SRI. S. RAJENDRA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
1
R
Reserved on : 24.02.2026
Pronounced on : 12.06.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.20336 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.20341 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
WRIT PETITION No.21486 OF 2023 (GM - RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No.20336 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI S.RAJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE S.SURYANARAYANA
ST
RESIDING AT NO.119, 1 CROSS,
BALAJI LAYOUT, MALLATHALLI,
NEAR NARAYANA E TECHNO SCHOOL,
BENGALURU – 560 056.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI
J KARISHETTY
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
2
CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. RAJANNA T.,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
ST
RESIDING AT NO.93/2, 1 FLOOR,
ND ND TH
2 BLOCK, 2 CROSS, 8 MAIN,
KANAKANAPALYA, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 011.
3. SMT.R.CHANDRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
W/O T.RAMANNA
ST
RESIDING AT NO.93/2, 1 FLOOR,
ND ND TH
2 BLOCK, 2 CROSS, 8 MAIN,
KANAKANAPALYA, JAYANAGARA
BENGALURU – 560 011.
4. THIPPESWAMY K.P.,
POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION
BENGALURU – 560 072.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1 AND R-4;
SRI K.N.DAYALU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE ENTIRE FIR IN CRIME NO. 360/2023 OF
CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-A FOR THE
3
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 102, 420, 468, 506 (B)
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, ON THE
FILE OF THE LEARNED VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT, AT BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED; ii) QUASH THE ENTIRE FIR IN CRIME
NO. 361/2023 OF CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION ANNEXURE-
C FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 102, 420,
468, 506(B) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE,
ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE COURT, AT BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
IN WRIT PETITION No.20341 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1 . SRI S.RAJENDRA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
S/O LATE S.SURYANARAYANA.
2 . SMT. PANKAJA V.,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/O SRI S.RAJENDRA.
3 . SMT.SHAKUNTALA V.,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
W/O LATE VENKATARAMA SHARMA
PETITIONERS NO.1, 2 AND 3 ARE
ST
RESIDING AT NO.119, 1 CROSS,
BALAJI LAYOUT, MALLATHALLI,
NEAR NARAYANA E TECHNO SCHOOL
BENGALURU – 560 056.
4 . SMT.SUMA V.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
W/O SRI HEMANTH
4
RESIDING AT NO.118,
ND RD
2 FLOOR, 3 CROSS, MISSION ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
5 . SRI SUDHINDRA SHARMA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
S/O LATE VENKATARAMA SHARMA
C/OF SMT. PANKAJA V.,
ST
NO.119, 1 CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT
MALLATHALLI, BENGLAURU – 560 056
CURRENTLY RESIDING IN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
REPRESENTED BY HIS
AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE
SMT.PANKAJA V.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SATYANARAYANA CHALKE S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . SMT.CHANDRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O T.RAMANNA
ST
RESIDING AT NO.93/2, 1 FLOOR,
ND ND TH
2 BLOCK, 2 CROSS, 8 MAIN,
KANAKANAPALYA,
JAYANAGARA,
BENGALURU – 560 011.
... RESPONDENTS
5
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI K.N.DAYALU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 )
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.351/2023 OF CHANDRA
LAYOUT POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S
102, 420, 468, 506(B) R/W SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL
CODE IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED
ANNEXURE-A.
IN WRIT PETITION No.21486 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1 . DASEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS.
2 . JAGADISH C.,
S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
3 . PADMA C.,
D/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDENTS OF NO.95, MUDALAMANE
ISEC MAIN ROAD
NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE
BENGALURU – 560 072.
4 . GANGAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.3163/1,
6
THUNGABADRA STREET
MARUTHI NAGAR
NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE
BENGALURU – 560 072.
5 . NAGARATHNA
D/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
6 . KEMPARATHNA
D/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
PETITIONERS 5 AND 6 ARE
RESIDENTS OF NO.95,
MUDALAMANE
ISEC MAIN ROAD
NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE
BENGALURU – 560 072.
7 . NAVEEN
S/O KADIREPATHI
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.80,
ND
2 MAIN, LAGGERE
BENGALURU – 560 058.
8 . K.RAJANNA
S/O LATE KALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.5
ISEC MAIN ROAD
NAGARBHAVI VILLAGE
BENGALURU – 560 072.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DEVARAJA M., ADVOCATE)
7
AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . RAJANNA T.,
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
ST
RESIDING AT NO.93/2, 1 FLOOR
ND ND TH
2 BLOCK, 2 CROSS, 8 MAIN
KANAKANAPALYA, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 011.
3 . SMT.CHANDRAMMA
W/O T.RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
ST
RESIDING AT NO.93/2, 1 FLOOR
ND ND TH
2 BLOCK, 2 CROSS, 8 MAIN
KANAKANAPALYA, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU – 560 011.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI K.N.DAYALU, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 351/2023 OF CHANDRA
LAYOUT POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SEC 102, 420, 468, 506(B) R/W SEC 34 OF THE IPC ON THE FILE
OF THE LEARNED VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
COURT, AT BENGALURU, AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN SO FOR AS
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED; QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
8
360/2023 OF CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC 102, 420, 468, 506(B) R/W
SEC 34 OF THE IPC ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED VIII ADDL.
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, AT BENGALURU, AS
PER ANNEXURE-C IN SO FOR AS PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED;
QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 361/2023 OF CHANDRA LAYOUT
POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 102, 420,
468, 506(B) R/W SEC 34 OF THE IPC ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED VIII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT,
AT BENGALURU AS PER ANNEXURE-E IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS
ARE CONCERNED.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 24.02.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
Writ Petition No.20336 of 2023 is filed by an Advocate, for the
reason of arraigning him as accused Nos.8 and 9 in two crimes in
Crime Nos. 360 of 2023 and 361 of 2023 respectively. Therefore,
the challenge is by the said accused in the said writ petitions. Writ
Petition No.20341 of 2023 is calling in question registration of a
crime in Crime No.351 of 2023 against five accused, in which the
Advocate is arrayed as accused No.1 and several other private
persons as accused No.2 to 6. Writ Petition No.21486 of 2023 is
calling in question registration of crime in all the aforesaid crimes
9
where the challenge is only by the private parties. The crimes have
been registered on a solitary incident and the parties to the FIRs
are common. Therefore, these cases are taken up together and
considered by this common order.
