Karnataka High Court
Criminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

Following settlement, continuation of the property-dispute prosecution would be an abuse of process.

USHARANI C vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 10, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Following settlement, continuation of the property-dispute prosecution would be an abuse of process.. USHARANI C vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners and other accused conspired to create documents and transfer lands in Malliyappanahalli that she claimed belonged to her and her husband.

Source reference: pp. 5–7

The allegations concerned, among other things, a declaration purportedly relinquishing her claim, subsequent changes to revenue records, and a sale deed in favour of accused No. 3.

Source reference: pp. 5–7

Following investigation on a private complaint referred under Section 156(3) CrPC, a charge sheet was filed for offences under Sections 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC, and the Magistrate took cognizance and issued process.

Source reference: p. 7

Respondent No. 2 had also brought a civil suit challenging the sale deed; the petitioners submitted that the dispute had been settled and that respondent No. 2 had executed a confirmation deed affirming the sale deed.

Source reference: pp. 7–8

Respondent No. 2 did not dispute the settlement.

Source reference: pp. 7–8
02

Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioners should be quashed in light of the parties’ settlement and respondent No. 2’s confirmation of the sale deed.

Source reference: pp. 7–8

2. Whether continuing the prosecution after that settlement would be futile or an abuse of the process of the Court.

Source reference: p. 8
03

Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC (Section 528 BNSS) to seek quashing of criminal proceedings.

Source reference: p. 3

The Court applied that jurisdiction to the circumstances before it, finding that where the parties had settled the dispute and continuation of the prosecution would be futile and an abuse of process, the proceedings could be quashed.

Source reference: p. 8
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that respondent No. 2 accepted the petitioners’ account of the settlement and the confirmation deed, and that proceedings against accused Nos. 3 and 6 in the same case had previously been quashed.

Source reference: p. 8

In light of the settlement, it concluded that continuing the prosecution against the petitioners would serve no purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court.

Source reference: p. 8
05

Holding

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution in C.C. No. 48/2024 against the petitioners—accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9—for offences under Sections 417, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.
06

Acts & Sections Cited

11 provisions across 3 statutes referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 19732

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231

Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

USHARANI CvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · September 10, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment