SMT SUMALATHA S vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1907 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SUMALATHA S
W/O LATE SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. SRI. LOKESH S
S/O LATE SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
3. SRI. PAVAN KUMAR S
S/O LATE SRINIVASA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 137
SULIBELE ROAD,
NEAR NEW BUS STAND,
DEVANAHALLI TOWN -562 110
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANNARAYAPATNA POLICE STATION,
CHANNARAYAPATNA
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
PIN CODE 562 135
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI. M NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE K MUNIAJJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NAGANAYAKANAHALLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BNAGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
PIN CODE: 562 135
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHEHA P, HCGP FOR R1,
R2 - NOTICE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.13/2022
ST
REGISTERED BY THE I RESPONDENT OF CHENNARAYAPATNA
P.S., AS PER ANNEXURE L ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLIANT
LODGED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE PU/S.420,468,471,109 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(p) OF
SC/ST (POA) 2015 AMENDMENT ACT AS PER ANNEXURE M AND
ST
CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE I RESPONDENT IN
SPL.C.NO.12/2024 AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/US/.420,468,471,109 OF IPC AND
U/S.3(1)(p) OF SC/ST (POA) 2015 AMENDED ACT AS PER
ANNEXURE Q PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL
DISTRICT AT BENGLAURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking
to quash proceedings against the petitioners - accused Nos.1 to
3 in Spl.C.No.12/2024 (arising out of Crime No.13/2022
registered by Chennarayapatana Police Station), for the
offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 109 of IPC
and Section 3(1)(p) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SC/ST Act'),
presently pending on the file of II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short,
'the learned Special Judge').
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent
No.2 lodged the complaint before respondent No.1-Police on
19.02.2022 alleging that prior to 13 years from the date of
lodging the complaint, he was suffering from kidney problem
and therefore, he was in need of money. As such, he and his
father borrowed a sum of Rs.6 to 7 lakhs from Srinivasa i.e.,
husband of petitioner No.1-Sumalatha. At the time of lending
the amount, Srinivasa allegedly obtained their signatures on
blank papers and blank cheques as security. Subsequently,
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
Srinivasa initiated proceedings in O.S. No.260/2018 before the
Court of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli and after
his death, petitioners allegedly misused the said documents
and obtained an order for recovery of Rs.48,00,000/-.
3. The respondent No.2 further alleged that, out of the
compensation received for acquisition of the lands belonging to
his parents by Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board
(KIADB), they paid Rs.48,00,000/- to petitioner No.1. Despite
the said payment, petitioner No.1, through one Rajappa,
initiated further proceedings in respect of their land. During the
subsequent panchayat, the petitioners allegedly demanded
additional money pursuant to the intervention of the village
elders, the respondent No.2 paid Rs.5,50,000/- through RTGS
to accused No.1. However, the petitioners failed to return the
signed blank papers and cheques as agreed.
4. It is further alleged that the respondent No.2 and
his family members had purchased 1 acre and 30 guntas of
land at Polanahalli Village from H. Anjinappa on 11.01.2021 for
Rs.35,00,000/-. Petitioners by allegedly misusing the previously
obtained signed blank papers, fabricated a sale deed dated
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
12.10.2018, falsely showing that respondent No.2 and his
parents had sold the said land in favour of petitioner No.1. The
respondent No.2 contended that the signatures appearing on
the said document were forged.
5. The respondent No.2 also alleged that petitioners
abused him by referring to his caste and threatened him with
dire consequences, including assault and murder, when he
questioned their acts. Hence, alleging cheating, forgery,
criminal intimidation, caste-based abuse and unlawful attempts
to grab his property, the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint
against the petitioners.
6. On the strength of the said complaint, the
respondent No.1-police registered the FIR against the
petitioners in Crime No.13/2022 for the aforementioned
offences. Subsequently, the said police investigated the case
and laid charge sheet against the petitioners for the
aforementioned offences by arraying petitioners as accused
Nos.1 to 3. Accordingly, learned Special Judge took cognizance
of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners
preferred this petition.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State. Despite service of
notice, the respondent No. 2 remained unrepresented.