2. Facts, adumbrated, are as follows:
Before embarking upon consideration of the issue on its
merit, I deem it appropriate to notice the relationship between the
protagonists in the lis . One Lakshmidevamma and K.Rajanna –
petitioner No.8 in Writ Petition No.21486 of 2023 are said to be the
landlords in Nagarbhavi village of vast areas of land in and around
the said village. The averment is, Lakshmidevamma is the sole
owner of land measuring 5 acres and 20 guntas in Sy.No.25/2 of
Nagarbhavi village. One late Jayamma is the daughter of
Lakshmidevamma. Petitioners 1 to 6 in Writ Petition No.21486 of
2023 are all children of late Chikkathimmaiah and late Jayamma.
Petitioner No.7 in the said petition is the son of one late Neelamma
st
daughter of late Chikkathimmaiah. The 1 petitioner in Writ
Petition No.20336 of 2023 and Writ Petition No.20341 of 2023 is
the Advocate who represents the petitioners before the civil Court
10
in all civil disputes pertaining to the properties in those civil
disputes. Petitioners 2 to 5 in Writ Petition No.20341 of 2023 are
the wife and family members of the Advocate.
HISTORY TO THE DISPUTE:
3. Lakshmidevamma, the sole owner of 5 acres 20 guntas in
Sy.No.25/2 sold one acre of land to one Padmanabha Shetty in the
year 1980. Remaining land was used to form various residential
sites; some were sold and some retained. After about 14 years,
Padmanabha Shetty and others tried to interfere with the
possession of the property owned by Lakshmidevamma.
Smt. Lakshmidevamma then filed a suit for injunction in
O.S.No.6078 of 1994 against Padmanabha Shetty. The suit against
Padmanabha Shetty comes to be decreed in favour of
Lakshmidevamma on 05-03-1997. Lakshmidevamma then
institutes another suit for permanent injunction against one
T.Rananna and the husband of Chandramma in O.S.No.5066 of
2000. Smt. Chandramma and T.Rajanna were abutting land
owners of the lands belonging to Lakshmidevamma. The suit comes
to be dismissed for its non-prosecution. After the dismissal of the
11
suit, it appears, that Lakshmidevamma enters into an agreement of
sale with one Venkatarama Sharma who is the father-in-law of
S. Rajendra, the Advocate, agreeing to sell a residential site in
Sy.No.25/2. Lakshmidevamma dies on 19-06-2001 by executing a
Will. This led to several disputes before the civil Court and before
this Court. Matters were dismissed by the learned single Judge and
affirmed by the Division Bench. Those would not be material for the
issue that is projected in the lis .
4. The suit in O.S.No.5066 of 2000 which had come to be
dismissed for non-prosecution was recalled pursuant to an order
passed by this Court in R.F.A. No. 1365 of 2019, which is pending
consideration before this Court. Therefore, the said suit became
alive. Chandramma and T.Rajanna caused legal notices on all these
petitioners seeking cancellation of a particular deed of partition that
had taken place about a decade ago. Pending reply to the legal
notice, three crimes come to be registered between 21-08-2023
and 24-08-2023 on common allegations for offences punishable
under Sections 102, 420, 468, 506(B) r/w 34 of the IPC. The
complainants are T.Rajanna and Chandramma who had caused
12
legal notices upon the petitioners seeking cancellation of deed of
partition. Registration of crimes is what has driven all these
petitioners to this Court in these petitions.
5. Heard Sri Satyanarayana Chalke. S, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.20336 and 20341
of 2023; Sri Devaraj. M, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.21486 of 2023; Sri B.N. Jagadeesha,
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondents 1 and 4
in W.P.No.20336 of 2023 and for respondent No.1 in other two
petitions and Sri K.N.Dayalu, learned counsel appearing for other
respondents.
6. learned counsel Sri Satyanarayana Chalke spearheading
the submissions on behalf of all the counsel appearing for the
petitioners would contend that none of the ingredients of any of the
offences are made out in the cases at hand. Multiple crimes are
registered on the same cause of action in three different places. No
cognizable offence is made in all the three complaints, as hurling of
abuses or intimidation are only non-cognizable offences. Since
13
three crimes are registered on the same incident, three petitions
are preferred. Offence under Section 420 of the IPC is not even met
even to its semblance in the case at hand. The partition deed
executed is in the year 2015 and Chikkathimmaiah had died in the
year 2017. Legal notices are caused six years later in 2023 and
parties are before the civil Court in plethora of cases. Against the
Advocate the only allegation is that he has represented the parties
in the civil suit or before the revenue authorities. Complainants had
challenged the khata and revenue entries made in favour of the
petitioners and have failed to secure any order and those orders
have been upheld by the learned single Judge as well as by the
Division Bench. The learned counsel would submit that the issue is
purely civil in nature and not an ingredient of criminality is present
in the case at hand. The instances which are purely civil in nature
are dressed by registering three FIRs on a particular incident of a
day. He would submit that permitting investigation even in the
cases at hand, would on the face of it become an abuse of the
process of law.
14
7. Contrariwise, the learned counsel appearing for the
complainants Sri K.N. Dayalu would vehemently refute the
submissions in contending that the Advocate himself has conducted
civil suit in 2001 and the suit filed with respect to the properties of
few of the petitioners, comes to be dismissed in O.S.No.5066 of
2000. The Advocate himself conducts the case knowing fully well
his father-in-law had entered into an agreement of sale in the year
2001. The civil suit has ended in favour of the complainants. He
would submit that both civil and criminal cases can go on parallelly
and it is a matter of investigation in the least, therefore, the FIRs
must not be quashed and the investigation must be permitted to be
continue.
8. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
Sri B.N. Jagadeesha appearing for the State would partially accept
the submissions of the learned counsel for the complainants, for the
reason that investigation was yet to be taken to its logical
conclusion, as it has come to be stayed at the hands of this Court.
Therefore, if this Court would permit investigation, they would
conclude the investigation, but would admit the fact that plethora of
15
cases are pending between the parties before different fora . Both
the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents have
relied on certain judgments of the Apex Court and that of this
Court, all of which would bear consideration qua their relevance in
the course of the order.
