K.C. VENKATACHALAPATHI vs SMT. SUSHEELAMMA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59292
CRL.P No. 7865 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010449872019




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7865 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1. K.C. VENKATACHALAPATHI
S/O. K.V.CHENNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT ATTIGIRI KOPPA VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.

2. NARAYANAPPA
S/O PILLAPPA,
AGE MAJOR,
R/AT ATTIGIRI KOPPA VILLAGE,
BANGARPET TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 114.


…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. DANAPPA PRADHANAPPA PANIBHATE.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O K.SRIRAMULU,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT GANDHINAGAR,
BANGARPET – 563 114.

2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SUB-INSPECTOR
OF POLICE BANGARPET











Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59292
CRL.P No. 7865 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010449872019


REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R2.,ADVOCATE)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT BANGAPRET, KOLAR
IN PCR.NO.125/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420 AND 464
OF IPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
and learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.2/State.
Though the complainant represented through counsel, he is
absent.
2. Present petition is filed praying this Court to quash
the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein in PCR
No.125/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 420
and 464 of IPC pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and
JMFC, Bangarpet, Kolar.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59292
CRL.P No. 7865 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010449872019


3. The counsel appearing for the petitioners would
vehemently contend that the very initiation of proceedings
against petitioners in PCR No. 125 of 2019 for the offence
punishable under Sections 420 and 464 of IPC is an abusive of
process. The counsel brought to notice of this Court the
contents of the complaint in PCR No. 125 of 2019, wherein at
paragraph No.7 the complainant has stated that she gave the
written complaint on 28.02.2019 to the Bangarapet Police
Station, Bangarpet, against accused Nos. 1 to 3 for cheating
and forging the complainant's signature and fabricating bogus
agreement of sale dated 26.05.2007. But nothing is stated in
the complaint that they have approached the higher authorities
in compliance of Section 154(3) of Cr.PC except stating that
only filed the complaint. Hence, the very initiation of the
proceedings is not in accordance with law.
4. The counsel would vehemently contend that in lieu
of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA
SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 has
categorically held that if no compliance under Section 154(3) of

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59292
CRL.P No. 7865 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010449872019


Cr.PC is made, there cannot be any criminal prosecution. Apart
from that counsel also brought to notice of this Court that
based on the said sale agreement petitioners herein had filed a
suit in OS No. 166 of 2007 and the said suit was decreed.
Questioning the same, complainant has filed appeal in
R.A.No.130/2010, which is also came to be dismissed. Being
aggrieved by the same, respondent No.1 has also filed appeal
before this Court in RSA No. 1835 of 2012 and the same was
also dismissed by judgment dated 04.01.2013. The counsel
would contend that even having unsuccessful in all the
proceedings, the present complaint in PCR No.125/2019 was
filed making false allegation against the petitioners and hence it
is a clear case of abuse of process, requires interference.
5. Learned HCGP appearing to the respondent
No.2/State would submit that only Section 156(3) of Cr.PC was
invoked in referring the matter to the investigation and in
support of the complaint an affidavit is filed. The trial Court
while referring the matter under Section 156(3) perused the
complaint and relevant documents along with the witness list
and affidavit and prima facie shows that there is an offence and

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59292
CRL.P No. 7865 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010449872019


referred the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC and with
regard to invoking of offence Sections 420 and 464 matter
requires investigation.
6. Having heard the counsel appearing for the
petitioners and also the learned HCGP appearing for the State
and having considered the factual aspects of the case, PCR was
filed and the same is numbered as PCR No.125 of 2019 and in
the complaint at paragraph No.7 as rightly pointed out by the
counsel appearing to the petitioners that there was no
averment in the complaint that there is compliance under
Section 154(3) of Cr.PC as held by the Apex Court in Priyanka
Srivatsava' s case. Apart from that though trial Court made a
reference of considering the complaint and relevant documents,
the witness list and affidavits ordered the matter under Section
156(3) but Court has to take note of the fact that based on the
sale agreement, which is alleged that the same was created but
already there was a judgment and decree for a specific
performance and decree was passed in OS No. 166 of 2007 and
the said Judgment of Decree was passed on 03.08.2010 itself.
The same was challenged before the Appellate Court in RA

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59292
CRL.P No. 7865 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010449872019


No.130 of 2010 and the same was also confirmed by Judgment
dated 20.09.2011 and this Court also confirmed the Judgment
of Trial Court and Appellate Court in R. S. A. No.1835/2012 by
judgment dated 04.01.2013.
7. In spite of complainant unsuccessful before the Civil
Court, but after lapse of six years having suffered the judgment
and decree by all the courts, the present complaint is filed
making an allegation of creation of agreement. Hence, it is
nothing but an abuse of process. If the Court fails to exercise
the power, which leads to miscarriage of justice and this type of
frivolous litigations should not be encouraged by this Court. It
is the duty of the Court also to see that if any abuse of process
by the complainant, Court has to protect the individual rights as
enshrined under the Constitution and liberty of a person also to
be protected and hence it is a fit case of classic example of
misuse of the powers by the complainant by filing a false
complaint after lapse of six years and having unsuccessful in all
the suit, appeal and also the second appeal.
8. In view of the discussion made hereinabove, I pass
the following;

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59292
CRL.P No. 7865 of 2019


CNR: KAHC010449872019


Order
Petition is allowed and proceedings initiated against the
petitioner is hereby quashed.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE




RU
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28