8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the entire dispute between the
petitioners and respondent No.2 is in respect of specific
performance of contract in connection with the execution of the
sale agreement by respondent No.2 and his family members in
favour of the petitioner No.1 in connection with the property
bearing Sy.No.47 New No.108 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas
situated at Polanahalli Village. According to him, respondent
No.2 and his family members after executing the sale
agreement and after receiving the advance sale consideration
of Rs.15,00,000/- avoided to execute the sale agreement. As
such, the petitioner No.1 lodged a complaint before the Deputy
Superintendent of Police (DYSP), Bengaluru Rural District on
07.09.2021 against respondent No.2 and after an enquiry the
police have issued an endorsement on 14.09.2021 stating that
since the dispute essentially civil in nature both the parties
shall workout the remedy before the Civil Court. Thereafter, in
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
the year 2022 i.e., on 19.02.2022 the present complaint came
to be lodged against the petitioners by respondent No.2 without
there being any date, time or the manner in which the offences
have been committed. According to him, respondent No.1-
Police on the behest of respondent No.2 mechanically laid a
charge sheet against the petitioners by stating that the
petitioner No.1 has executed as sale deed instead of sale
agreement. Thus he contended that even if the entire
allegations in the FIR and charge sheet are taken on its face
value, still no offence has been made out against the
petitioners for which they have been charge sheeted.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
9. Per contra , learned HCGP opposed the prayer of the
petitioners on ground that now that charge sheet has been
submitted by respondent No.1-police against the petitioners
and the statement of materials witnesses i.e., CWs.2 to 6
categorically stated about the transaction and cheating, forgery
committed by the petitioners to the respondent No.2 in
connection with the forged sale agreement. As such, the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
statements of those witnesses have to be tested in a detail
trial. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
10. I have given my anxious consideration both on the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and perusal of the entire charge sheet averments.
11. As could be gathered from records, on 12.10.2018
agreement of sale was executed between the petitioners and
respondent No.2 and his family members in respect of property
bearing Sy.No.47 New No.108 measuring 1 Acre 30 guntas
situated at Polanahalli Village, wherein respondent No.2 and his
family members are owners of the said property and the
petitioners were agreed to purchase the said property for a
valuable sale consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. In the said
agreement it is mentioned that, the petitioners have paid
Rs.15,00,000/- by ways of two cheques and cash. Further,
those cheques were encashed by respondent No.2. Thereafter,
it is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.2 failed to
execute the sale deed. Thereby, they caused a legal notice to
respondent No.2 for performance of the contract and also
instituted the suit in O.S.No.1342/2023 before the Senior Civil
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli for specific performance of the
contract. Additionally, on 07.09.2021 petitioner No.1 also
lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Doddaballapura, Bengaluru Rural District against respondent
No.2 and his family members that they threatened the
petitioners in connection with the agreement of sale that they
would file a complaint against the petitioners under the
provisions of SC/ST Act. However, based on the said complaint,
the DYSP conducted an enquiry and thereafter, issued an
endorsement. Later, on 19.02.2022 the present complaint
came to be filed by respondent No.2.
12. On careful scrutiny of the complaint filed by
respondent No.2, it is specifically admitted in the complaint that
in respect of the execution of the sale agreement. However, it
is stated that on 12.10.2018, the forged sale deed was
executed by the petitioners in connection with their property.
Admittedly, in the entire charge sheet, no such sale deed was
forthcoming. On instruction, the learned HCGP also submitted
that no such sale deed was executed between the parties
except the sale agreement dated 12.10.2018. Admittedly, there
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
is civil dispute pending between the parties which was
instituted by the petitioners against the respondent No.2 and
his family members for specific performance of contract.