9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
10. The afore-narrated facts are all a matter of record. They
would not require any iteration. The history to the litigation dates
back to 03-10-1980. Every factor since 1980 till registration of
crimes are shrouded with such proceedings which are completely
civil in nature. Right from the sale deed executed, to the
proceedings before the revenue authorities, several civil suits are
pending between the parties and in all the cases right from 2000 till
the date of registration of crimes, the Advocates have represented
the parties in the civil suits. One factor needs to be noticed is, the
revenue entries that were in favour of few of the petitioners were
16
called in question before this Court in Writ Petition Nos.3478 of
2006 and 6046 of 2006. A learned single Judge of this Court
rejected the challenge to the revenue entries by the following
order:
In W.P.No.3478/2006:
“Petitioner claiming to be the owner of a certain
immovable property has called in question the endorsements
dated 5-8-2005 Annexure-"J" and dated 16-03-2006 Annexure-
th th
"M", of the 4 respondent, incorporating the name of the 5
respondent Smt. Jayamma as the kathedar of the property in
question for the purpose of payment of taxes.
2. The petition is opposed by filing statement of
objections dated 27.3.2006 of the contesting respondent Smt.
Jayamma, who is reported to have died during the pendency of
this petition and is since represented by her LRs respondents
5(A) to (C).
3. Sri. N.K. Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that though no final decision over the katha is taken
by the endorsement Annexure-"J", the observations regarding
the validity of the Sale Deed executed by the petitioner's vendor
are findings contrary to law prejudicially affecting the rights of
the petitioner, tantamounting to a decision on civil rights which
is without jurisdiction. In addition, it is contended that the
observations in Annexure 'M', endorsement, are also illegal and
th
if not interfered with, the 5 respondent is likely to press into
service the said observations, against the petitioner, collateral
proceedings.
4. Sri C M Nagabhushan, learned counsel for the legal
heirs of the deceased Jayamma, contends that being the owners
of the land did not convey the site in question either to the
vendor in title of the petitioner or to the petitioner and that the
sale deed conveying the site, is only in respect of an imaginary
site, the petitioner, it is contended having instituted OS
17
15341/06, withdraw the same on 4.3.2006. The retention of the
name of the owner as the kathedar of the property in question,
cannot be found fault with. According to the learned counsel,
the endorsements impugned are well merited, fully justified and
do not call for interference.
5. Learned counsel for the Corporation submits that
Annexure-"J" endorsement being not a final decision over
the application for change of katha filed by the petitioner, but
the recording of certain opinion over the documents produced
by the petitioner, there is no need to quash Annexure-"J". In
addition it is contended that the order Annexure 'M', does not
decide the rights of the parties over their respective claims of
title, and the same is kept open for a decision by a competent
court.
6. There is considerable force in the submission of the
learned counsel for the Corporation that the endorsement.
Annexure-”J” not being a final order need not be quashed. Since
the Corporation officials had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon
the validity of the Sale Deed, or render an opinion over the
same as recorded in the endorsement Annexure-"J", it is
needless to state that the opinion cannot influence any legal
forum having jurisdiction to decide the claim of title to property
of the parties.
7. An examination of the endorsement dated 16-03-2006
Annexure M", discloses recording of a finding that the
th
documents produced by the 5 respondent are more probable,
in relation to title to property, than those produced by the
petitioner. It is well established law that in exercise of power
under Section 114 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act,
1976, for short Act, the authorities have no jurisdiction to go
into the question of right, title or interest of the parties to the
property in question on the basis of the documents, which is the
exclusive domain of the Civil Court having jurisdiction to declare
the title of immovable property. Legality or validity of a
document cannot be adjudicated by the revenue authorities. At
the same time, it is needless to state that katha does not confer
title, but is indicative of the person in possession of the property
and one who is primarily responsible to pay the taxes. Although
th
learned counsel for the 5 respondent vehemently contends that
18
no legal injury is caused to the petitioner by recording such a
finding, nevertheless, there can be no doubt that the authority
exercised a jurisdiction not, vested in it, while deciding whether
the documents did make the case of either of the parties,
probable. By the impugned endorsement, Annexure 'M', the
th
name of the 5 respondent is shown as the kathedar of the
property in question, for the purpose of collection of taxes,
subject to the result of the legal proceedings.
8. The courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, are reluctant to examine matters
which would involve investigation of facts which is better done
in the appropriate forum, if statutory remedy is provided.
9. It is apparent from the relative position taken by the
parties that there is considerable dispute in regard to material
facts and that the dispute is of such a nature which cannot be
conveniently adjudicated upon in this writ petition. It is a
dispute which, it seems to me, is more appropriate for
adjudication by a competent civil court, hence I decline to
interfere with the question of title to the property.
10. In the result, this Writ petition is disposed of relating
the parties to a competent civil court for a decision over the
right, title and interest to the property in question and for
consequential directions to the Corporation as regards the
katha. It is made clear that the civil court would not be
influenced by the observations/opinions of the revenue
authorities recorded in the endorsements Annexure-"J" and
Annexure-"M" in the event the parties seek declaration of their
right, title and interest to the immovable property in question.”
In W.P.No.6046/2006:
“Petitioner claiming to be the owner in possession of
immovable property bearing No. 1 formed out of Sy.No.25/2,
Nagarbhavi, Now Chandra Layout, Bangalore, secks a Writ of
Certiorari to quash the order dated 16-03-2006 Annexure-"E" of
Respondent No.4 directing registration of the katha of the said
th
property in favour of the 5 respondent Smt.Jayamma and a
19
direction to cancel the katha as recorded in Certificate
Annexure-"F".
2. The Writ petition is opposed by filing Statement of
objections dated 12-12-2006 of the LRs of deceased Respondent
No.5 interalia contending that the petitioner claims title to an
th
imaginary property, though the 5 respondent is the absolute
owner of the property in question.
3. This Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is reluctant to examine matters
which would involve investigation of facts, which would be
better done by an appropriate forum, if statutory remedy is
available. It is apparent from the relative position taken by the
parties that there is considerable dispute in regard to material
facts and that the dispute is of such a nature which cannot be
conveniently adjudicated upon in this Writ petition. It is a
dispute which seems to me is more appropriate for adjudication
before a competent Civil Court. Hence, I decline to interfere in
the matter. Writ petition is accordingly rejected.”
The parties were directed to approach a competent civil Court for a
decision over the right, title and interest of the properties in
question. It was also observed that the civil Court would not be
influenced by the revenue entries made or the orders passed by the
revenue authorities as well as this Court. This was called in
question before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, in terms of
its order dated 11-08-2008 in Writ Appeal No.295 of 2007 rejected
the appeal on the following order:
“Heard Sri M.S. Rajendra Prasad, learned Senior Counsel
for the appellant, Sri V.Y. Kumar, learned counsel for
respondents No. 1 to 4, Sri C.M. Nagabhushana, learned counsel
20
for respondent No.5 (a) and Sri S. Rajendra, learned counsel for
respondents No. 5 (b) and (c).
