MR. SANDEEP PRAKASH, vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58081
CRL.P No. 876 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010035722025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 876 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SANDEEP PRAKASH,
S/O. SATHYA PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
(PRESENTLY WORKING AT GERMANY)
2. SMT. JAYASHREE PRAKASH,
W/O. SRI. SATHYA PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
3. SRI. SATHYA PRAKASH
S/O. LATE SRINIVASA MURTHY,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
ALL ARE PERMANENT RESIDENT OF NO. 81,
TH TH
'SAPTAGIRI', 4 MAIN, 6 CROSS,
AGSLAYOUT, NEAR NEW BEL ROAD,
BENGALURU-560054.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NAGENDRA DIKSHIT S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SADASHIVANAGARA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. MRS. MADHAVI M. SRINIVASAN,
D/O. SRINIVASAN,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
11/11/2026, 13:33, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58081
CRL.P No. 876 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010035722025
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
NO.82, 6TH CROSS, AG'S LAYOUT,
NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU 560054
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. THARANATH SHETTY.K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CC.NO.1056/2024, IN RELATION TO CRIME NO.126/2023, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 427, 447, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF
IPC OF RESPONDENT NO.1 SADASHIVANAGAR POLICE STATION,
NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CMM COURT, AT
BENGALURU.
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 entire proceedings in CC.No.1056/2024,
in relation to Crime No.126/2023, for the alleged
offences p/u/s 427, 447, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of
IPC of respondent no.1 Sadashivanagar Police
Station, now pending on the file of I Addl. CMM
court, at Bengaluru.
2. The petitioners and respondent No.2 are neighbours.
Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 07.06.2023,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
11/11/2026, 13:33, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58081
CRL.P No. 876 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010035722025
narrating the history of disputes between the parties
commencing from the year 2016. The complaint
refers to several incidents arising out of the strained
relationship between the parties and alleges that the
disputes eventually culminated in a further incident
in May/June 2023.
3. The complaint contains allegations of various acts of
interference and hostility between the neighbours. It
alleges, inter alia, that the petitioners deliberately
caused their dog to attack respondent No.2 and that
the petitioners subjected her to verbal and physical
assaults. Particular allegations are directed against
petitioner Nos.1 and 2, who are alleged to have
acted at the instance of petitioner No.3. These
allegations constitute the basis for the criminal
proceedings now sought to be quashed.
4. The first contention urged by learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the complaint refers to several
incidents spread over a considerable period of time,
commencing from the year 2016. It is contended
that the allegations relating to the earlier incidents
are barred by limitation under Section 468 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’),
since the offences alleged are punishable with
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
11/11/2026, 13:33, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58081
CRL.P No. 876 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010035722025
imprisonment not exceeding seven years. According
to learned counsel, the prosecution cannot be
permitted to revive stale allegations by incorporating
them into a subsequent complaint.
5. The second contention urged by learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the disputes between the
parties are essentially civil and arise out of their
relationship as neighbours. It is submitted that such
disputes ought not to be given a criminal colour.
6. The records, however, disclose that the petitioners
have themselves initiated proceedings against
respondent No.2 and her family members in relation
to substantially similar disputes. The petitioners
lodged complaints on 15.05.2023 and 24.05.2023,
alleging, among other things, invasion of privacy,
criminal trespass and destruction of private property.
Petitioner No.1 also forwarded a detailed complaint
by email on 24.05.2023, reiterating the allegations
concerning the incident dated 15.05.2023.
Allegations were also made against the police
personnel attached to Sadashivanagar Police Station,
including the concerned Police Constable and the
Inspector.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
11/11/2026, 13:33, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58081
CRL.P No. 876 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010035722025
7. The allegations made by the petitioners refer to
incidents commencing on 15.05.2023 and continuing
until 23.05.2023. On the basis of the said complaint,
Crime No.125/2023 came to be registered. After
investigation, a charge sheet was filed, resulting in
C.C. No.4710/2024, which is stated to be pending
trial.
8. The material placed before this Court indicates that
the parties have been involved in recurring disputes
over several years. Both sides have initiated criminal
proceedings against each other, attributing acts of
aggression, interference and unlawful conduct to the
opposite side. The dispute, which appears to have
originated as a disagreement between neighbours,
has progressively escalated into allegations attracting
criminal liability.
9. While neighbours are expected to maintain mutual
respect and conduct themselves with due regard for
each other's rights, the present proceedings disclose
a sustained deterioration in the relationship between
the parties. The Court is, however, not concerned at
this stage with determining which party is
responsible for such deterioration. The question is
whether the allegations and the material collected
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
11/11/2026, 13:33, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58081
CRL.P No. 876 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010035722025
during investigation disclose the commission of the
offences alleged against the petitioners.
10. Insofar as the contention based on limitation is
concerned, the mere reference to earlier incidents in
a complaint does not, by itself, render the
prosecution barred under Section 468 of the CrPC.
