MANJUNATHA. K. R. vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61689
CRL.P No. 1034 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010051422025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1034 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)
/ 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. MANJUNATHA. K. R.
S/O RAMESH K K,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
R/AT NO.55/15,
SRI MANJUNATHA NILAYA,
TH
6 MAIN ROAD,
BEHIND AMBIKA SCHOOL,
JAI MARUTHI NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU CITY-560096
2. SHOBHA B H
W/O RAMESH K K,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO.55/15,
SRI MANJUNATHA NILAYA,
TH
6 MAIN ROAD,
BEHIND AMBIKA SCHOOL,
JAI MARUTHI NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU CITY-560096
3. RAMESH K K
S/O KALLEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NO.62,
RD
23 MAIN ROAD,
ST
1 CROSS,
JAI MARUTHI NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU CITY-560096
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61689
CRL.P No. 1034 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010051422025
4. NANDAN GOWDA K R
S/O RAMESH K K,
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
R/AT NO.57,
H M NAYAK MAIN ROAD,
BEHIND AMBIKA SCHOOL,
JAI MARUTHI NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU CITY-560096.
5. GOWRAMMA
W/O R NAGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.100,
H M NAYAKA ROAD,
BEHIND AMBIKA SCHOOL,
JAI MARUTHI NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU CITY-560096
6. VIMALAMMA
W/O JAYARAM B K,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
ST
R/AT NO.16/3, 1 CROSS,
JAI MARUTHI NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU CITY-560096.
7. MALATHI H B
W/O SRIKANTACHARI H B,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
RD
R/AT NO.83, 3 CROSS,
H M NAYAKA ROAD,
JAI MARUTHI NAGAR,
NANDINI LAYOUT,
BENGALURU CITY-560096
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAKUMARAPPA T C.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61689
CRL.P No. 1034 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010051422025
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR BEEDI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SMT PREMA
W/O LATE D K MAHESH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO.2, 4 MAIN KAPILA NAGAR,
NEAR NANJUNDESHWARA TEMPLE,
LAGGERE, BENGALURU CITY-560058
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. RAMESHCHANDRA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.1-POLICE SUB INSPECTOR OF NANDINI LAYOUT P.S. AGAINST
ACCUSED NO.1 TO 7 IN CR.NO.164/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
506, 504, 149, 447, 323, 354 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
LEARNED XXXII A.C.M.M COURT BENGALURU BY ALLOWING THIS
CRL.P.
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. Quash the FIR filed by the respondent no.1-Police
Sub Inspector of Nandini Layout P.S. against
accused no.1 to 7 in Cr.No.164/2024 for the
offence p/u/s 506, 504, 149, 447, 323, 354 of IPC
pending on the file of the Learned XXXII A.C.M.M
Court Bengaluru by allowing this Crl.P .
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61689
CRL.P No. 1034 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010051422025
2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 15.05.2024,
on the basis of which the Nandini Layout Police
Station registered FIR in Crime No.164/2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 149, 447, 323,
354, 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The said crime is presently under investigation.
3. Sri.Shivakumarappa T.C., learned counsel for the
petitioners, makes the following submissions:
3.1. The dispute between the parties is essentially
civil in nature. In this regard, learned counsel
points out that petitioners Nos.1 and 3 have
instituted O.S. No.1808/2024 against
respondent No.2, which is pending
consideration.
3.2. Learned counsel further submits that the
petitioners had lodged a complaint on
14.05.2024, pursuant to which Nandini Layout
Police Station registered FIR in Crime
No.162/2024 for the offences punishable under
Sections 427, 506, 149, 447, 448 and 323 of
the Indian Penal Code. It is contended that the
complaint lodged by respondent No.2 is a
counterblast to the complaint lodged by the
petitioners.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61689
CRL.P No. 1034 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010051422025
4. On enquiry by the Court, it is submitted that Crime
No.162/2024 has not been challenged by the
accused therein. The investigation in that crime has
been completed and a charge sheet has been filed.
The case is now pending trial in C.C. No.25533/2025.
5. Learned counsel submits that the incidents forming
the subject matter of the two complaints are distinct.
It is pointed out that respondent No.2 alleges an
incident dated 14.05.2024 at about 9.30 a.m.,
whereas the complaint lodged by the petitioners
relates to an incident dated 11.05.2024.
6. The distinction in the dates of the alleged incidents is
required to be noticed. However, the material
circumstance is that the allegations arise out of the
dispute between the parties concerning the very
same property, in respect of which O.S.
No.1808/2024 is pending. The pendency of the civil
suit, by itself, does not render the allegations of
criminal conduct liable to be disregarded or the
criminal proceedings liable to be quashed.
7. The record, as placed before this Court, indicates
that both sides have made allegations against each
other alleging commission of criminal offences in
connection with the dispute concerning the property.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61689
CRL.P No. 1034 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010051422025
The complaint lodged by the petitioners has resulted
in registration of Crime No.162/2024, in which
investigation has been completed and a charge sheet
has been filed. The complaint lodged by respondent
No.2 has resulted in registration of Crime
No.164/2024, which is still under investigation.
8. The mere fact that the petitioners had lodged a
complaint earlier, or that the complaint of
respondent No.2 came to be lodged thereafter, would
not, by itself, establish that the latter complaint is a
counterblast or that the allegations therein are
inherently false. Equally, the pendency of the civil
suit does not, without more, warrant termination of
the criminal investigation.
9. The allegations made by the respective parties
concern incidents said to have occurred on different
dates, though arising out of the dispute relating to
the same property. The truth or otherwise of those
allegations, including the allegations of assault,
verbal abuse, intimidation and trespass, would
require investigation and cannot be conclusively
determined in these proceedings.
10. In the circumstances, this Court is of the considered
opinion that, having regard to the nature of the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61689
CRL.P No. 1034 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010051422025
allegations and the fact that the complaint lodged by
the petitioners has already been investigated, the
investigation in Crime No.164/2024 ought also to
proceed in accordance with law. There are no
sufficient grounds made out in the present petition to
quash the FIR at this stage.
11. In the above circumstances, this Court passes the
following:
ORDER
dismissed
i. The Criminal Petition is .
ii. It is directed that the same Investigating Officer
who investigated Crime No.162/2024 shall
investigate Crime No.164/2024, provided the said
officer is still posted at Nandini Layout Police
Station. If the officer is no longer posted at the
said Police Station, the competent authority shall
assign the investigation to an appropriate officer
in accordance with law. In the event of any other
person being appointed as investigating officer the
Petitioner shall not be entitled to claim any
violation, since it is on account of the petitioner
approaching this Court that the earlier
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61689
CRL.P No. 1034 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010051422025
investigating officer could not investigate both the
complaint and counter complaint.
iii. The Investigating Officer shall conduct the
investigation independently, objectively and in
accordance with law, without being influenced by
the observations made in this order, which are
confined to the consideration of the prayer for
quashing the FIR.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
12/11/2026, 14:27, Bengaluru
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
Verified
SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11