be prevented from seeking remedies available
in criminal law, a complainant who initiates or persists
with a prosecution, being fully aware that the criminal
proceedings are unwarranted and his remedy lies only
in civil law, should himself be made accountable, at
the end of such
43. On an earlier occasion, in case of G. Sagar Suri
and Anr. Vs. State of UP and Ors.8, this Court has also
observed:-
“8. Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to
be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its
jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter
superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is
essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short
cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing
process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of
caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This
Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which
High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to
be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”


10.9. By relying on Mitesh Kumar J.Sha , she again
submits that the existence of a dishonest or
fraudulent intention has to be made out against
the petitioners. In this case, the petitioner No.1
having executed the affidavit in a routine
manner, there cannot be said to be a dishonest
or fraudulent intention on her part, requiring
the criminal proceedings to continue.

10.10. On the basis of all the above, she submits that
the charge sheet as filed, is required to be
quashed.

11. Sri. H. T. Vasant Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for respondent No.2, supports the charge sheetand
submits as follows:

11.1. It is contended that, in the affidavit dated
03.11.2020, petitioner No.1 made a categorical
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


statement that no person other than herself
had any right, title or interest in the property.
According to learned counsel, petitioner No.1
was aware that the complainant, being the
mother of the deceased, had a right in the
property. It is submitted that this circumstance
is further borne out by the suit instituted by
petitioner No.1, in which she has acknowledged
the right of her mother-in-law in the property.

11.2. Learned counsel submits that the statement
made on oath in the affidavit formed the basis
for the issuance of the khata in favour of
petitioner No.1. It is further contended that,
after obtaining the khata, petitioner No.1
attempted to sell the property and that, only
when she could not proceed with the sale, she
subsequently instituted a suit for partition.
Placing reliance on the mahazar dated
05.10.2022, learned counsel also submits that
the other accused falsely represented that they
were residing in BTM Layout, whereas they
were, in fact, residing in Kamakshipalya.

11.3. It is further contended that the other
petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos.2
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


to 5 and are the brother and sisters of
petitioner No.1, aided and abetted her in
securing the transfer of the khata by supporting
the allegedly false statements made in the
affidavit and in connection with the proceedings
before the BBMP. Learned counsel submits that
the allegations disclose criminality, inasmuch as
a false statement was furnished to the BBMP,
upon which the authority acted and issued the
khata in favour of petitioner No.1, who
thereafter sought to use the same to deal with
the property. It is therefore contended that the
offences alleged in the charge sheet are made
out and that, the charge sheet having been
filed, the matter ought to proceed to trial.


12. Sri. Ranjith Kumar, learned High Court Government
Pleader, reiterates the submissions made by Sri. H.
T. Vasant Kumar. He submits that a false statement
was made on oath and that the persons who signed
the mahazar were not residing in BTM Layout but
were residing in Kamakshipalya. He accordingly
contends that the petitioners are being prosecuted
on the basis of the allegations and material collected
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


during the investigation and that no interference by
this Court is warranted at this stage.

13. Heard Ms. Sumathi.S., learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. Ranjith Kumar, learned HCGP for
respondent No. 1 and Sri.H.T.Vasanth Kumar,
learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Perused
papers.

14. The following facts are not in dispute: petitioner No.1
is the daughter-in-law of respondent No.2; petitioner
Nos.2 and 3 are the brothers of petitioner No.1, and
petitioner No.4 is her sister. It is also not in dispute
that the property in question stood in the name of Sri
G. Manjunath, the husband of petitioner No.1 and
the son of respondent No.2, and that Sri Manjunath
died of a heart attack on 06.10.2019. The dispute
essentially concerns the ownership of the property.

15. Petitioner No.1 contends that her husband was the
sole and absolute owner of the property. Respondent
No.2, on the other hand, contends that the property
was acquired out of funds provided by her brother
and sister-in-law and, therefore, did not belong
exclusively to Manjunath. These rival contentions are
matters to be considered in the suit for partition
instituted by petitioner No.1 in O.S. No.3486 of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


2021. The question that arises for consideration in
the present proceedings is whether the allegations
made against the petitioners in the complaint and
the material collected during the investigation
disclose the offences alleged in the charge sheet.

16. Admittedly, Manjunath died intestate on 06.10.2019,
without leaving behind any testamentary document.
In the absence of a will, succession to his estate
would be governed by the applicable law of
succession. Petitioner No.1, as his widow, would
have a right in his estate. Respondent No.2, being
his mother, would also have a right in the estate.

17. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
petitioner No.1 had approached respondent No.2
seeking partition of the property and, when the
partition could not be effected, submitted an affidavit
before the BBMP to protect her rights in the property.
It is contended that the affidavit was not executed
with any intention to usurp the property or to deprive
respondent No.2 of her legitimate rights. Learned
counsel further alleges that, in fact, respondent No.2
has attempted to deprive petitioner No.1 of her
rights in the property by creating documents to
suggest that the property had been purchased out of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


a loan advanced by respondent No.2's brother and
sister-in-law.

18. When queried as to whether petitioner No.1 had
lodged any complaint in respect of the alleged acts of
respondent No.2, learned counsel fairly submits that
no such complaint has been filed. She nevertheless
reiterates the allegation that respondent No.2, her
brother and her sister-in-law have attempted to
deprive petitioner No.1 of her rights in the property.
These allegations, however, concern the rival claims
of the parties to the property and may be examined
in the pending suit for partition and in any other
proceedings initiated in accordance with law.