Nowhere in the complaint, specific date of the incident, time or
place of the incident stated in respect of the alleged abuse
made by the petitioners by mentioning the caste of respondent
No.2. Except some bald and omnibus allegations in the
complaint and the statement of all the witnesses, absolutely no
such prima facie allegations are forthcoming against the
petitioners for the offence under the provisions of SC/ST Act
nor IPC, since admittedly the dispute between the parties is
purely civil in nature. It is submitted by the learned counsel for
the petitioners that respondent No.2 have filed their written
statement in the civil suit.
13. In such circumstances, it could be gathered that
this complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 against the
petitioners by wreaking vengeance in order to give a criminal
colour to the civil dispute.
14. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of BIKKU BHAI GOVINDA BHAI VS. STATE OF
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
GUJARAT in SLP (Crl) No.15537/2023 dated 22.05.2026,
held in paragraph Nos.52 to 54 as under:
"52. The present case, viewed in its peculiar
facts and circumstances, constitutes all the
characteristics of a civil property dispute, which is
sought to be converted into criminal proceedings,
after several years of civil litigation. We are of the
opinion that the criminal process cannot be
permitted to become a weapon of harassment and
coercion in disputes concerning title over
immovable property.
53. We are conscious of the principles laid
down by this Court in the recent decision of
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra (supra) that courts should ordinarily
refrain from interfering at the threshold stage of
investigation. However, the said judgment itself
recognises that where the allegations do not
disclose the commission of cognizable offences or
where criminal proceedings manifestly amount to
abuse of process, the High Court is duty-bound to
exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482
of the Cr.P.C.
54. The present case falls squarely within the
well-settled categories warranting interference
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C as Page 28
delineated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,12
namely, where the dispute is predominantly civil in
nature, where the allegations fail to disclose the
essential ingredients of the alleged offences, where
the criminal proceedings are manifestly attended
with mala fide intention, where there is
extraordinary and unexplained delay, and where
continuation of the prosecution would amount to
abuse of process of court."
15. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
MOHAMMED ALI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UP - 2023 (15)
SCC 488 in paragraph No.11 to 14 held as under:
"11. The entire case put up by the first informant on
the face of it appears to be concocted and
fabricated. At this stage, we may refer to the
parameters laid down by this Court for quashing of
an FIR in the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal,
AIR 1992 SC 604. The parameters are:-
“(1) Where the allegations made in the
first information report or the complaint,
even if they are taken at their face value
and accepted in their entirety do not
prima facie constitute any offence or make
out a case against the accused.
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
(2) Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the
purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations
made in the FIR or complaint and the
evidence collected in support of the same
do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do
not constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR
or complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused. (6)
Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, providing efficacious
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is
manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private
and personal grudge.” We are of the view
that the case of the present appellants
falls within the parameters Nos. 1, 5 and 7
resply of Bhajan Lal (supra).
12. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes
before the Court invoking either the inherent powers
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article
226 of the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that
such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or
vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstances the
Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and
a little more closely. We say so because once the
complainant decides to proceed against the accused
with an ulterior motive for wreaking personal
vengeance, etc., then he would ensure that the
FIR/complaint is very well drafted with all the
necessary pleadings. The complainant would ensure
that the averments made in the FIR/complaint are
such that they disclose the necessary ingredients to
constitute the alleged offence. Therefore, it will not
be just enough for the Court to look into the
averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the
purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary
ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are
disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into
many other attending circumstances emerging from
the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and
circumspection try to read in between the lines.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 of the
Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage
of a case but is empowered to take into account the
overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation.
Take for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs
have been registered over a period of time. It is in
the background of such circumstances the
registration of multiple FIRs assumes importance,
thereby attracting the issue of wreaking vengeance
out of private or personal grudge as alleged.
13. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga
Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of
this Court elaborated on the types of materials the
High Court can assess to quash an FIR. The Court
drew a fine distinction between consideration of
materials that were tendered as evidence and
appreciation of such evidence. Only such material
that manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the
FIR can be considered for quashing an FIR. The
Court held:-
“5. …Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
attempt is made to abuse that authority
so as to produce injustice, the court has
power to prevent such abuse. It would be
an abuse of the process of the court to
allow any action which would result in
injustice and prevent promotion of
justice. In exercise of the powers court
would be justified to quash any
proceeding if it finds that initiation or
continuance of it amounts to abuse of the
process of court or quashing of these
proceedings would otherwise serve the
ends of justice. When no offence is
disclosed by the complaint, the court may
examine the question of fact. When a
complaint is sought to be quashed, it is
permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged
and whether any offence is made out
even if the allegations are accepted in
toto.
6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR
1960 SC 866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this
Court summarised some categories of
cases where inherent power can and
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
should be exercised to quash the
proceedings : (AIR p. 869, para 6)
(i) where it manifestly appears
that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance
e.g. want of sanction;
(ii) where the allegations in the
first information report or
complaint taken at its face value
and accepted in their entirety do
not constitute the offence
alleged;
(iii) where the allegations
constitute an offence, but there is
no legal evidence adduced or the
evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the
charge.
7. In dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction
between a case where there is no legal
evidence or where there is evidence
which is clearly inconsistent with the
accusations made, and a case where
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
there is legal evidence which, on
appreciation, may or may not support the
accusations. When exercising jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Code, the High
Court would not ordinarily embark upon
an enquiry whether the evidence in
question is reliable or not or whether on a
reasonable appreciation of it accusation
would not be sustained. That is the
function of the trial Judge. Judicial
process, no doubt should not be an
instrument of oppression, or, needless
harassment. Court should be circumspect
and judicious in exercising discretion and
should take all relevant facts and
circumstances into consideration before
issuing process, lest it would be an
instrument in the hands of a private
complainant to unleash vendetta to
harass any person needlessly. At the
same time the section is not an
instrument handed over to an accused to
short-circuit a prosecution and bring
about its sudden death…..” (Emphasis
supplied)
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
14. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed. The impugned order passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad is hereby set aside.
The criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 127 of
2022 dated 04.06.2022 registered at Police Station
Mirzapur, Saharanpur, State of U.P. are hereby
quashed."
16. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. reported in 2023 SCC
OnLine SC 951 , held that whenever an accused comes before
the Court invoking either the inherent powers under Section
482 of Cr.P.C or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
constitution to get the FIR or criminal proceedings quashed
essentially on the ground that such proceedings are manifestly
frivolous or vexatious or instituted with the ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance, then in such circumstance, Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It
will not be just enough for the Court to look into the averments
made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining
whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged
offence are disclosed or not. On the other hand, the Court owes
a duty to look into many other attending circumstance
- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
emerging from the record of the case over and above the
averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection
try to read in between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C or Article 226 of
Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage of a case,
but is empowered to take into a count the overall
circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case
as well as the materials collected in the course of investigation.
17. Collocating the above findings of the Hon'ble Apex
Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the
considered view that even if the entire allegations of the
complaint and charge sheet are taken on its face value, no such
prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the
offences they have been charge sheeted and the complaint has
been filed by the respondent No.2 out of vengeance in order to
give a criminal colour to the civil dispute. In such
circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings against
petitioners would amounts to abuse of process of Court.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following;
- 22 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61896
CRL.P No. 1907 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010116182024
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed .
ii. The proceedings against the petitioners -
accused Nos.1 to 3 in Spl.C.No.12/2024
(arising out of Crime No.13/2022 registered
by Chennarayapatana Police Station), for
the offences punishable under Sections 420,
468, 471, 109 of IPC and Section 3(1)(p) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
presently pending on the file of II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru
Rural District, Bengaluru, is hereby
quashed.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
CR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6