SRI T RIPUNJAYA REDDY vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58750
CRL.P No. 391 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010707392024
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. 391 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI T RIPUNJAYA REDDY
S/O T VENKATA RAGHAVA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
2. SMT T GAYATHRI
W/O T RIPUNJAYA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 204
SILVER OAK GARDEN APARTMENT
NO. 21 VITTAL MALLYA ROAD
OPP U B CITY, BANGALORE 560001
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. TRIVIKRAM S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KENGERI P S
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE 560001
2. V BHASKAR REDDY
S/O BALAVENKATA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. C-86
SUNSIDDHI GALAXY
RACHENAHALLI, BENGALURU 560077
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED)
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58750
CRL.P No. 391 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010707392024
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR AND
COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.460/2024 REGISTERED BY THE KENGERI P.S.,
TH
PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE 4 ACMM COURT, BENGALURU,
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 34, 406, 420 AND 417 OF IPC, QUA THE
PETITIONERS FOUND AT ANNEXURE A AND B 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:
a. Allow the petition and quash the FIR and Complaint in
Cr.No.460/2024 registered by the Kengeri P.S.,
th
pending on the file of Honble 4 ACMM court,
Bengaluru, for the offences p/u/s 34, 406, 420 and
417 of IPC, qua the petitioners found at Annexure A
and B; and
b. Grant such other relief/s to the petitioner as this
Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the
case in the ends of justice.
2. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint on 17.09.2024,
pursuant to which the Kengeri Police Station
registered FIR in Crime No. 460/2024 for offences
punishable under Sections 34, 406, 420 and 417 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
3. The allegations in the complaint are that respondent
No. 2, through the partnership firms M/s Wellington,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58750
CRL.P No. 391 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010707392024
M/s Shubhum, M/s Sangamitra, M/s Houston, M/s
Mytri Residency and M/s M.S. Precedence, had
entered into an agreement with Prasannaiah and
Laxmin Pramod Kumar for the purchase of land
measuring 2,07,200 square feet situated at Kengeri,
comprising Sy. Nos. 115/7A, 115/7B, 115/7C,
115/7D, 115/7E, 115/7F and 115/6 of Kengeri Hobli.
Under the arrangement, the vendors had agreed to
obtain the requisite approval from the Bangalore
Development Authority (BDA) and form sites in the
said land before transferring the same.
4. It is alleged that, towards the agreed consideration
of ₹20,57,05,045/-, a sum of ₹3,50,00,000/- had
been paid by respondent No. 2 and the aforesaid
firms. However, Prasannaiah and Laxmin Pramod
Kumar allegedly delayed the transaction and failed to
convey the property as agreed. Subsequently, they
are stated to have represented that, upon payment
of a further sum of ₹1,00,00,000/-, certain plots
would be transferred in favour of the firms. One such
plot was identified as Site No. 4. It is further alleged
that the said site was not transferred in favour of the
firms and that respondent No. 2 subsequently learnt
that the petitioner No.1, who is stated to be one of
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58750
CRL.P No. 391 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010707392024
the partners, had caused a sale deed in respect of
Site No. 4 to be executed in favour of his wife, who is
petitioner No. 2. On these allegations, respondent
No. 2 has alleged that the petitioners, along with
Prasannaiah and Laxmin Pramod Kumar, committed
the offences referred to above.
5. It is in this background, the petitioner was called
upon to place on record the sale deed executed in
favour of petitioner No. 2 in respect of Site No. 4.
6. Today, a copy of the sale deed dated 19.05.2006 has
been placed on record. The document pertains to the
aforesaid property and is stated to have been
registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Basavanagudi, Bengaluru, in Book No. 1 as
Document No.BSG-1-00949-2006-07, and stored in
CB No.BSGD75 dated 25.05.2006.
7. Sri Trivikram S., learned counsel for the petitioners,
submits that:
7.1. The transaction between the firms and
Prasannaiah and Laxmin Pramod Kumar
pertains to land situated in Sy. No. 115,
Kengeri, and dates back to the year 2006.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58750
CRL.P No. 391 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010707392024
Though the complaint alleges that Site No. 4
was to be transferred in favour of the firms
through Bhavani Housing Property Society
Limited, no specific date on which such an
obligation arose or was required to be
performed has been stated in the complaint.
