SRI ANKUSH DADHA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56890
CRL.P No. 6272 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372212024





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. 6272 OF 2024

BETWEEN:


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






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





Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA


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

4. SMT. MADHU DADHA
W/O SRI. MEHAR DADHA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56890
CRL.P No. 6272 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372212024



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.

2. SRI. N. PADMANABHA
S/O T. NARAYAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
NO.69 (OLD NO136)
RESIDING AT NO. 106, 1ST FLOOR,
39TH 'A' CROSS, BYRASANDRA MAIN ROAD,
JAYANAGAR 5TH BLOCK EAST
OPP STATE BANK OF INDIA,
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 27.06.2024 IN CR.NO.226/2024
JAYANAGAR PS. U/S 427, 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 149, 380,
448, 324 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ACMM
BENGALURU (ANNEXURE A).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56890
CRL.P No. 6272 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372212024



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 427, 506, 341, 504,
143, 147, 149, 380, 448 and 324 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 the complaint on 27.06.2024, alleging that
he had purchased a residential flat bearing No. 106 in the
property bearing No. 69 (old No. 136), situated at 7th
Main Road, 39th 'A' Cross, 5th Block, Jayanagar, on
24.01.2023. Thereafter, he was put in possession of the
said property.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56890
CRL.P No. 6272 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372212024




3. The petitioners are the landowner of the said
apartment, and there was a joint development agreement
between the petitioner and Sai Durga Developers. It is
alleged that on 26.06.2024, at about 11:00 a.m., the
petitioners, along with his henchmen, trespassed into the
property and prevented respondent No.2 from entering his
flat by locking the main gate from the outside. Thereafter,
they entered his flat and damaged the grill. They also
threatened respondent No.2 with dire consequences and
attempted to dispossess him by throwing his belongings
out of the house.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR came to
be registered in Crime No.226/2024 on 27.06.2024 for the
aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the registration of the
FIR, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that a civil dispute is pending between the
petitioners and respondent No.2 in O.S. No.810/2021
before the Commercial Court, Bengaluru. It is further

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56890
CRL.P No. 6272 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372212024



contended that, in order to give a criminal colour to the
civil dispute, a false complaint has been lodged against the
petitioner.

6. It is also contended that a criminal case was
registered against one Ekambaram Reddy based on a
complaint lodged by the petitioner No.2/accused No.2 in
Crime No.377/2023. In such circumstances, the learned
counsel submits that the FIR in question was registered
with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioners.
Accordingly, the learned counsel prays that the petition be
allowed.

7. Per contra , 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 a nascent
stage and that the allegations made in the complaint are
serious in nature and require a thorough investigation by
the Police. It is further submitted that the mere pendency
of a commercial suit between the parties is not, by itself, a

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56890
CRL.P No. 6272 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372212024



ground to quash the FIR. Accordingly, they pray that the
petition be dismissed.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties and perused the FIR and the other
materials on record.

9. On perusal of the averments made in the
complaint, it is specifically alleged that on 26.06.2024, at
about 11:00 a.m., the petitioner, along with others,
forcibly entered respondent No.2's house - Flat No. 106,
threw him out of his flat and locked the main gate of the
apartment. It is further alleged that the petitioner and the
others threatened respondent No.2 with dire
consequences.

10. The learned HCGP submitted that, during the
course of investigation, the Police had also invoked the
provisions of the Indian Arms Act, as the petitioner and
the others had allegedly come to the premises armed with
prohibited weapons.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56890
CRL.P No. 6272 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010372212024




11. 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
implication or mala fides merely on the ground that a civil
dispute exists between the parties.

12. 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 merit and is .
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
TMP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0