2. The appellant appears to be aggrieved by the order
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.3478/06 (LB-
BMP), whereby and whereunder the challenge was made to the
endorsements dated 5.8.2005 (Annexure-J) and 16.3.2006
(Annexure-M) said to have been passed by respondent No.4
incorporating the name of respondent No.5 Smt. Jayamma as
the khathedar of the property in question for the purpose of
payment of taxes.
3. The learned Single Judge after considering the matter
from all angles, came to the conclusion that several disputed
questions of fact have been projected in the writ petition which
cannot be gone into in a petition filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, directed the parties to
approach the competent Civil Court.
4. We have also gone through the contents of the petition
and are of the opinion that whatever direction has been issued
by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference. The facts
as mentioned in the petition could not have been gone into to
be adjudicated upon by a Writ Court. In this view of the matter,
against such a finding recorded by the learned Single Judge, we
find that no case has been made out
5. The learned senior Counsel for the appellant made a
serious grievance that even though the matter was pending
disposal before the learned Single Judge, taking advantage that
no order of stay was passed in favour of the appellant during
the pendency of the petition change of name of khatedar has
been effected. At this stage, we do not find any merit or
substance in this argument also since any such revenue entries
would yield to the substantive rights to be decided by the
jurisdictional Court. As such, if parties approach the competent
Civil Court, they can make appropriate application for grant of
injunction.
6. In the light of the aforesaid observations, it is needless
to say that as and when any application for grant of injunction is
filed before the competent Civil Court, it shall be considered and
disposed of in accordance with law without being influenced by
21
any of the amendment that has been made in the khatha during
the pendency of the writ petition or any of the observations
made by this Court.
The appeal is devoid of merit or substance and the same
is hereby dismissed. No costs.”
After the aforementioned orders, a suit in O.S.No.27171 of 2007 is
preferred by the complainants. The said suit is pending adjudication
before the concerned Court. Here again, the Advocate represents
the parties to the lis . Right from 1980, till the filing of the aforesaid
suit, several proceedings which are purely civil in nature are
initiated, pending or closed.
11. What triggers registration of crime on an incident that
took place on 20-08-2023 forms the fulcrum of the complaint.
Complainant in one of the cases is Chandramma W/o T. Ramanna
and in the other case T.Rajanna himself. The incident remains the
same. Therefore, it would suffice if one of the complaints is
noticed. It reads as follows:
“From:
Smt.R.Chandramma, 62 Years
W/o. T. Ramanna,
No.93/2, I Floor,
nd nd
2 Block, 2 Cross,
22
th
8 Main, Jayanagar,
Kanakanapalya,
Bangalore-560011.
Cast-Hallikar Gouda
Mob No.:9845292350
TO:
The inspector of police
Chandra lay out police station
Chandra lay out
Bangalore-560072
Sub: to register the complaint and to take
necessary action against the following
persons:
th th
(1). SRI. S.RAJENDRA , Advocate, Res:No.275, 8 Main, 12
Cross, Vidyagiri lay out, Near Nagarabhavi circle, Bangalore
560072
st
Office: Rajendra S, Advocate, RMN legal advocates No.22, 1
Cross, Vishwanath Rao Road, Madhavanagar, Bengaluru
560001. (Mobile No.9844075808)
2). SMT. PANKAJA V , W/o. S. Rajendra D/o.late A.R.
th th
Venkatarama Sharma, No.275, 8 Main, 12 Cross, Vidyagiri lay
out, Near Nagarabhavi circle, Bengaluru -560072 (Mobile No.
9844075808)
(3). SMT.SHAKUNTHALA V , W/o.late A.R. Venkatarama
Sharma No. 19, MIG II, KHB Colony, Bidadi, Ramanagara
district Pin-562109
(4). SMT.AMMACHAMMA , W/o. Late Rama Sharma, No.19,
MIG II, KHB Colony, Bidadi, Ramanagara District, Pin:562 109
nd
(5). SMT.SUMA V. W/o.Hemanth Kumar K.H.No.118, 2 Floor,
rd
3 Cross, Mission Road, Bengalueu -560027
23
(6). SRI. SUDHINDRA SHARMA V, S/o.late A.R.Venkarama
Sharma, No.19, MIG II, KHB Colony, Bidadi, Ramanagara
District pin: 562 109
(7) SRI.K.RAJANNA, S/o.Kalappa, No.5, Manjunatha Nilaya,
ISEC main Road, Nagarabhavi village, Chandra layout,
Bangalore -560072 (Mobile No.7618731035).
(8) C.DASE GOWDA S/o.late Chikkathimmaiah, Ex-corporater
Mudlapalya, resident of Nagarabhavi village, Opp; to Maruthi
temple, ISFC Road, Bengaluru -560072 ( Mobile
No.9845258168 );
(9) C.JAGADEESHA ,S/o.late Chikkathimmaiah, resident of
Nagarabhavi village, Opo;to Maruthi temple, ISFC Road
Bengaluru -560072( Mobile No.9845617773 );
rd
(10) C.PADMA, W/o.Mahadev, No.3, "Sri Srinivasa", 3
Cross,,ISEC Post, Nagarabahvi, Bangalore -560072 (mobile
No.9742254444);
(11) SMT.GANGAMMA W/o.Ramakrishna No.3163/1,
Tungabhadra Street, Nagarabhavi Road, Maruthi nagar,
Bangalore – 560 072.
(12) SMT.NAGARATHNA W/o. Sathyanarayana, Nagarabhavi
village Opo to Maruthi temple, ISFC Road, Bengaluru-560072
(Mobile No.9632376610);
(13) KEMPARATHNA W/o.Ramakrishna Nagarabhavi village..
Opo to Maruthi temple, ISFC Road, Bengaluru-560072( Mobile
No.9880625753 );
nd th
(14) NAVEENA S/o. Kadirapathi, No.5/A, 106 C, 2 Main 4
Cross, Bhuvaaneshwari Nagar, Lavakhusha Nagar, Bangalore
560058
( Mobile No.7353055627 )
(15). THE REVENUE OFFICER
Chandra Extension, sub division
th
Palike soudha, 14 Cross Road
st
1 Stage, Chandra Extension
Bangalore -560079
24
(16).ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER
Chandra Extension, sub division
th
Palike soudha, 14 Cross Road
st
1 Stage, Chandra Extension
Bangalore -560079
(17). THE PRESIDENT
The Janatha Co-operative Bank Limited
th th
H.O.17 Cross 8 Main
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560055.
