SRI VIJAI KRISHNA RAJAGOPAL vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57015
WP No. 1734 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010038822023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 09 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
WRIT PETITION No.1734 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI VIJAI KRISHNA RAJAGOPAL
S/O S. RAJAGOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
NO.498, ULLAL CROSS ROAD,
ULLAL UPANAGAR,
JNANAJYOTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 056
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
THIRUMALASHETTYHALLY, KORALUR
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560 067
2. RAVI KUMAR S
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
S/O LATE SHYAMANNA ,
VAGATA VILLAGE,
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSKATE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R1;
Digitally signed
by R
MANJUNATHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SRI SHASHIKUMAR.R, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57015
WP No. 1734 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010038822023
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
FIR REGISTERED BY THE R1 POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER
IN CRIME NO.73/2022 DATED 24.05.2022 AT ANNEXURE-D TO
THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri Abhinav Ramanand A, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondent No.1 and Sri Shashikumar R., learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
2. Petitioner is the accused in Crime No.73/2022 dated
24.05.2022 registered by Thirumalashettahalli Police,
Bengaluru District, for the offences punishable under Sections
406, 417, 418, 420, 468 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code,
based on the written complaint lodged by respondent No.2.
3. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that
respondent No.2 possessed an immovable property bearing
Sy.No.120/06 to the extent of 33 guntas which is an
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57015
WP No. 1734 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010038822023
agricultural land. The said property belonging to grand- father
of respondent No.2 viz., Munikalappa, who died on 08.05.1992
and there is no transfer of revenue entries.
4. Few brokers by name P.Munegowda, V.A.Byategowda,
V.R.Ravikumar introduced the petitioner herein to Sri Vijaya
Krishna Rajagopal who was the Managing Trustee of
Vidyanikethan Educational Trust, for the purpose of sale of the
said land. Land measuring 33 guntas was agreed to be sold in
a sum of Rs.64 lakhs.
5. In the guise of registering the agreement of sale, sale
deed itself got registered by paying Rs.14,85,000/- as against
the agreed sale consideration of Rs.64,00,000/-. Therefore,
sought for action, as respondent No.2 has been defrauded by
petitioner herein.
6. Registration of the First Information Report is called in
question by the petitioner on the following grounds:
The registration of the impugned FIR against the
Petitioner is unsustainable, unjust and wholly
contrary and illegal in the eyes of law. The impugned
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57015
WP No. 1734 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010038822023
FIR is not maintainable either in law or on facts and
the same is required to be quashed.
st
The 1 Respondent Police committed a serious error
in failing to notice that there is no case made out
against the Petitioner and that a reading of the
complaint does not even prima facie disclose any
specific allegation against the Petitioner herein, let
alone, any of the offences mentioned in the impugned
FIR.
st
The 1 Respondent Police erred in failing to note that
nd
the entire allegation of the 2 Respondent-
Complainant is that there were middlemen who were
involved in the sale transaction and that the said
nd
middlemen have failed to pay the 2 Respondent-
nd
Complainant as agreed between the 2 Respondent
and the said Accused Nos.2 to 4 in the FIR.
Admittedly, the Petitioner or the Trust which the
Petitioner represents has made full and final
payments of the entire sale consideration as agreed
in the Sale Deed dated 30.06.2020 and the said
payments are forthcoming along with the details of
the mode of payment in the aforesaid Sale Deed
itself. The receipt of the said amounts towards sale
consideration has also been duly acknowledged by all
nd
the Vendors including the 2 Respondent-
Complainant who have executed the Sale Deed in
favour of the Petitioner. This aspect has been clearly
st
ignored by the 1 Respondent Police and therefore,
the impugned FIR being registered against the
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57015
WP No. 1734 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010038822023
Petitioner herein is completely unsustainable in the
eyes of law and the same is liable to be quashed
nd
Throughout the complaint, the 2 Respondent-
Complainant has only mentioned about the DD
bearing No.000895 dated 29.06.2020 of
Rs.14,85,000/- and the receipt of the same.
nd
However, the 2 Respondent has deliberately, with
an ulterior motive to gain wrongfully from this
Petitioner, suppressed the receipt of Rs.24,75,000/-
vide DD No.000896 dated 29.06.2020. The very
reference of the particulars of payments in the Sale
Deed would have clearly brought out the fact that the
nd
2 Respondent has received the aforesaid amount of
Rs.24,75,000/- in addition to Rs.14,85,000/-
admitted by him. This blatant suppression which
could have been immediately noticed upon receipt of
st
the complaint has not been considered by the 1
Respondent Police at the time of registering the FIR
in pursuance of the complaint dated 24.05.2022
nd
issued by the 2 Respondent-Complainant. The act of
st
the 1 Respondent Police in ignoring the aspects
which are forthcoming in the Absolute Sale Deed
itself and the act of mechanically registering the FIR
without any prima facie case being made out against
the Petitioner is illegal and wholly unjust and
therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to set aside.
st
The 1 Respondent Police has failed to notice that the
Absolute Sale Deed is registered on 27.07.2020 and
the complaint has been lodged on 24.05.2022. There
are absolutely no reasons forthcoming for the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57015
WP No. 1734 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010038822023
inordinate and excessive delay of years in lodging the
two complaint in question and consequently, the
impugned FIR. The said delay clearly establishes and
indicates that the impugned FIR is nothing but an
attempt to make wrongful gain at the hands of the
Petitioner and therefore, the impugned FIR is liable to
quashed.
st
The 1 Respondent Police has failed to notice that the
nd
2 Respondent-Complainant has admitted that the
Petitioner has paid the sum of Rs.63,75,000/-.
nd
However, it is the case of the 2 Respondent-
Complainant that some of the middlemen, i.e.,
nd
Accused Nos.2 to 4 have cheated the 2 Respondent-
Complainant in payment of the agreed entire sale
consideration. This aspect clearly establishes that the
nd
2 Respondent-Complainant has no grievance
against the Petitioner and that the Petitioner could
not have been made as Accused No.1 on the basis of
the contents of the complaint dated 24.05.2022.