19. The issue to be considered herein remains whether
the allegations against the petitioners and the
material collected during the investigation warrant
continuation of the criminal proceedings.

20. Following the death of her husband on 06.10.2019,
petitioner No.1 executed an affidavit dated
03.11.2020, in which she categorically asserted that
she was the sole legal heir of the deceased
Manjunath and that he had no other legal heir. On
the basis of the request made and the affidavit
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


furnished, the khata was transferred in her favour on
16.04.2021.

21. The material collected during the investigation also
includes a mahazar bearing the signatures of Sri
Mohan Kumar, petitioner No.2; Sri Shivanna,
petitioner No.3; Smt. Bhagyamma, petitioner No.4;
Sri Pradeep Kumar S., accused No.7; and Sri Yogesh
Reddy, accused No.5. The mahazar records their
respective addresses as being in BTM 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru. However, in the present petition,
petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have furnished their addresses
as being at the First Floor, Kamakshipalya,
Malaideshwara Swamy Temple Road, Bengaluru–
560079.

22. The discrepancy between the addresses recorded in
the mahazar and those furnished in the present
proceedings forms part of the material relied upon by
the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has
concluded that petitioner Nos.2 to 4 furnished
incorrect addresses and acted in concert with
petitioner No.1 to facilitate the transfer of the khata
in her favour in respect of the property. These
allegations, including the circumstances in which the
affidavit was executed and the statements recorded
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


in the mahazar, constitute material that must be
assessed in the context of the offences alleged and
the stage of the proceedings.

23. This Court is conscious of the circumstances of
petitioner No.1, who claims a right to succeed to the
estate of her deceased husband. However, the
existence of such a right does not, by itself, justify
obtaining a khata by making a false declaration
concerning the existence of other legal heirs. The
contention that the affidavit was furnished in the
ordinary course, without any mala fide intention or
dishonest motive, and that the requisite mens rea
was absent, raises questions that must be considered
in the light of the material on record and the
ingredients of the offences alleged. At this stage, this
Court would not undertake a mini-trial or return
findings on disputed questions of fact that properly
fall for consideration in the criminal proceedings.

24. As regards the decision relied upon by learned
counsel for the petitioners in Saminathan , the
allegations in that case arose out of a joint
development agreement and a general power of
attorney. It was alleged that representations had
been made regarding the absence of any dispute
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


over the property forming the subject matter of the
joint development agreement. The agreement was
subsequently cancelled, and the property was
thereafter sold. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court treated the dispute as essentially civil
in nature and held that the allegations did not
disclose a criminal offence. The said decision must be
considered in the context of the factual allegations
and the nature of the dispute involved therein.

25. In Vijayalakshmi , the dispute concerned plots
allotted by the BDA and arrangements made
between the parties in connection with litigation
relating to those properties. An agreement to sell
and a general power of attorney had allegedly been
executed in favour of the complainant, but the
accused were subsequently alleged to have revoked
the power of attorney, executed another power of
attorney in favour of a third party and executed a
release deed. In that factual context, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court considered whether the dispute was
essentially civil in nature and whether criminal
proceedings had been initiated by giving a criminal
colour to the dispute.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025



26. In Mithesh Kumar J. Shah , the allegations likewise
arose out of a joint development agreement and a
power of attorney executed in connection with the
development of a residential apartment and a
commercial complex. The arrangement allegedly
contemplated adjustment of certain payments by
way of the sale of additional flats, but the
arrangement was said not to have been honoured,
resulting in allegations of cheating under Section 420
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

27. The aforesaid decisions do not, by themselves,
warrant quashing of the proceedings in the present
case. The allegations herein are not confined to a
breach of contractual obligations or a dispute
concerning the performance of an agreement. The
prosecution relies upon the affidavit dated
03.11.2020, in which petitioner No.1 allegedly
declared herself to be the sole legal heir of the
deceased, and upon the mahazar containing the
addresses attributed to petitioner Nos.2 to 4 and the
other accused. The prosecution alleges that these
statements and declarations were made in concert to
secure the transfer of the khata in favour of
petitioner No.1. Whether the statements were false,
whether the petitioners acted in concert and whether
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


the requisite ingredients of the offences alleged are
established must be assessed with reference to the
material collected during the investigation. In the
circumstances, the decisions relied upon by the
petitioners do not, on the grounds advanced, justify
treating the criminal proceedings as a mere attempt
to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute.

28. The allegations made by learned counsel for the
petitioners against respondent No.2, including the
allegation that she sought to deprive petitioner No.1
of her rights in the property by relying upon
documents concerning the source of the purchase
funds, are not examined in the present proceedings.
The rival claims to ownership and entitlement may
be adjudicated in the pending suit for partition, while
any criminal allegations may be considered in the
appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

29. Petitioner No.1 is also at liberty to initiate such
proceedings in respect of the allegations made by her
as may be permissible in law. Nothing stated herein
shall be construed as expressing an opinion on the
merits of those allegations or on the rival claims to
the property. Those issues shall be considered by the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru
Verified

- 23 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56175
CRL.P No. 3527 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010162292025


respective courts independently and uninfluenced by
the observations made in this order.

30. In view of all the above, this Court passes the
following order:

31. Criminal Petition stands dismissed .
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
16/10/2026, 13:39, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE











LN
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1