(18). THE SECRETARY
The Janatha Co-operative Bank Limited
th th
H.O.17 Cross 8 Main
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560055
(19). THE MANAGER
The Janatha Co-operative Bank Limited,
th th
H.O.17 Cross 8 Main
Malleshwaram, Bangalore-560055:
Sirs
I, the above named would like to bring the following few
lines to your good self as follows:
1. I submit that originally one K.Rajanna and his mother
puttasiddamma sold site No.6 formed in survey No.25/2 and site
No.6A formed in survey No.25/3; situated at Nagarabhavi
village, Chandra lay out, Bangalore-560072 by power of
attorney and affidavit to my husband T.Ramanna and put my
husband in possession of the properties. By virtue of power of
attorney executed by puttasiddamma and K.Rajanna, my
husband executed registered sale deed dated 18.06.2001 in my
favour and put me in possession of the same. Thus I am the full
and absolute owner of the above properties in possesion more
fully detailed hereunder:
(i) site No.6, new No.6/1 formed in survey No.25/2(PID No.39-
71-6/1) situated at ISEC Main Road, Nagarabhavi village,
Chandra lay out, Bangalore -560072 measuring east to west 48
feet and north to south 32 feet (totally measuring 1536 Sq feet)
bounded on the east by ISEC Road, West by: private property,
25
North by compound of Rajanna property and south by :property
baring site No.6A acquired under the registered sale deed dated
18.06.2001 bearing the registration No.3832/2001-2002 and
(iii) site No.6A, new No.6/2 formed in Survey No.25/3 (PID
No.39-71-6/2), situated at ISEC Road, Nagarabhavi village.
Chandra lay Out, Bangalore-560072 measuring east to west 45
feet and north to south 60 feet (totally measuring 2700 sq.feet)
bounded on the East by: ISEC Road, West by site No.1 formed
in survey No.25/2 north by site No.6 formed in sy.No.25/2
nd
belonged to my client, south by 2 Cross Road acquired under
the registered sale deed dated 18.06.2001 bearing the
registration No.3826/2001-02 .
2. The copies of the above sale deeds (two sale deeds) (i)(ii)
referred to above are produced. I have got the Katha of the
above properties made over by the revenue authorities in the
records of BBMP old site No. 6 and later No.6/1 and old site
No.6A new site 6/2. The Katha and tax paid receipts are
produced herewith. Thus I am the full and absolute owner in
possession of the above items of properties.
3. I state that the sale deeds of my above property is in my
name from the year 2001 and revenue records are in my name
and my sale deeds are in force and not disturbed so far. I
shockingly came to know recently late Chikkathimmaiah at the
instance of his sons and daughters named above in collusion
with one S.Rajendra, Advocate, who is their personal advocate
and K.Rajanna, resident of Nagarabhavi village who are the key
persons for all illegal transactions fabricated the sale deed in the
name of father in law of Rajendra namely V.R. Venkatarama
Sharma and all of them colluded and got the katha of my
above property in collusion with revenue authorities
giving different numbers to my very same property as property
No.1 and after the death of 'the said V.R. Venkatarama Sharma,
the katha was made over illegally in the name of the said
advocate mother in law Smt. Shakunthala, thereafter sons and
daughters of the said V.R. Venkatarama Sharma and
Shakunthala released from the property so illegally transferred
in favour of the said Smt. Shakuathala, the said Shakuanthala
gifted the property to her daughter V.Pankaja W/o. Rajendra
and by virtue of illegal transactions, wife of Rajendra namely
26
Pankaja V and her husband Rajendra above named have raised
the loan on my property in a sum of Rs.1,19,70,000/-
(Rupees one crore nineteen lakhs seventy thousand) and
have opened the super market in the property of K.Rajanna.
Thus by fabricating the documents have raised the loan
fraudulently by the said Pankaja V and her husband Rajendra
and all illegal transactions have been done by the Advocate S.
Rajendra and one K. Rajanna has joined them in fabricating all
illegal documents in the name of Pankaja by virtue of created,
fraudulent partition deed got obtained among the sons and
daughters, with Chickathimmaiah. The sons of late
Chikkathimmaiah namely C.Dase Gowda and C.Jagadeesh and
one K.Rajanna, who is residing in Nagarabhavi village and their
advocate S.Rajendra (who is the main person for illegal
transactions) who are all abettors have abetted to execute the
illegal documents and illegal transactions through their late
father late Chikkathimmaiah and by virtue of the illegal
documents, all the above named persons are making continuous
attempts coming near my above property with rowdy elements
and threatening my persons and security and when I had come
accompanying with my husband and my persons to the above
my property, the said C.Dase Gowda, C. Jagdheesh and their
sisters along with their advocate Rajendra, his wife Pankaja her
sisters and brother had come with some rowdy elements on
20.08.2023 at 4 P.M. to dump the stones, bricks and jellies and
it is at that point of time I came to the spot of my above
property, all of the above named persons who were all had
gathered there nearby my property along with one K.Rajanna,
the resident of Nagarabhavi village, and their advocate
S. Rajendra and abused me, my husband and my relatives with
such filthy and vulgar words and have threatened to my life
threatening that they do not mind to kill me, if I obstruct them
from entering into my above property. This has become routine
and continuous.
Hence, actions may be taken (1) for fabricating
documents in collusion with S.Rajendra, Advocate in respect of
my above properties (2) and illegal transfer of katha in their
names by the revenue authorities to my very same property by
giving different numbers, (3) and for illegally granting loan by
the Janatha Co-operative bank on my above property on the
fabricating, created document and for illegal attempt to trespass
into my property and threatening to my life for the offence
27
under section 102(b) 420, 468, 506(B) read with section 34 of
Indian Penal code. Kindly give protection against the above
persons and register the case and take necessary action against
the above persons for the offence committed by them.
Documents produced by me are as follows:
1. Registered sale deed dated: 18.06.2023 (two deeds)executed
by my husband T.Ramanna in my name;
(2)Katha transfer of my property (2)
(3) Tax paid receipts (2) of my property;
(4) illegal transfer of properties but illegal documents by the
accused persons partition deed dated 22.06.2006, sale deed
dated 12.08.2015, release deed dated 23.01.2016, rectification
deed dated 25.02.2016, Gift deed dated: 18.02.2016, mortgage
deed dated: 28.09.2017
(5) illegal transfer of katha of my above properties giving
different Katha number as No.1.
