SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY L vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2666 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)
/ 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY L
S/O LOGNATH T
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NO 6, SRI MANJUNATH KRUPA
THINDLU MAIN ROAD
BASAVASAMITHI LAYOUT
NANJAPPA CIRCLE
VIDYARANYPUARA
BENGALURU 560097
ADDRESS SHOWN IN CHARGE SHEET
R/AT NO 37
3RD CROSS
MANAJUNATH KRUPA
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU 560097
2. SRI. PAWAN KUMAR K
S/O KRISHNAMURTHY.L
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
ADVOCATE
R/ATNO 6
SRI MANJUNATH KRUPA
THINDLU MAIN ROAD
BASAVASAMITHI LAYOUT
NANJAPPA CIRCLE
VIDYARANAYAPURA
BENGALURU 560097
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. TEJAS N.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU 560097
(REPRESENTED BY THE
LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HCK, BANGALORE 01)
2. SMT. SHRUTHI
W/O SIDDALINGASWAMI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT NO 6
MANJUNATH KRUPA
BASAVASAMITHI LAYOUT
VIDYARANYAPURA
BENGALURU 560097
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. NAGENDRA B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN
CC.NO.34068/2023 ON THE FILE OF HONBLE VII ACMM,
BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 504,506,354,323,427 R/W
34 OF IPC, ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.363/2023 OF VIDYARANYAPURA
P.S., 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. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
a) Quash the proceedings pending in
CC.No.34068/2023 on the file of Honble VII ACMM,
Bengaluru, for the offences p/u/s
504,506,354,323,427 r/w 34 of IPC, arising out of
Cr.No.363/2023 of Vidyaranyapura P.S., Bengaluru.
2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint pursuant to
which an FIR in Crime No.363/2023 came to be
registered by Vidyaranyapura Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 420,
427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
3. The allegations in the complaint are that respondent
No.2 had taken a house on lease from the petitioner,
who had assured her that the security deposit would
be refunded upon vacating the premises. It was
agreed that the maintenance charges, electricity and
water bills, repairs and painting expenses would be
borne by the complainant.
4. When respondent No.2 was in the process of
vacating the premises, the petitioner allegedly broke
open the existing lock and changed the lock. When
respondent No.2 sought refund of the security
deposit, the petitioner is alleged to have threatened
her and furnished an inflated statement of expenses
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
towards repairs and other charges with an intention
to deduct the same from the security deposit.
5. It is further alleged that the petitioners broke her
mobile phone and wristwatch and snatched the rental
agreement from her. On the basis of the aforesaid
allegations, respondent No.2 claimed that she had
been cheated and that an amount of approximately
₹40,000/- paid towards the security deposit had not
been refunded.
6. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners is that respondent No.2 had paid a
security deposit of ₹6,00,000/-, out of which an
amount of ₹5,62,000/- had already been transferred
back to her bank account. The balance amount of
₹38,000/- was retained towards painting charges
and damages caused to the leased premises.
7. Learned counsel submits that the dispute between
the parties is essentially one concerning the
adjustment and refund of the security deposit. The
petitioner had furnished a calculation of the expenses
incurred towards painting and repairs, after adjusting
which the balance amount was retained.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
8. It is, therefore, contended that the dispute is purely
civil in nature and that respondent No.2, if aggrieved
by the deductions made from the security deposit,
ought to have approached the competent civil Court
seeking recovery of the alleged balance amount.
Instead, a criminal complaint has been lodged by
giving a criminal colour to an essentially contractual
dispute.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 submits that the complaint is not confined
merely to the non-refund of the security deposit.
There are specific allegations of assault, criminal
intimidation and other acts committed by the
petitioners.
10. It is submitted that the petitioners had not merely
withheld the security deposit but had also threatened
respondent No.2, broken her mobile phone and
wristwatch and snatched the rental agreement. The
charge-sheet, which came to be filed on 14.12.2023,
is for the offences punishable under Sections 354,
323, 427, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the
IPC. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the
allegations require adjudication during trial and that
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
this Court ought not to interdict the proceedings at
this stage.
11. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and respondent No.2, as also the learned
HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the
papers.
12. A perusal of the complaint indicates that the genesis
of the dispute between the parties is the lease
transaction and the subsequent disagreement
regarding refund of the security deposit. The
complainant alleges that the petitioner had agreed to
refund the deposit upon her vacating the premises,
whereas the petitioner contends that substantial
expenses had been incurred towards painting,
repairs and damages to the property, which were
liable to be adjusted against the deposit.
13. The material placed on record indicates that the
security deposit was ₹6,00,000/-, out of which
₹5,62,000/- was transferred to the account of
respondent No.2, with the balance of ₹38,000/-
being retained towards the aforesaid expenses. The
petitioner has also produced a calculation statement
indicating the basis on which the deductions were
made.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
14. Thus, the principal dispute between the parties is
with regard to the amount which was liable to be
deducted from the security deposit and the balance
amount, if any, refundable to respondent No.2.
Whether the deductions made by the petitioner were
justified under the terms of the lease agreement is
essentially a matter of contractual interpretation and
would give rise to a claim for recovery, if any amount
is found to be due.
