LAKSHMAMMA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11669 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. LAKSHMAMMA
W/O NAGARAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT BENGANUR, DESHIHALLI
BANGARPET, KOLAR 563 162
2. PERUMAL V
S/O VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT BENGANOOR FARM, HOUSE,
SOREGOWDANAKOTE
KOLAR 563 162
3. HOSOORU MANJU @ MANJUNATH
S/O NARASIMHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 44/26, MUTHURAYAA JEEBI
HOSURU, DHARMAPURI KRISHNAGIRI DISTRICT
TAMIL NADU 635 109
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K. ELANGOVAN., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
CCB, BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU 01
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
2. SMT. GEETHA H
W/O LATE K SRINIVASAN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 40 SAI DRUVGREEN GARDEN LAYOUT,
ST
1 MAIN NRI LAYOUT,
RAMURTHYNAGAR
BENGALURU 560043
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANJITH KUMAR N., HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AS
ANNEXURE-A IN CC NO.36830/2021 WITH CRIME NO.79/2020
REGISTERED AT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION FOR
OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 420, 504, 506, 120B, R/W 34 OF IPC AND U/S
3 KARNATAKA PREVENTION AND ERADICATION OF INHUMAN EVIL
PRACTICES AND BLACK MAGIC BILL 2017 IN THE CHARGE SHEET
WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS HAVE BEEN ARRAYED AS ACCUSED
NO.2, 3 AND 5 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE 1ST ACJM,
BENGALURU.
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. Notice to respondent No.2 has been dispensed with,
in view of the proposed order to be passed.
2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Quash the entire proceedings as Annexure-A in CC
No.36830/2021 with Crime No.79/2020 registered
at Ramamurthy Nagar Police Station for offences
p/u/s 406, 420, 504, 506, 120b, r/w 34 of IPC and
u/s 3 karnataka Prevention and Eradication of
Inhuman Evil Practices and Black Magic Bill 2017 in
the charge sheet wherein the petitioners have been
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
arrayed as accused no.2, 3 and 5 pending before
st
the hon’ble 1 ACJM, Bengaluru.
3. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 20.02.2020,
pursuant to which the police registered an FIR in
Crime No.79/2020 for the offences punishable under
Sections 506, 34, 504, 120B, 406 and 420 of the IPC
and Section 3 of the Karnataka Prevention and
Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices and Black
Magic Act, 2017.
4. The allegations in the complaint are that the husband
of respondent No.2 suddenly expired in June 2009.
Thereafter, respondent No.2 and her family began
experiencing several problems. At that stage, one
Sri. Nagaraj approached respondent No.2 and
represented that he could resolve the problems being
faced by the family. In that regard, he informed her
that several Pujas and religious ceremonies were
required to be performed, for which money and other
valuables would have to be provided. Believing the
representations made by him, respondent No.2
parted with money, gold, silver and other valuables
for the performance of the said Pujas. Accused No.1
further represented that, during the performance of
the Pujas, God would enter his body and respondent
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
No.2 could put forth any questions and seek
solutions to all the problems faced by her.
5. On the basis of the aforesaid representations,
respondent No.2 was allegedly made to believe that
the accused could resolve her family problems and,
in the process, was induced to part with considerable
amounts of money and valuable properties. Over a
period of time, five properties belonging to
respondent No.2 came to be sold and the sale
proceeds were allegedly paid to accused No.1. Apart
from the sale proceeds, respondent No.2 also claims
to have parted with approximately 450 grams of gold
and substantial amounts of cash. Eventually, upon
realising that accused No.1 had allegedly deceived
her and had caused her to part with valuable
properties and assets, respondent No.2 lodged the
complaint dated 20.02.2020, pursuant to which the
aforesaid crime came to be registered.
6. Investigation having been completed, the police laid
a charge-sheet implicating the present petitioners.
Petitioner No.1 is the wife of accused No.1 and has
been arrayed as accused No.2. Petitioner Nos.2 and
3, namely, Sri. Perumal V. Karimal and Sri. Hosooru
Manju, have also been implicated in the alleged
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
offences on the ground that they participated in the
transactions relating to the sale of the properties and
received benefits arising therefrom. It is challenging
the said proceedings, pursuant to the filing of the
charge-sheet, that the petitioners are before this
Court seeking the aforesaid relief.
7. The submission of Sri. K. Elangovan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, is as follows:
7.1. The petitioners were neither named in the
complaint nor in the FIR. Their implication in
the alleged offences is only pursuant to the
investigation and the charge-sheet
subsequently filed by the police.
7.2. Respondent No.2 had voluntarily decided to sell
her properties. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being
real estate agents, had merely facilitated the
sale transactions in the ordinary course of their
business. They had acted only in their
professional capacity as service providers and
had no role whatsoever in the alleged acts of
cheating or criminal breach of trust. Merely
because they facilitated the sale of the
properties, they cannot be implicated in the
alleged offences.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
7.3. Insofar as petitioner No.1, who has been
arrayed as accused No.2, is concerned, she is
merely the wife of accused No.1 and had no
involvement whatsoever in the alleged
offences. Her implication appears to be solely
on account of her relationship with accused
No.1.
7.4. Lastly, learned counsel submits that the
complaint is belated. Even according to the
complainant, the last of the sale transactions
took place in the year 2019, whereas the
complaint came to be lodged only on
20.02.2020. The delay, according to learned
counsel, is another circumstance warranting
interference by this Court.
8. Per contra, learned HCGP submits that the
statements of the witnesses recorded during
investigation lend support to the allegations made in
the complaint. It is contended that accused No.1,
along with accused Nos.2 to 4, had induced
respondent No.2 to sell her properties and had
thereafter appropriated the sale proceeds. The
material collected during investigation, particularly
the statements of the witnesses, is stated to
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
establish the involvement of the petitioners in the
transactions. Learned HCGP submits that the charge-
sheet material discloses sufficient grounds to proceed
against the petitioners and that the matter
necessarily requires adjudication at trial. It is,
therefore, contended that no interference is
warranted at this stage.
9. Heard Sri. K.Elangovan, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri.Ranjith Kumar.N., learned HCGP
for respondent No.1. Perused papers.
10. The petitioners seek to distinguish their respective
roles from that attributed to accused No.1. Petitioner
No.1 is the wife of accused No.1, whereas petitioner
Nos.2 and 3 are stated to be real estate agents
carrying on their respective businesses in Kolar and
Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu. Their contention is that
petitioner No.1 had no involvement in the alleged
transactions and that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had
merely facilitated the sale of the properties in their
professional capacity as real estate agents.
11. A perusal of the complaint discloses that all the five
properties which were allegedly sold are situated in
Bengaluru. However, petitioner No.2 is stated to be
carrying on real estate business in Kolar, whereas
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
petitioner No.3 is stated to be carrying on such
business in Dharmapuri, Tamil Nadu. Thus, the
persons who are alleged to have facilitated the sale
of the properties are stated to be carrying on their
business in places outside Bengaluru, where the
properties are situated and where respondent No.2
also resides.
12. When this Court sought to ascertain the
circumstances in which petitioner Nos.2 and 3 came
into contact with respondent No.2 for facilitating the
sale transactions, learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that respondent No.2 had come across
their details on a website and had, on her own,
approached them for the purpose. This submission,
at this stage, does not inspire the confidence of this
Court. It is pertinent to notice that petitioner No.1 is
the wife of accused No.1, while petitioner Nos.2 and
3 are stated to be real estate agents carrying on
business at different places outside Bengaluru. The
cause title indicates that petitioner No.1 resides at
Benganur and petitioner No.2 at Benganur Farm
House. There appears to be, at least prima facie,
some connection between petitioner Nos.1 and 2. In
such circumstances, it would be premature to accept
the explanation that respondent No.2, entirely on her
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
own initiative and merely upon coming across their
details on a website, approached two real estate
agents carrying on business in Kolar and Tamil Nadu
for the sale of properties situated in Bengaluru.
13. Further, the statements of the witnesses recorded
during investigation are stated to implicate the
petitioners in the transactions relating to the sale of
the properties and receipt of the sale consideration.
The allegation is not confined to the fact that the
petitioners merely facilitated the sale of the
properties. The prosecution seeks to establish that
they were participants in the transactions pursuant
to which respondent No.2 was allegedly induced to
part with her valuable properties and that they also
received consideration arising out of such
transactions.
14. It is indeed a matter of concern that respondent
No.2, even in the present day and age, is stated to
have believed the representations made by accused
No.1 that the performance of Pujas and the entry of
God into his body would enable her to obtain
solutions to her family problems. However, the
circumstances under which respondent No.2 came to
part with five immovable properties, approximately
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
450 grams of gold and substantial amounts of cash
cannot be viewed in isolation. The prosecution
alleges a concerted course of conduct whereby
respondent No.2 was induced to part with her
valuable assets and the other accused persons
participated in or benefited from the transactions.
15. The contention that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were
merely acting as real estate agents and that
petitioner No.1 was implicated only on account of her
relationship with accused No.1 cannot, at this stage,
be accepted as conclusive. The statements recorded
during investigation, as referred to by the
prosecution, attribute a role to the petitioners in the
transactions. Whether their participation was merely
in the ordinary course of their profession or whether
they were acting in furtherance of the alleged design
of accused No.1 is a matter which would require
examination of the evidence during trial.
16. Equally, the circumstance that the petitioners were
not named in the original complaint or the FIR would
not, by itself, be sufficient to conclude that they had
no involvement in the alleged offences. The purpose
of investigation is to ascertain the circumstances
surrounding the alleged commission of the offences
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
and identify the persons who may have participated
therein. The fact that the names of the petitioners
came to be included only upon completion of the
investigation would not, in itself, render the charge-
sheet unsustainable, particularly when the
investigating agency relies upon the statements of
witnesses and other material collected during
investigation.
17. Insofar as the alleged delay in lodging the complaint
is concerned, it is to be noticed that the last of the
sale transactions is stated to have taken place in the
year 2019, whereas the complaint came to be lodged
on 20.02.2020. The mere fact that the complaint was
not lodged immediately upon the sale transactions
would not, in the facts and circumstances of the
present case, be sufficient to interdict the criminal
proceedings. The complaint alleges a series of
transactions and representations extending over a
period of time, culminating in the sale of the
properties and the complainant allegedly parting with
her valuable assets. The effect of the time taken in
lodging the complaint and the circumstances
surrounding the same are matters which can be
considered on the basis of the evidence placed before
the Trial Court.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
18. At this stage, this Court is required to examine
whether the allegations in the complaint and the
material collected during investigation, if taken at
their face value, disclose a basis for proceeding
against the petitioners. This Court is not required to
undertake a detailed examination of the evidence,
assess the credibility of the witnesses or determine
whether the petitioners would ultimately be found
guilty of the offences alleged. Those are matters
which fall within the domain of the Trial Court.
19. In the present case, the statements of the witnesses
recorded during investigation, read along with the
allegations relating to the sale of the five properties
and the receipt of the sale consideration, cannot be
said to be wholly devoid of material implicating the
petitioners. The explanation offered by the
petitioners regarding their respective roles raises
issues which would require examination of the
evidence and cannot be accepted at this stage to
terminate the prosecution.
20. In that view of the matter, this Court is unable to
hold that the proceedings initiated against the
petitioners, pursuant to the filing of the charge-
sheet, are liable to be quashed. The material on
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60692
CRL.P No. 11669 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010528062025
record warrants that the allegations be tested in a
full-fledged trial. Any examination by this Court of
the disputed factual circumstances at this stage
would amount to entering upon an adjudication
which is within the province of the Trial Court.
21. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioners have not
made out a case for exercise of jurisdiction to quash
the proceedings in C.C. No.36830/2021.
22. As such this Court passes the following;
ORDER
dismissed
Criminal petition stands .
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
03/11/2026, 16:39, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43