7.2. Learned counsel further submits that the sale
deed in respect of Site No. 4 was executed in
favour of petitioner No. 2, the wife of petitioner
No. 1, as far back as 19.05.2006. The
complaint lodged on 17.09.2024 is, therefore,
misconceived. According to learned counsel, a
dispute arising out of a commercial or property
transaction has been given a criminal colour.
7.3. If respondent No. 2 or the firms had any
grievance regarding non-performance of the
agreement, the appropriate remedy was to
institute civil proceedings, including a suit for
specific performance, if maintainable in law.
Instead, a criminal complaint has been lodged
nearly eighteen years after the transaction.
7.4. In that background, he submits that none of
the ingredients of the criminal offences has
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58750
CRL.P No. 391 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010707392024
been made out, the petition is required ot be
allowed and the criminal proceedings quashed.
8. Notice having been issued to respondent No.2.
Though served, respondent No.2 has chosen to
remain unrepresented.
9. Heard Sri.Trivikram.S., learned counsel for the
petitioners, and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No. 1.
Perused papers.
10. The material placed on record indicates that the
transaction in question pertains to the year 2006.
The complaint refers to an agreement for the
purchase of lands comprised in Sy.No.115 for an
agreed consideration of ₹20,57,05,045/-. A sum of
₹3,50,00,000/- is stated to have been paid on
06.07.2006. The sale deed now produced, however,
is dated 19.05.2006 and pertains to Site No. 4, which
is alleged to have subsequently been promised to be
transferred in favour of the firms.
11. The complaint further refers to a subsequent
arrangement under which five acres of land were to
be transferred for a sum of ₹7,00,00,000/- and the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58750
CRL.P No. 391 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010707392024
balance amount of ₹13,57,05,045/- was to be
returned. It is also alleged that, upon payment of a
further sum of ₹1,00,00,000/-, Site No. 4 in Bhavani
Housing Property Society Limited would be
transferred in favour of the firms. The complaint,
however, does not clearly set out the dates of these
subsequent arrangements or explain how they relate
to the sale deed executed on 19.05.2006.
12. The chronology emerging from the complaint and the
material placed on record requires consideration.
While the complaint refers to an initial payment of
₹3,50,00,000/- on 06.07.2006, the sale deed in
respect of Site No. 4 is dated 19.05.2006, a date
preceding the said payment. The complaint does not
clearly explain the circumstances in which the sale
deed came to be executed in favour of petitioner No.
2, or how that transaction constituted dishonest
inducement of respondent No.2 or the firms at the
inception of the alleged arrangement.
13. The allegations, therefore, have to be examined with
reference to the essential ingredients of the offences
alleged. Mere non-performance of an agreement
relating to immovable property, or a subsequent
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58750
CRL.P No. 391 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010707392024
dispute regarding the transfer of the property, would
not, by itself, constitute criminal breach of trust or
cheating. The complaint must disclose the requisite
dishonest intention and the other ingredients of the
offences alleged. On the facts stated and the
material available, the allegations do not prima facie
disclose the commission of offences punishable under
Sections 406, 417 or 420 of the IPC. The dispute,
insofar as it concerns the performance of the
agreement, payment of consideration and transfer of
the property, appears to be essentially civil in nature.
Respondent No. 2 and the concerned firms would be
at liberty to pursue such civil remedies as may be
available to them in law, subject to all objections,
including limitation. The mere availability of a civil
remedy, however, would not by itself exclude
criminal liability if the ingredients of a criminal
offence were otherwise made out.
14. In that view of the matter, none of the offences as
alleged have been made out, this Court passes the
following;
ORDER
allowed
i. Criminal petition is .
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58750
CRL.P No. 391 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010707392024
ii. The FIR and Complaint in Cr.No.460/2024
registered by the Kengeri P.S., pending on the
th
file of Honble 4 ACMM court, Bengaluru at
Annexure A and B, is quashed.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
28/10/2026, 12:04, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5