DR. RADHA NAYAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59157
CRL.P No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010061762025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1212 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)

/ 528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

1. DR. RADHA NAYAR
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
D/O SREEDHARAN NAIR

2. RAHUL RAJAN
S/O RAJAN,
AGE 32 YEARS,

3. NOOR SABEENA JHNOVEKAR
D/O LATE SHRI ABDUL MUNAF SAHIB,
AGE 61 YEARS,

4. KARTHIK B L
S/O LOKESH,
AGE 32 YEARS,

ALL ARE DIRECTORS,
M/S LAND MARG BUSINESS VENTURES PVT LTD,
WITH ITS OFFICE AT NO. 472,
80 FEET MAIN ROAD,
INIDRA NAGAR MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE-560038.

…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHAHNAWAZ M. MAMADAPUR., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VEMAGAL POLICE STATION,
KOLAR DISTRICT – 563











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59157
CRL.P No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010061762025


REP BY SPP,
BANGALORE-560001.

2. GANGADHAR R NAIDU
S/O RAVEENRA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 119,
AKSHAYA RED STONE,
SIGEHALLI, BENGALURU CITY,
KARNATAKA - 560049.

…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SMT. JYOTHI S.K. REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528
BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 13.12.2024 IN
CRIME NO.264/2024 BEFORE THE COURT OF THE HONBLE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC KOLAR AT KOLAR (ANNEXURE A)
AND ETC.

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:
i. Quash the FIR dated 13.12.2024 in Crime
No.264/2024 before the court of the Honble
Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Kolar at Kolar
(Annexure A);

ii. Grant such other or further relief/s as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the
case.

Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59157
CRL.P No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010061762025



2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 13.12.2024,
on the basis of which FIR in Crime No.264/2024
came to be registered by the Vemagal Police Station
for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420
of the IPC. The allegation in the complaint is that the
petitioners had agreed to sell the property bearing
Katha No.328/3, old Sy. No.49/1, new Sy. No.49/7,
measuring 22 guntas, equivalent to 22,010 square
feet. Pursuant to the said agreement, an agreement
of sale was executed on 16.05.2024, fixing the sale
consideration at ₹3,30,00,000/-, out of which a sum
of ₹1,30,00,000/- is stated to have been paid.

3. It is alleged that, despite respondent No.2
approaching the petitioners and requesting them to
execute the sale deed, the petitioners failed to do so
and thereby cheated respondent No.2. On the basis
of the said allegations, respondent No.2 sought
action against the petitioners. Aggrieved by the
registration of the FIR, the petitioners are before this
Court.

4. The submission of Sri Shahnawaz M. Mamadapur,
learned counsel for the petitioners, is that the
dispute between the parties is essentially civil in
nature. He submits that the petitioners had instituted
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59157
CRL.P No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010061762025


a suit in O.S. No.690/2024 alleging that the
respondents had attempted to trespass into the
property. He further submits that, after lodging the
criminal complaint, respondent No.2 instituted O.S.
No.352/2025 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge
and CJM, Kolar, seeking specific performance of the
alleged agreement of sale dated 08.09.2024.
Learned counsel contends that the institution of a
suit for specific performance in respect of the very
same transaction demonstrates that the dispute is
civil in nature and that continuation of the criminal
proceedings would amount to an abuse of the
process of law.

5. Though notice has been served on respondent No.2
and respondent No.2 has entered appearance
through counsel, the said counsel has not been
appearing in the matter. By order dated 25.09.2026,
this Court had observed that, in the event counsel for
respondent No.2 failed to appear on the next date of
hearing, the matter would be taken up for
consideration on the basis of the submissions made
by learned counsel for the petitioners. In that view of
the matter, the petition is taken up for consideration
today.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59157
CRL.P No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010061762025



6. Heard Sri Shahnawaz M. Mamadapur, learned
counsel for the petitioners. None appears for
respondent No.2. Perused the records.

7. The complaint, on its face, discloses that the dispute
between the parties arises out of an agreement of
sale in respect of the property in question. The
agreed sale consideration is stated to be
₹3,30,00,000/-, out of which ₹1,30,00,000/- is
alleged to have been paid. The grievance of
respondent No.2 is that, despite payment of the said
amount and repeated requests, the petitioners have
not executed the sale deed.

8. It is relevant to note that respondent No.2 has also
instituted O.S. No.352/2025 seeking specific
performance of the alleged agreement of sale. Thus,
the very grievance forming the basis of the criminal
complaint, namely, the failure of the petitioners to
execute the sale deed pursuant to the agreement, is
the subject matter of the civil suit.

9. The mere existence of a civil dispute would not, by
itself, preclude the initiation of criminal proceedings
where the allegations disclose the ingredients of a
criminal offence. However, in the present case, the
allegations in the complaint, read as a whole,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59157
CRL.P No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010061762025


indicate that the dispute arises out of the alleged
breach of an agreement of sale and the failure to
execute the sale deed. The complaint does not
disclose any distinct criminal act, apart from the
alleged failure to perform the contractual obligation,
which would prima facie constitute the offences
alleged.

10. In the circumstances, continuation of the criminal
proceedings, when the very same dispute is being
pursued by respondent No.2 through a suit for
specific performance, would serve no useful purpose
and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

11. It is made clear that the observations made herein
are confined to the consideration of the present
petition and shall not influence the adjudication of
the civil suit in O.S. No.352/2025 or O.S.
No.690/2024. All contentions of the parties in the
said civil proceedings are left open to be considered
in accordance with law.

12. As such, this Court passes the following:
ORDER
allowed
i) Criminal petition is .
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59157
CRL.P No. 1212 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010061762025



ii) FIR dated 13.12.2024 in Crime No.264/2024
pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Kolar vide Annexure-A is quashed.

iii) Pending application, if any, stands disposed.


Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE

PRS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15