K T PONNAMMA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1282 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

1. K.T PONNAMMA
W/O LATE K.W. THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,

2. K.T. PRAMOD
S/O LATE K.W. THIMMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
KONGANA VILLAGE,
PONNAMPET TALUK,
(EARLIER VIRAJPET TALUK)
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 216.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. KEERTHANA SWAMY FOR
SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY GONIKOPPAL POLICE,
GONIKOPPA,
PONNAMPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 216

2. KADAMADA BOPAIAH
S/O LATE K UTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS,










Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



R/AT KONGANA VILLAGE,
B. SHETTIGERI POST,
PONNAMPET TALUK,
(EALIER VIRAJPET TALUK)
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 216
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1,
R2 NOTICE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C NO.1093/2016, ON
THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C PONNAMPET
REGISTERED IN PCR NO.12/2015FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
341,504,506,447,371 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALL THE FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

1. This petition is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings
in C.C.No.1093/2016 on the file of the learned Civil Judge &
JMFC., Ponnampet, arising out of PCR.No.12/2015 for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506, 447, 371
read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, respondent
No.2 filed the private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences in
PCR.No.12/2015. It is alleged in the private complaint that
petitioner no.1 is the mother of petitioner no.2, respondent no.
2 is the brother of petitioner no.1 and paternal uncle of
petitioner no.2. The family of the petitioners and respondent
no.2 had a large extent of land in Kongana Village of
Ponnampet Taluk, which was partitioned among the family
members and the petitioners and respondent no.2 are in
possession and enjoyment of their respective shares. The son
of respondent no.2 purchased the subject property vide
registered Sale Agreement dated 25.03.2014. However, the
petitioners filed a suit in O.S.No.73/2014, in which, they
obtained an ex parte order of injunction restraining respondent
No.2 not to alienate the subject property. Taking advantage of
said order, petitioners harvested the standing crop like coffee,
pepper, etc. and thus, committed theft of said crops worth
Rs.5,25,000/-. That apart, petitioners trespassed into the
subject property on 08.01.2015, abused respondent No.2 in
filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. As
such, respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 10.01.2015 and

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



since the said complaint was not registered by SI of
Gonikoppal, respondent No.2 filed the present complaint. The
learned Magistrate, after perusal of the complaint recorded the
statement of respondent no. 2 and two more witnesses and
took cognizance of the offence.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties.
4. The contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that no such specific allegations were made
against the petitioners in the complaint to attract the
ingredients of the offences alleged against them. Admittedly,
there is a dispute between the parties in respect of subject
property and a suit was also filed in OS.No.73/2014. Moreover,
the alleged stolen pepper or coffee were not seized at the
instance of the petitioners. In such circumstances, in order to
give a criminal colour to the civil dispute, a complaint has been
filed against the petitioners out of wreaking vengeance. It is
further contended that the learned Magistrate without properly
appreciating the evidence and documents and without applying

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



his judicious mind, has taken cognizance of the offence
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Despite service of notice, there is no representation
for respondent no.2. However, learned HCGP contended that,
the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 reveals that the petitioners
trespassed into the subject property of respondent no.2 and
stolen the pepper and coffee worth lakhs of rupees. This aspect
of the matter has to be tested in a detailed trial. As such, at
this stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Accordingly, he
prays to dismiss the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and perused
the material on record..
7. As could be gathered from records, the relationship
between the petitioners and respondent No.2 are not in
petition. There is also material to the effect that in respect of
ancestral property there is a civil dispute pending between the
parties. The records revealed that the suit was instituted by the
petitioners against respondent No.2, in which, they obtained ex

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



parte order of injunction against respondent No.2. Thereafter,
the present private complaint has been filed. The private
complaint itself reveals that there is a dispute in respect of the
property and respondent No.2 claims the right over the
property by virtue of Sale Agreement in favour of his son.
However, PWs.1 to 3 in their cross-examination have
categorically stated that the petitioners are in possession of the
property and there exists a civil dispute between the parties. In
such circumstances, it is clear that the present private
complaint has been filed in order to give criminal colour to the
civil dispute and out of wreaking vengeance in connection with
the civil dispute between the parties.

