SRI UMAMAHESHWARA REDDY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54453
CRL.P No. 2014 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2092 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010111472024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2014 OF 2024

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2092 OF 2024



IN CRL.P. NO.2014 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SMT. KUMMETHA SABITHA
W/O UMAMAHESHWARA REDDY,
OCC HOUSEWIFE,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT A4, 2ND BLOCK,
12 SQUARE APARTMENTS,
T.C.PALYA MAIN ROAD,
T.C.PALYA, NEAR RELIANCE
FRESH, BANGALORE NORTH,
BANGALORE-560036







Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE POLICE OF
VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU CITY-560010
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54453
CRL.P No. 2014 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2092 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010111472024



HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001

2. SRI. SHREENIVAS
S/O NARASIMHARAO K,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.27,
MAHALAKSHMI MISTI MEDOWS,
NAGONDAHALLI,
BENGALURU CITY-560 067
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCPG FOR R1,
SRI. VASANTHA A.K, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR DATED 19.10.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS
AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.2 IN CR.NO.188/2023 OF
VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON
THE FILE OF XXIV ADDL.C.M.M., NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU.

IN CRL.P. NO.2092 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI. UMAMAHESHWARA REDDY
S/O LATE K. VEERA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/A A4, 12 SQUARE APARTMENTS
T.C PALYA MAIN ROAD, TC PALYA
BENGALURU-560 036
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRATEEK CHANDRAMOULI, ADVOCATE)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54453
CRL.P No. 2014 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2092 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010111472024



AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIJAYANAGAR P.S
BENGALURU CITY-560 040
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001

2. SRI. SHREENIVAS N.K
S/O NARASIMHARAO K,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.27,
MAHALAKSHMI MISTI MEDOWS,
NAGONDAHALLI,
BENGALURU CITY-560 067
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCPG FOR R1,
SRI. VASANTHA A.K, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASHING THE FIR DATED 19.10.2023 AND FURTHER
INVESTIGATION VIDE ANNEXURE-A AS AGAINST ACCUSED
NO.1 IN CR.NO.0188/2023 OF VIJAYANAGAR P.S., FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC1860, PENDING
ON THE FILE OF XXIVTH AMM, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU.

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

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54453
CRL.P No. 2014 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2092 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010111472024



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

These two petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
seeking to quash proceedings against the petitioners - accused
No.1 and 2 in Crime No.188/2023 registered by Vijayanagar
Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420,
504, 506 and 34 of IPC, presently pending on the file of XXIV
ACMM, Bengaluru (for short, 'the learned Magistrate').
2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
19.10.2023, alleging that the petitioners were introduced to
him through a real estate agent in November 2019. Thereafter,
the petitioners represented themselves as real estate agents
and took respondent No.2 to RPC Layout, Vijayanagar, where
they showed him a site measuring 30 x 40 feet and assured
him that they would arrange for its registration in his name at a
lower price. On the basis of the said representation, they
received Rs.21,00,000/- from respondent No.2 through two
cheques bearing Nos.009838 and 009839, both dated
26.12.2019.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54453
CRL.P No. 2014 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2092 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010111472024



3. It is further alleged that, after encashing the said
cheques, the petitioners represented that they had contacts
with other real estate agents and could arrange sites at lower
prices in and around Bengaluru. On the basis of such
representations, they allegedly received more than
Rs.2,00,00,000/- from respondent No.2, his father, wife and
friends. However, the petitioners failed to execute the sale
deed in favour of respondent No.2 or his father or his wife or
his friend. When he insisted on execution of the sale deed, the
petitioners allegedly threatened him with dire consequences.
Hence, respondent No.2 lodged the complaint against the
petitioners.
4. Based on the said complaint, respondent No.1-
Police registered a case against the petitioners - accused Nos.1
and 2 in Crime No.188/2023 for the aforementioned offences.
Aggrieved by the registration of the case, accused No.1
preferred Crl.P.No.2092/2024, while accused No.2 preferred
Crl.P.No.2014/2024.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54453
CRL.P No. 2014 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2092 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010111472024



5. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
in both the petitions.
6. Apart from urging several contentions, the learned
counsel for the petitioners primarily contended that, upon
receipt of Rs.21,00,000/- through two cheques dated
26.12.2019, the petitioners executed a sale agreement in
respect of Flat No.322 situated at Hirandahalli Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru. Hence, the allegation of
respondent No.2 that the said amount was received towards
the purchase of a site measuring 30 x 40 feet at RPC Layout,
Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, is totally false. It was further
contended that the allegation regarding receipt of more than
Rs.2 crores from respondent No.2, his family members and
friends is unsupported by any documentary evidence. In these
circumstances, the learned counsel submitted that the
registration of the FIR against the petitioners amounts to an
abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
petition. In order to buttress his argument he relied on the
judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammad

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54453
CRL.P No. 2014 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2092 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010111472024



Wajid v. State of U.P. reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
951.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2
and the learned HCGP opposed the petitions, contending that
the investigation is at a nascent stage and the Police require
sufficient opportunity to collect evidence regarding the alleged
offence of cheating. It was further contended that the
petitioners received Rs.21,00,000/- from the respondent No.2
through two cheques and executed a sale agreement in his
favour in respect of Flat No.322 situated at Hirandahalli Village,
Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru, but failed to execute the sale
deed. They further alleged that the petitioners received more
than Rs.2 crores from respondent No.2, his family members
and friends by representing that they would facilitate the
purchase of sites at lower prices in and around Bengaluru.
Hence, they submitted that the ingredients of Section 420 of
IPC are attracted against the petitioners. Accordingly, they pray
to dismiss the petitions.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54453
CRL.P No. 2014 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2092 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010111472024



8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and perused the entire materials on record.
9. On perusal of the complaint averments, it is alleged
that the petitioners, representing themselves as real estate
agents having contacts across Bengaluru, induced respondent
No.2, his family members and friends to part with more than
Rs.2 crores by assuring them that they would facilitate the
purchase of sites at lower prices in and around Bengaluru.
10. Admittedly, the petitioners executed a sale
agreement with respondent No.2 in respect of Flat No.322
situated at Hirandahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru,
under which respondent No.2 paid Rs.21,00,000/- through two
cheques to the petitioners. However, the sale deed was not
executed in respect of the said flat and the mediation
proceedings concerning the execution of the sale deed were
pending but ultimately failed, following which respondent No.2
lodged the present complaint. Further, three other sale
agreements were executed by the petitioners with the father,
wife and friend of respondent No.2, namely, Mr. Ketala

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54453
CRL.P No. 2014 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2092 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010111472024



Narasimha Rao, Mrs. Spandana Ketala and Mr. Murali Krishna,
respectively, in respect of different sites and a flat situated at
Hirandahalli Village and Sulikunte Village, Bengaluru.
11. A careful scrutiny of the complaint averments
discloses serious allegations that the petitioners induced
respondent No.2 and others to part with substantial sums of
money by promising to facilitate the purchase of properties at
lower prices and subsequently failed to execute the sale deeds.
These allegations require thorough investigation by the
Investigating Officer to ascertain the circumstances under
which the amounts were received and the reasons for non-
execution of the sale deeds.
12. At this stage, when prima facie material disclosing
the commission of a cognizable offences are forthcoming, the
FIR cannot be quashed merely on the basis of the defence
raised by the petitioners. Admittedly, the matter is at a nascent
stage, and the investigation has not progressed beyond the
preliminary steps taken after registration of the case. The
relevant evidence is yet to be collected through a thorough
investigation. This Court cannot anticipate the outcome of the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:54453
CRL.P No. 2014 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 2092 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010111472024



investigation or record a finding regarding false implication or
mala fides at this stage. Therefore, the complaint cannot be
rejected at the threshold on the basis of the unsubstantiated
defence raised by the petitioners.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the
considered view that the FIR does not warrant interference.
Accordingly, the petitions, being devoid of merits, are
dismissed.


SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE












CR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4