(6) illegally advancing loan by the Janatha co operative bank,
Mallehshwaram to pankaja V with the consenting witness of her
husband S. Rajendra
Sd/-
(Chandramma)”
12. A perusal of the complaint would unmistakably
reveal a narrative woven, not around any immediate criminal
transgression, but around the long and chequered history of
inter se
civil proceedings the parties, extending even to sale
deeds executed more than two decades prior to the
28
registration of the impugned crime. Curiously, no concrete
cause of action germinating on 20-08-2023 is even remotely
articulated in any of the complaints, save and except a vague
and nebulous allegation of fabrication of documents on the
said date — an allegation which, prima facie, finds no
supporting substratum in the material placed before this
Court. A deeper excavation into the factual labyrinth,
however, becomes wholly unnecessary, for the parties
already stand before the competent civil Court seeking
adjudication of their rival claims.
13. The pivotal issue, therefore is , whether in the teeth of
such circumstances, the criminal law ought to be permitted
to be unleashed, and more alarmingly, whether an Advocate,
whose only role is that of representing a litigant, can be
dragged into the whirlpool of criminal prosecution, merely
for discharging his professional duty.
14. What unmistakably emanates from the afore-
narrated facts is that the dispute projected before the
29
jurisdictional police is overwhelmingly, if not entirely, civil in
complexion. This conclusion is neither conjectural nor
debatable; it is indubitable and self-evident. To permit the
investigating machinery of the State to intrude into what is
essentially a civil discord would itself amount to a grave abuse of
the process of law.
15. Jurisprudence is replete with solemn
pronouncements of the Apex Court cautioning against the
pernicious tendency of converting civil disputes into criminal
prosecutions and exhorting constitutional Courts to thwart
such misuse at its inception.
JUDICIAL LANDSCAPE:
16.1. The Apex Court in TUHIN KUMAR BISWAS ALIAS
1
BUMBA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
“TENDENCY OF FILING CHARGESHEETS AND FRAMING
CHARGES IN MATTERS WHERE NO STRONG SUSPICION IS
MADE OUT CLOGS THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
1
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2604
30
28. Before parting with this case, this Court would like to
emphasise that where there is a pending civil dispute between
the parties, the Police and the Criminal Courts must be
circumspect in filing a chargesheet and framing charges
respectively. In a society governed by rule of law, the decision
to file a chargesheet should be based on the Investigating
Officer's determination of whether the evidence collected
provides a reasonable prospect of conviction. The Police at the
stage of filing of Chargesheet and the Criminal Court at the
stage of framing of Charge must act as initial filters ensuring
that only cases with a strong suspicion should proceed to the
formal trial stage to maintain the efficiency and integrity of the
judicial system. The tendency of filing chargesheets in matters
where no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system.
It forces Judges, court staff, and prosecutors to spend time on
trials that are likely to result in an acquittal. This diverts limited
judicial resources from handling stronger, more serious cases,
contributing to massive case backlogs. Undoubtedly, there can
be no analysis at the charge framing stage as to whether the
case would end in conviction or acquittal, but the fundamental
principle is that the State should not prosecute citizens without
a reasonable prospect of conviction, as it compromises the right
to a fair process.
29. In the present case, the Police and the Trial Court
should have been cognizant that as there was a pending civil
dispute with regard to the property in question as well as a prior
subsisting injunction order and the complainant had refused to
make any judicial statement, strong suspicion founded on
legally tenable material/evidence was absent.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court in TUHIN KUMAR BISWAS ALIAS
BUMBA v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL has sounded a clarion
warning in the following terms:
31
“The tendency of filing charge sheets by the police and
framing charges by the concerned Courts in matters where
no strong suspicion is made out clogs the judicial system.”
The Apex Court observed that the police at the stage of filing a
charge sheet, and the criminal Court at the stage of framing
charge, must function as vital filters, ensuring that only
those prosecutions founded upon a strong suspicion and a
reasonable prospect of conviction are permitted to proceed
to trial. The Apex Court emphatically underscored that the
coercive arm of criminal law cannot be invoked against
citizens, in the absence of legally tenable material, merely
because a civil dispute subsists between the parties.
16.2. The Apex Court, a little earlier, in S.N.
2
VIJAYALAKSHMI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
42. Coming to the second question i.e., whether civil and
criminal proceedings both can be maintained on the very same
set of allegations qua the same person(s), the answer stricto
sensu , is that there is no bar to simultaneous civil and criminal
proceedings. If the element of criminality is there, a civil case
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1575
32
can co-exist with a criminal case on the same facts. The fact
that a civil remedy has already been availed of by a
complainant, ipso facto , is not sufficient ground to quash an FIR,
as pointed out, inter alia , in P Swaroopa Rani v. M Hari
Narayana , (2008) 5 SCC 765 and Syed Aksari Hadi Ali Augustine
Imam v. State (Delhi Admn.) , (2009) 5 SCC 528. The obvious
caveat being that the allegations, even if having a civil flavour
to them, must prima facie disclose an overwhelming element of
criminality. In the absence of the element of criminality, if both
civil and criminal cases are allowed to continue, it will definitely
amount to abuse of the process of the Court, which the Courts
have always tried to prevent by putting a stop to any such
criminal proceeding, where civil proceedings have already been
instituted with regard to the same issue, and the element of
criminality is absent. If such element is absent, the prosecution
in question would have to be quashed. In this
connection, Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand , (2013) 11
SCC 673 can be referred to:
12.
‘ … Whether a complaint discloses a criminal
offence or not depends upon the nature of facts alleged
therein. Whether essential ingredients of criminal
offence are present or not has to be judged by the High
Court. A complaint disclosing civil transactions may also
have a criminal texture. But the High Court must see
whether a dispute which is essentially of a civil nature is
given a cloak of criminal offence. In such a situation, if a
civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted as has
happened in this case, the High Court should not
hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent
abuse of process of the court.’
(emphasis supplied)
43. In Usha Chakraborty v. State of West Bengal , (2023)
15 SCC 135, while quashing the FIR therein and further
proceedings based thereon, it was observed ‘ …the factual
position thus would reveal that the genesis as also the purpose
of criminal proceedings are nothing but the aforesaid incident
and further that the dispute involved is essentially of civil
nature.’”