The relevant consideration is whether the
prosecution seeks to initiate proceedings in respect
of distinct offences committed beyond the prescribed
period of limitation or whether the earlier incidents
are merely referred to as the background and history
of the dispute culminating in the incident forming the
subject matter of the prosecution.
11. Section 468 of the CrPC prescribes the period of
limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences,
having regard to the punishment prescribed for the
offence concerned. The period of limitation cannot be
determined merely by reference to the earliest date
mentioned in the complaint. The date of commission
of the particular offence, the applicable period of
limitation and the date on which cognizance was
taken are relevant considerations.
12. In the present case, the complaint narrates the
earlier disputes between the parties as the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
11/11/2026, 13:33, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58081
CRL.P No. 876 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010035722025
background to the subsequent incident. The
prosecution is founded on the allegations concerning
the events which culminated in the registration of
Crime No.126/2023 and the filing of the charge
sheet. The earlier incidents, merely because they find
mention in the complaint, cannot independently be
treated as the offences forming the subject matter of
the present prosecution.
13. Consequently, the mere narration of the history of
disputes between the parties does not, by itself,
attract the bar under Section 468 of the CrPC so as
to warrant quashing of the entire proceedings. The
contention of the petitioners, in the manner in which
it is advanced, does not furnish a ground for
exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
14. The nature of the dispute and the fact that the
parties are neighbours do not, by themselves,
exclude the applicability of criminal law. A dispute
may have its origin in civil disagreements or personal
differences, but where the allegations and the
material collected during investigation prima facie
disclose the ingredients of a criminal offence, the
proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
11/11/2026, 13:33, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58081
CRL.P No. 876 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010035722025
ground that the parties are neighbours or that the
dispute has a civil background.
15. It is relevant to notice that the petitioners have also
initiated criminal proceedings against respondent
No.2 and her family members in relation to
substantially similar incidents. The said proceedings
have culminated in the filing of a charge sheet and
are pending trial. The existence of cross-complaints,
by itself, neither establishes the innocence of the
petitioners nor provides a ground to terminate the
prosecution initiated against them.
16. It is also relevant that this Court had considered the
possibility of resolving the dispute through
mediation. However, the mediation proceedings did
not result in a settlement between the parties. The
failure of mediation cannot be treated as a
circumstance establishing the guilt of either side.
Equally, it does not furnish a ground for quashing the
criminal proceedings where the statutory ingredients
of the alleged offences are otherwise disclosed.
17. On consideration of the complaint and the charge
sheet material, including the photographs placed on
record, this Court finds that the allegations prima
facie disclose the ingredients of the offences
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
11/11/2026, 13:33, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58081
CRL.P No. 876 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010035722025
punishable under Sections 427, 447, 504 and 506
read with Section 34 of the IPC. Whether the
petitioners have committed the acts alleged, whether
the requisite ingredients of the respective offences
are ultimately established and whether the
petitioners are criminally liable are matters which
require appreciation of evidence at trial.
18. The petitioners contend that the allegations made
against them are false and that the responsibility for
the disputes lies with respondent No.2. However, the
material on record, including the photographs relied
upon by respondent No.2, as well as the complaints
lodged by the petitioners and the subsequent email
communication of petitioner No.1, disclose that both
sides have made allegations concerning substantially
similar incidents, each attributing responsibility to
the other.
19. The material relied upon by the prosecution cannot
be ignored at this stage merely because the
petitioners dispute the allegations. Equally, the
complaints lodged by the petitioners cannot be
treated as conclusive proof of the allegations made
by them against respondent No.2. The rival versions
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
11/11/2026, 13:33, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58081
CRL.P No. 876 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010035722025
have to be tested against the evidence adduced
during trial.
20. At the stage of considering a petition for quashing,
this Court cannot undertake a detailed examination
of the rival versions, assess the credibility of the
witnesses or determine the correctness of the
allegations by weighing the material as though
conducting a trial. Where the complaint and the
charge sheet material disclose a prima facie case,
disputed questions of fact must ordinarily be left to
the jurisdiction of the trial Court.
21. In the circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the
allegations do not constitute the offences alleged or
that the continuation of the proceedings would
amount to an abuse of the process of law. The
question as to which party was responsible for the
incidents and whether the prosecution has
established the guilt of the petitioners must be
determined by the trial Court on the basis of the
evidence placed before it.
22. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no ground
to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash the
proceedings in C.C. No.1056/2024 arising out of
Crime No.126/2023.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
11/11/2026, 13:33, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:58081
CRL.P No. 876 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010035722025
23. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed .
24. It is made clear that the observations made herein
are confined to the consideration of the prayer for
quashing the proceedings. The trial Court shall
independently assess the evidence and decide the
case on its merits, uninfluenced by any of the
observations made in this order.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
11/11/2026, 13:33, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
KTY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7