8. 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,

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



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 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 CrPC.
54. The present case falls squarely within the
well-settled categories warranting interference
under Section 482 of the CrPC 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

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



extraordinary and unexplained delay, and where
continuation of the prosecution would amount to
abuse of process of court."
9. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
MOHAMMED ALI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UP - 2023
(15) SCC 488 in paragraph No.11 to 14 held as under:
"11. The entire case put up by the first informant on the
face of it appears to be concocted and fabricated. At this
laid down by
stage, we may refer to the parameters this
Court for quashing of an FIR in the case of State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , AIR 1992 SC 604. The parameters
are:-
“(1) Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima facie
constitute any offence or make out a case
against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if any,
accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the
Code except under an order of a Magistrate

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same do
not disclose the commission of any offence
and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but constitute
only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that
there is sufficient ground for proceeding
against the accused. (6) Where there is an
express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act
(under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance
of the proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the concerned

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



Act, providing efficacious redress for the
grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with mala fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge.” We are of the
view that the case of the present appellants
falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7
Bhajan Lal
resply of (supra).
12. At this stage, we would like to observe something
important. Whenever an accused comes before the Court
invoking either the inherent powers under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC ) or extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to get the
FIR or the criminal proceedings quashed essentially on
the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance, then in such
circumstances the Court owes a duty to look into the FIR
with care and a little more closely. We say so because
once the complainant decides to proceed against the
accused with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal
vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the necessary
pleadings. The complainant would ensure that the
averments made in the FIR/complaint are such that they

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence. Therefore, it will not be just enough for
the Court to look into the averments made in the
FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the
alleged offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or
vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look
into many other attending circumstances emerging from
the record of the case over and above the averments
and, if need be, with due care and circumspection try to
read in between the lines.
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution
need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is
empowered to take into account the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the
case as well as the materials collected in the course of
investigation. Take for instance the case on hand.
Multiple FIRs have been registered over a period of time.
It is in the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance,
thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance out
of private or personal grudge as alleged.
13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy ,
(2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court
elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can
assess to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction
between consideration of materials that were tendered

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



as evidence and appreciation of such evidence. Only such
material that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in
the FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The Court
held:-
“5. …Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is
made to abuse that authority so as to
produce injustice, the court has power to
prevent such abuse. It would be an abuse of
the process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent
promotion of justice. In exercise of the
powers court would be justified to quash any
proceeding if it finds that initiation or
continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the ends
of justice. When no offence is disclosed by
the complaint, the court may examine the
question of fact. When a complaint is sought
to be quashed, it is permissible to look into
the materials to assess what the complainant
has alleged and whether any offence is made
out even if the allegations are accepted in
toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab , AIR 1960
SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court
summarised some categories of cases where

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



inherent power can and should be exercised
to quash the proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para
6)
(i) where it manifestly appears that
there is a legal bar against the
institution or continuance e.g. want
of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the first
information report or complaint
taken at its face value and accepted
in their entirety do not constitute
the offence alleged;
(iii) where the allegations constitute
an offence, but there is no legal
evidence adduced or the evidence
adduced clearly or manifestly fails to
prove the charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction
between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence which is
clearly inconsistent with the accusations
made, and a case where there is legal
evidence which, on appreciation, may or may
not support the accusations. When exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



High Court would not ordinarily embark upon
an enquiry whether the evidence in question
is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable
appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of the trial
Judge. Judicial process, no doubt should not
be an instrument of oppression, or, needless
harassment. Court should be circumspect and
judicious in exercising discretion and should
take all relevant facts and circumstances into
consideration before issuing process, lest it
would be an instrument in the hands of a
private complainant to unleash vendetta to
harass any person needlessly. At the same
time the section is not an instrument handed
over to an accused to short-circuit a
prosecution and bring about its sudden
death…..” (Emphasis supplied)
14. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside. The
criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 127 of 2022
dated 04.06.2022 registered at Police Station Mirzapur,
Saharanpur, State of U.P. are hereby quashed."
10. Collocating the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, it is evident
that the private complaint has been filed by respondent No.2

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61101
CRL.P No. 1282 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071902024



out of vengeance and in order to give a criminal colour to civil
dispute and further, the allegations made therein do not
constitute the offences alleged against the petitioners. In such
circumstances, continuation of criminal proceedings against the
petitioners would amount to an abuse of process of Court.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER


i. The petition is allowed .

ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.1093/2016
arising out of PCR No.12/2015 filed
against the petitioners for the offences
punishable under Sections 341, 504,
506, 447, 371 read with Section 34 of
IPC on the file of the learned Civil
Judge and JMFC, Ponnampet, are
hereby quashed.

SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE

PKS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20