33
In S.N. VIJAYALAKSHMI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA supra , the
Apex Court reiterated that though civil and criminal
proceedings may, in a given case, co-exist, criminal
prosecution can survive only where the allegations disclose
an overwhelming element of criminality. The Court lucidly
held that where a dispute is essentially civil in nature and is
merely draped in the garb of a criminal offence, continuation
of criminal proceedings would amount to a patent abuse of
the process of Court. Reliance was placed therein upon the
celebrated dictum in PARAMJEET BATRA v. STATE OF
UTTARAKHAND , wherein it was observed that High Courts should
not hesitate to interdict criminal proceedings where civil remedies
are already being pursued and the criminality alleged is but illusory.
16.3. The Apex Court, again in INDER CHAND BAGRI v.
3
JAGADISH PRASAD BAGRI , has held as follows:
“…. …. ….
24. The complainant/respondent No. 1 has an alternative
remedy of filing a civil suit to set aside the sale deed dated
20.06.2011 and claim damages for the alleged violation of his
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2529
34
contractual rights which he is already pursuing vide Title Suit
No. 160 of 2012 against the appellant-accused which is
currently pending adjudication and hence the route through
criminal proceedings, when no ingredient of offence is made
out, cannot be permitted. Criminal law ought not to become a
platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal
scores and vendettas. The appellant-accused therefore, in our
view, could not be attributed any mens rea and therefore, the
allegations levelled by the prosecution against the appellant-
accused are unsustainable.
Inder Mohan Goswami
25. Furthermore, in , it was held
by this Court that the Court must ensure that criminal
prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment or for
seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to pressurise
the accused. It was further held by this Court that it is neither
possible nor desirable to lay down an inflexible rule that would
govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction. In view of the above
and for the reasons stated above, we are of the firm opinion
that to continue the criminal proceedings against the appellant-
accused herein would cause undue harassment to him because
as observed hereinabove, no prima facie case for the offence
under Sections 406 or 420 of the IPC is made out.
… … …
28. At this juncture, we find it apposite to mention the
observations of this Court in Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar
Pradesh , (2024) 14 SCC 112 wherein it was observed that in
recent years the machinery of criminal justice is being misused
by certain persons for their vested interests and for achieving
their oblique motives and agenda. Courts have therefore to be
vigilant against such tendencies and ensure that acts of
omission and commission having an adverse impact on the
fabric of our society must be nipped in the bud. We say so for
the reason that while the complainant/respondent No. 1 has
made grave allegations against the appellant herein, he has
failed to justify the same before this Court. Such actions would
create significant divisions and distrust among people, while also
placing an unnecessary strain on the judicial system, particularly
criminal courts.”
35
Again, in INDER CHAND BAGRI v. JAGADISH PRASAD BAGRI ,
the Apex Court, with unmistakable clarity, held that criminal law
ought not to become a theatre for vendetta, vengeance, or
coercive arm-twisting in matters fundamentally civil in
nature. The Court warned that the machinery of criminal
justice is increasingly being employed as an instrumentality
to settle personal scores and achieve oblique motives,
thereby placing an unwarranted burden upon criminal Courts
and eroding public confidence in the sanctity of judicial
a caveat
process, , with the facts obtaining in each of the
cases.
16.4. The Apex court again in JIT VINAYAK AROLKAR v.
4
STATE OF GOA observes as follows:
“…. …. ….
8. We have carefully perused one of the sale deeds,
which is the subject matter of the impugned FIR. The sale deeds
are similar. The appellant signed the sale deed as the
constituted attorney of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar and
also in his capacity as a confirming party. The said power of
attorney executed by Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar in
favour of the appellant contains a recital that the executants,
4
2025 SCC OnLine SC 31
36
i.e., Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar, are the co-owners of
the subject property. The legal effect of the sale deeds which
are the subject matters of the impugned FIR is that the
ownership rights of Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar were
transferred to the purchasers.
9. It is pertinent to note that civil suits were filed by the
th
4 respondent in October 2018. In the suits, he claims to be a
co-owner or person with an undivided share in the subject
property. Two years after the institution of the said suits, the
th
constituted attorney of the 4 respondent filed a complaint with
rd
the Superintendent of Police on 23 October 2020. In the
complaint, she stated that the subject property was originally
th
owned by the predecessor of the 4 respondent and Sadashiv
Natekar. In paragraph 5 of the complaint, the constituted
th
attorney of the 4 respondent stated thus:
“5. This vicious and malafide exercise of deceit,
forgery and land-grabbing has been systematically and
high-handedly perpetrated by one Mr. Jit Vinayak
Arolkar who claims to be the Power of Attorney
holder of legal heirs of Sadashiv Sakharam
Natekar. The said Sadashiv Natekar was the co-
owner of the said property along with
vaikunthRawlooKhalap. Thus, it is clear that, the said
property can in no way be arbitrarily sold without the
express consent of all the legal heirs of both the Co-
owners of the said property.”
(emphasis added)
It is pertinent to note that the constituted attorney of the
th
4 respondent has omitted to mention in the complaint that two
years before the filing of the complaint, declaratory suits were
th
filed by the 4 respondent, which were pending. Interestingly,
th
two years after the registration of the FIR, on 13 October
th
2022, the 4 respondent filed a supplementary complaint with
the police alleging that even the said Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay
Natekar had also committed an offence.
th
10. Thus, in short, the grievance of the 4 respondent is
that the vendors under the sale deeds had only an undivided
share in the subject property, and they could not have sold the
37
entire subject property under the sale deeds. The contention of
the appellant is that what is sold is the right, title and interest of
Vidhya Natekar and Sanjay Natekar. Thus, the dispute between
the parties is predominantly a civil dispute.
11. Section 415, which defines cheating, reads thus:
“415. Cheating.—Whoever, by deceiving any
person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person
so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes
or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
Explanation .—A dishonest concealment of facts is
a deception within the meaning of this section.”
12. It is pertinent to note that the purchasers under the
sale deeds have not made any grievance about the sale deeds.
2
In the case of Mohd. Ibrahim v. State of Bihar , in paragraphs
20 to 23, this Court held thus:
“20. When a sale deed is executed conveying
a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be
possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to
allege that the vendor has cheated him by making
a false representation of ownership and
fraudulently induced him to part with the sale
consideration. But in this case the complaint is not
by the purchaser. On the other hand, the
purchaser is made a co-accused.
21. It is not the case of the complainant that
any of the accused tried to deceive him either by
making a false or misleading representation or by
any other action or omission, nor is it his case that
they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest
inducement to deliver any property or to consent
to the retention thereof by any person or to
intentionally induce him to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were
not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that
38
the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while
executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said
that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds
in favour of the second accused or the second accused
by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth
and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe
and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived
the complainant in any manner.