Therefore, the criminal law could not have been set in
motion against the Petitioner which is a a serious
st
action and the 1 Respondent erred in registering the
impugned FIR and the same is liable to be quashed
In view of the fact that there is no case made out
against the petitioner and there is an inordinate delay
of two years in lodging the complaint and there is
material suppression of facts in the complaint, the
very registration of the impugned FIR against the
Petitioner suffers from several vices and is liable to
quashed.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57015
WP No. 1734 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010038822023
Even otherwise, the impugned FIR suffers from
several factual and legal infirmities. The impugned
FIR is highly capricious and not sustainable in Law.”
7. Sri. Abhinav Ramanand A., learned counsel for the petitioner
reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would contend that the
entire agreed sale consideration was paid by the petitioner herein in
the form of demand drafts.
8. In that regard, he has filed memo with a bank statement
whereby the number of pay orders, amount, name of the payee as
well as the date of realization is placed on record. Copy of the same
is also furnished to the second respondent.
9. As per the said document, following are the pay orders,
amount, name of the payee and the date of realization:
Payorder Issued to Payorder Amount Date of
Number (Payee) issued on Payorder
Realisation
000895 S Ravikumar 29.06.2020 14,85,000/- 08-07-2020
000896 S Ravikumar 29.06.2020 24,75,000/- 09-07-2020
000897 Munigowda P 29.06.2020 23,51,250/- 04-07-2020
10. Sri. Abinav Ramanand would thus contend that the complaint
averments would run contrary to the factual aspects and at the most,
if the allegations of the complainant that in the guise of getting the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57015
WP No. 1734 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010038822023
agreement to sell registered, a sale deed came to be registered, the
remedy for the complainant- Second Respondent lies before the Civil
Court. Therefore, continuation of the criminal complaint is per se
amount to abuse of process of law and thus sought for allowing the
writ petition and quash the criminal complaint.
11. Per contra, Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned Additional Government
Advocate would contend that prima facie materials are found in the
written complaint and therefore police were required to register the
case and they have registered the criminal complaint and are
investigating the matter and to find out the truth in the allegations of
the complaint averments, investigation is necessary.
12. Sri. R. Sashikumar, learned counsel for representing the
second respondent, adopting the arguments put forth on behalf of
the learned Additional Government Advocate would further contend
that even as per the statement, there is no mention as to who are
the recipients of the demand draft taken out by the petitioner herein
inasmuch as only payee's name is found in the document that has
been placed on record and no such amounts have been received by
the second respondent and thus sought for dismissal of the writ
petition.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57015
WP No. 1734 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010038822023
13. Sri. R. Shashikumar would further contend that the payment
made to Sri. Munigowda P., to the extent of Rs.23,51,250/- is not
authorized by the second respondent and second respondent is not
aware as to who is Munigowda P., and at any rate payment made to
Munigowda P., is not towards the sale consideration and thus sought
for dismissal of the writ petition.
14. In reply, Sri Abhinav Ramanand would submit that
Munigowda is earlier agreement holder and at the instructions
of second respondent money was paid to Munigowda.
15. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused
the material on record meticulously.
On such meticulous consideration of the material on record,
16.
the agreement with regard to the sale of the property was admittedly
entered into by the second respondent with the petitioner herein
through the mediators named in the complaint itself as referred to
supra.
17. Sale consideration was also agreed upon in a sum of
64,00,000/- as could be seen from the complaint averments. The
amount paid by way of a demand draft is detailed out in the
document issued by the Bank of India which is the Bank of the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57015
WP No. 1734 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010038822023
petitioner herein wherein the name of the payee details of the pay
order number, date of the pay order and amount and date of
realization are mentioned.
18. If at all the contention of the second respondent is to be
accepted that the payment made to Munigowda P., is not the
payment of the respondent No.2, the remedy for the petitioner is to
file a civil suit for unpaid sale consideration. Moreover, according to
petitioner there is an endorsement in the document itself that said
payment to Munigowda is to clear due of Munigowda who is the
earlier agreement holder.
19. Likewise, if the respondent No.2 is of the opinion that in the
guise of getting the agreement to sell registered, sale deed came to
be registered, he may take necessary recourse to the civil
proceedings to redress his grievances, if any.
20. No criminality as such is found on record in the statement
placed on record by the petitioner. In other words, the civil dispute,
if any, is sought to be given a colour of criminality which is
impermissible as per the settled principles of law.
21. Accordingly, a case is made out by the petitioner to quash the
pending criminal complaint.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57015
WP No. 1734 of 2023
CNR: KAHC010038822023
22. Hence, following:
ORDER
allowed
(i) Petition is .
(ii) Consequently, First Information Report in
Cr.No.73/2022 of Thirumalashettihalli Police
Station is hereby quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made by
this Court during the course of order shall not
affect the civil rights of the parties.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
Kcm: paragraphs 1 to 5
MR: paragraphs 6 to till end
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72
CT:VRR