N MARIMUTHU vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60038
CRL.P No. 818 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010038442024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 818 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

N MARIMUTHU
S/O LATE NALLASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 62/A
BESIDE TO MANTRI ASTRA APARTMENT,
NALLASWAMY LAYOUT,
KALYANAGAR POST,
BENGALURU-560 043.







…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANASWADI POLICE
NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
BENGALURU-01.

2. SMT ANANDI
W/O MURUGAN C
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
ST ND
R/AT NO. 8, 1 FLOOR, 2 MAIN,
CHIKKANNA LAYOUT,
HENNUR VILLAGE,
KALYANNAGAR POST,



Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60038
CRL.P No. 818 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010038442024



NEAR POLICE CHOWK ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 043.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESHA P, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. N. NANDAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.277/2023 OF BANASWADI POLICE
REGISTERED FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 506 AND 420 OF IPC AT
ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE PCR
55232/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 11TH ACMM AT
BANGALORE, AT ANNEXURE-B AND C.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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 Cr.P.C seeking
to quash proceedings against the petitioner - accused in Crime
No.277/2023 (arising out of PCR No.55232/2023) registered by
the Banaswadi Police Station, for the offences punishable under
sections 506 and 420 of IPC, presently pending on the file of
XI ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (for short, 'the learned
Magistrate').

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60038
CRL.P No. 818 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010038442024



2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No.2
filed a private complaint against the petitioner herein in PCR
No.55232/2023 before the learned Magistrate alleging that her
mother one late Saroja happens to be the sister of the
petitioner. The grandfather of respondent No.2 one late
Nallaswamy died intestate on 12.03.2000. It is further alleged
that the said late Nallaswamy had six children namely,
Lakshmi, Saroja, Marimuttu, Papathy, Chellamuthu and
Ramaswamy. It is alleged that out of six children, Ramaswamy
and the petitioner are alive and other children were died. It is
further alleged in the complaint that late Nallaswamy purchased
a property bearing Sy.No.20/2, Site No.2 measuring 1720 sq.ft.
at Byatagutapalya, Ramaswamypalya, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru
North Taluk in the year 1972 under the registered sale deed.
He died intestate leaving behind 6 children, as such, they
jointly succeeded his estate and respondent No.2's mother late
Saroja is entitled to 1/6th share in the estate of Late
Nallaswamy. It is alleged that the petitioner herein fraudulently
sold the above property to one Mohan Kumar in the year 2004.
The said aspect of the matter came to the knowledge of

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60038
CRL.P No. 818 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010038442024



respondent No.2 in the year 2017, when the sale deed was
challenged by one of the legal heirs of Nallaswamy. In the said
civil suit, respondent No.2 arrayed as defendant No.5.
Thereafter, in the year 2023, the respondent No.2 filed a
private complaint on 22.05.2023 against the petitioner as
stated supra.
3. The learned Magistrate, referred the private
complaint to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of
Cr.P.C. and the said police registered FIR against the petitioner
for the aforementioned offences. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner preferred this petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
5. Apart from urging several contention the learned
counsel for the petitioner primarily contended that even if the
entire allegations in the private complaint and FIR are taken on
its face value, still no offence under Sections 420 or 506 of IPC
is made out against the petitioner, since the entire dispute is
purely civil in nature. He further contended that the alleged

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60038
CRL.P No. 818 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010038442024



sale deed executed by the petitioner in the year 2004, during
that time the mother of respondent No.2 was alive and she died
in the year 2013. During her lifetime she had not challenged
the sale deed and presently, respondent No.2 being a daughter,
filed a false complaint in order to give a criminal colour to the
civil dispute pending between the parties. As such, he prays to
allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that the
investigation is still at nascent stage and the petitioner sold the
property belongs to all the children of Nallaswamy including the
mother of respondent No.2. As such, the petitioner has
committed the offences under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
7. The prayer is also opposed by the learned HCGP on
similar grounds and he prays to dismiss the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60038
CRL.P No. 818 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010038442024



parties and also perused the FIR, private complaint and other
materials on record.
9. As could be gathered from records, the relationship
between the parties are not in dispute. The petitioner is the
maternal uncle of respondent No.2. The allegation in the
complaint that the grandfather of respondent No.2 purchased
the property in the year 1972 and the said property was sold
by the petitioner to the third party without the consent and
knowledge of respondent No.2. However, it is specifically
asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
mother of respondent No.2 is the signatory to the sale deed
executed by the petitioner in the year 2004 and nevertheless,
the mother of respondent No.2 had not questioned the sale
deed till her lifetime i.e., till the year 2013. Admittedly, there is
a civil dispute pending on the same cause of action in respect
of the said property, in the said civil suit the respondent No.2
presently transposed as a plaintiff. Such being the position, it
could be gathered that the allegations in the private complaint
and the FIR, even if it is taken on its face value, this private

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60038
CRL.P No. 818 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010038442024



complaint has filed only to give a criminal colour to the civil
dispute.
10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of BIKKU BHAI
GOVINDA BHAI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT in SLP (Crl)
No.15537/2023 dated 22.05.2026, held in paragraph Nos.52
to 54 as under:
"52. The present case, viewed in its
peculiar facts and circumstances, constitutes
all the characteristics of a civil property
dispute, which is sought to be converted into
criminal proceedings, after several years of
civil litigation. We are of the opinion that the
criminal process cannot be permitted to
become a weapon of harassment and
coercion in disputes concerning title over
immovable property.
53. We are conscious of the principles
laid down by this Court in the recent decision
of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State
of Maharashtra (supra) that courts should
ordinarily refrain from interfering at the
threshold stage of investigation. However,
the said judgment itself recognises that
where the allegations do not disclose the

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60038
CRL.P No. 818 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010038442024



commission of cognizable offences or where
criminal proceedings manifestly amount to
abuse of process, the High Court is duty-
bound to exercise its inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
54. The present case falls squarely within
the well-settled categories warranting
interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C
as Page 28 delineated in State of Haryana v.
Bhajan Lal,12 namely, where the dispute is
predominantly civil in nature, where the
allegations fail to disclose the essential
ingredients of the alleged offences, where
the criminal proceedings are manifestly
attended with mala fide intention, where
there is extraordinary and unexplained
delay, and where continuation of the
prosecution would amount to abuse of
process of court."

11. Collocating the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the
considered view that since the dispute between the parties are
purely civil in nature, the lodging of the complaint is totally out
of vengeance and the continuation of the proceedings against

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60038
CRL.P No. 818 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010038442024



the petitioner is amounts to abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
i. The petition is allowed .
ii. The proceedings against the petitioner -
accused in Crime No.277/2023 (arising out of
PCR No.55232/2023) registered by the
Banaswadi Police Station, for the offences
punishable under sections 506 and 420 of
IPC, presently pending on the file of XI
ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, is hereby
quashed.

SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE










CR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16