22. As the ingredients of cheating as stated in
Section 415 are not found, it cannot be said that there
was an offence punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419
or 420 of the Code.
A clarification
23. When we say that execution of a sale
deed by a person, purporting to convey a property
which is not his, as his property, is not making a
false document and therefore not forgery, we
should not be understood as holding that such an
act can never be a criminal offence. If a person
sells a property knowing that it does not belong to
him, and thereby defrauds the person who
purchased the property, the person defrauded,
that is, the purchaser, may complain that the
vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating.
But a third party who is not the purchaser under
the deed may not be able to make such complaint .”
(emphasis added)
12.1 In this case, it is impossible to understand how the
th
appellant deceived the 4 respondent and how the act of
execution of sale deeds by the appellant caused or was likely to
th
cause damage or harm to the 4 respondent in body, mind,
reputation or property. The appellant has not purported to
th
execute the sale deeds on behalf of the 4 respondent. He has
th
not purported to transfer the rights of the 4 respondent. There
th
is no allegation that the appellant deceived the 4 respondent to
transfer or deliver the subject property.
13. Taking the complaint as correct, the offence of
cheating under Section 415 of IPC was not made out against the
appellant. Moreover, the complaint was filed by the
39
th
4 respondent for the first time after a time gap of two years
from the date of institution of the civil suits. In the complaint,
he suppressed the fact that civil suits were already filed in which
applications for temporary injunction were made. When there
th
was a dispute over the title, the act of the 4 respondent of
setting in motion criminal law two years after the date of filing
of the suits amounts to nothing but abuse of the process of
law.”
The principle was carried further in JIT VINAYAK AROLKAR v.
STATE OF GOA , where the Apex Court observed that disputes
relating to title, undivided share, power of attorney, or
execution of sale deeds are predominantly civil disputes,
unless accompanied by overwhelming criminality. The Court
categorically held that an allegation of cheating cannot arise
in vacuum merely because a sale deed is executed in relation
to disputed property rights, particularly when the
complainant is not the purchaser under the deed and no
deception, inducement, or fraudulent delivery of property is
pleaded.
17. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid
pronouncements, the unmistakable legal position that
emerges is, that the police ought not to be permitted to
40
investigate matters which are purely civil in character.
Investigative restraint must be exercised in disputes
concerning title deeds, revenue entries, powers of attorney,
or sale deeds unless, the allegations unmistakably exude
overwhelming criminality. Equally, criminal Courts, even at
the stage of framing of charge, are duty-bound to scrutinize
whether the material placed before them genuinely discloses
strong suspicion and a reasonable prospect of conviction.
The pendency of civil proceedings cannot be ignored while
assessing whether criminal prosecution is being employed as
a weapon of harassment. The criminal justice system,
therefore, must operate through these twin filters—first, at
the stage of investigation and filing of charge sheet, and
next, at the stage of framing of charge by the concerned
Court. At both stages, the law vests ample power in the
Courts to terminate proceedings that amount to abuse of
process, subject always to the peculiar facts of each case.
18. Diving back to the facts of the case at hand, what
emerges with crystalline clarity is, the complete absence of
41
even an iota of criminality. A simmering land dispute
between the parties has been artfully clothed in the robes of
criminal prosecution . On the basis of a solitary and seemingly
imaginary cause of action alleged to have arisen on 20-08-2023 not
less than three criminal cases have come to be registered. The
gravamen of the accusation is merely that the petitioners
threatened the respondents. How, from such bald assertions, a
cognizable offence has suddenly sprung into existence
remains an inscrutable mystery . Continuation of the
proceedings, in the teeth of the aforesaid facts, would
unquestionably amount to an abuse of the process of law and
occasion a grave miscarriage of justice. The criminal law cannot
be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of oppression in
aid of a civil contest. Therefore, on this solitary yet
substantial ground, the impugned crime deserves to be
obliterated at its very inception .
19. This leaves this Court with the contention whether an
Advocate can be drawn into the web of crime . While it cannot be
any straight jacket formula erecting a bar to draw an Advocate into
42
the web of crime. If the said accused has indeed committed a
crime which is found as ingredients in the complaint or contents of
the charge sheet, this Court would test the veracity of the challenge
by an Advocate on the touchstone of the parameters of ingredients
present in the complaint, contents found in the charge sheet.
Therefore, it would be an examination on a case to case basis.
However, an Advocate, for his mere representation of the accused
before the Courts of law, espousing the cause of the clients, owing
to his profession, becoming the fulcrum of the crime, is sans
countenance. This Court is encountering plethora of cases,
wherein Advocates, who merely represent parties before
Courts of law in the discharge of their professional
obligations, are themselves being dragged into criminal
proceedings and arrayed as accused. Therefore, this Court
considers it both necessary and appropriate to record its
deep, disquiet and increasingly disturbing trend that has
surfaced in recent times. The only “fault” attributable to
such Advocates, is that they appeared for their clients and
articulated their cause before the concerned judicial forum.
43
20. Such tendency strikes at the very heart of
independence of the bar, by necessary extension the purity
of administration of justice itself. Advocates are officers of
the Court, they function within the confines of professional
duty, acting upon the instructions of their client and
presenting their cause within the four corners of law. If
every Advocate, merely by a reason of appearing for a
litigant is exposed to criminal prosecution and trauma of
investigative proceedings, the inevitable consequence would
be a chilling and paralyzing effect upon fearless discharge of
professional responsibilities. The majesty of legal profession
cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled
litigants to wield criminal law as a weapon of intimidation
against the members of the bar. In the facts of the case as
well, the only allegation against one of the accused, an Advocate is
that he has represented the parties before various fora against the
complainants or against the interest of the complainants. Barring
this, no other allegation is found in the complaint, no other
submission is made across the bar.
44
21. On all the aforesaid reasons, permitting further
investigation in the cases at hand would become an abuse of the
process of law and result in patent injustice. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass the following:
O R D E R
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) Crime Nos. 351, 360 and 361 of 2023 registered in all
these cases before Chandra Layout Police Station,
Bengaluru and pending before VIII Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stand quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made during the
course of this order are only for the purpose of
consideration of the cases of these petitioners in
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
and the same would not become applicable or
transmutable to any other proceedings pending
between the parties before any other fora.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
CT:MJ
Bkp/