15. Merely because the parties have arrived at different
conclusions regarding the amount refundable under
the lease agreement would not, by itself, constitute
an offence of cheating. For attracting the offence of
cheating under Section 420 of the IPC, there must be
material indicating dishonest or fraudulent intention
at the inception of the transaction. A subsequent
disagreement regarding adjustment of the security
deposit or the refusal to refund an amount claimed
by the complainant would not automatically attract
the said provision.
16. Significantly, though Section 420 of the IPC was
invoked at the stage of registration of the FIR, the
said offence has not been retained in the charge-
sheet filed by the investigating agency.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
17. Insofar as the offences punishable under Sections
323, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC are concerned, a
perusal of the statements recorded during
investigation does not disclose the necessary
ingredients of the said offences.
18. For attracting Section 323 of the IPC, there must be
material indicating that the accused voluntarily
caused hurt to the complainant. The statements
recorded during investigation do not disclose any
specific act attributable to the petitioners resulting in
bodily pain or injury to respondent No.2.
19. Insofar as Section 354 of the IPC is concerned, the
essential requirement is that there must be an
assault or use of criminal force against a woman with
the intention of outraging her modesty or with the
requisite knowledge as contemplated under the said
provision. The allegations relating to the dispute over
the lease agreement, security deposit and the
alleged snatching of the agreement do not, in the
absence of any further material, disclose the
necessary intention or knowledge to attract the said
provision.
20. Similarly, for attracting Section 504 of the IPC, there
must be an intentional insult accompanied by the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
requisite intention or knowledge that such
provocation is likely to cause a breach of public
peace or commission of another offence.
21. Likewise, Section 506 of the IPC requires material
indicating that the accused threatened the
complainant with injury to person, reputation or
property, with the intention of causing alarm or
compelling the complainant to do or omit to do an
act which she was not legally bound to do or omit.
22. The statements recorded during investigation do not
disclose the specific words of insult or the nature of
the alleged threat, much less the requisite intention
or knowledge contemplated under the aforesaid
provisions. General allegations of having been
abused or threatened, without the necessary
particulars to constitute the offences, would not be
sufficient to sustain the prosecution under Sections
504 and 506 of the IPC.
23. Insofar as Section 427 of the IPC is concerned, the
complaint alleges that the mobile phone and
wristwatch of respondent No.2 were broken by the
petitioners. However, a perusal of the material
collected during investigation does not disclose
sufficient particulars or supporting material
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
establishing that the petitioners had intentionally
caused damage to the said articles with the requisite
intention or knowledge of causing wrongful loss or
damage. The mere recital of such an allegation in the
complaint, without supporting material in the
statements recorded during investigation, would not
be sufficient to sustain the charge under Section 427
of the IPC.
24. A perusal of the entire material on record, including
the statements recorded during investigation and the
calculation statement furnished by the petitioner
regarding the deductions made from the security
deposit, indicates that the dispute between the
parties is essentially one concerning the non-refund
of approximately ₹38,000/-.
25. The grievance of respondent No.2 appears to be that
the petitioner has furnished an inflated statement of
expenses and has unjustifiably retained the balance
security deposit. Such a grievance, in the facts of the
present case, would essentially give rise to a claim
for recovery of money under the lease arrangement.
26. This Court is conscious that a dispute arising out of a
civil or contractual transaction may, in an
appropriate case, also disclose the commission of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
criminal offences. The mere existence of a civil
remedy would not, by itself, be a ground for
quashing criminal proceedings. However, where the
allegations in the complaint and the material
collected during investigation do not disclose the
essential ingredients of the offences alleged,
continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be
justified merely because the parties are involved in a
contractual dispute.
27. In the present case, the material collected during
investigation does not substantiate the allegations of
assault, outraging the modesty of the complainant,
intentional insult or criminal intimidation. Nor does it
disclose sufficient material to establish the offence of
mischief punishable under Section 427 of the IPC.
28. The fact that the petitioner has retained a portion of
the security deposit towards the alleged expenses
incurred in respect of the leased premises, and that
respondent No.2 disputes the justification for such
deductions, cannot, in the absence of the necessary
criminal ingredients, be converted into a criminal
prosecution.
29. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the proceedings initiated
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
against the petitioners are an attempt to criminalise
what is essentially a dispute concerning the refund
and adjustment of the security deposit under the
lease agreement. The continuation of the
proceedings, in the absence of material disclosing the
commission of the offences alleged, would amount to
an abuse of the process of law.
30. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion
that the petitioners have made out a case for
exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to
quash the proceedings.
31. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the
following:
ORDER
i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.34068/2023 pending
on the file of VII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrarte, Bengaluru for the offences under
Sections 504, 506, 354, 323, 427 read with 34
of IPC arising out of Crime No.363/2023 of
Vidyaranyapura Police Station, Bengaluru are
quashed.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57158
CRL.P No. 2666 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010127672025
iii) Liberty is however reserved to respondent no.2
to initiate such proceedings for recovery as may
be advisable and permissible under law.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
PRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23