Karnataka High Court

Sri. Ramesh. G vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2025

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                         -1-
                                                       NC: 2025:KHC:5815
                                                 CRL.P No. 13387 of 2023




                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                   DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

                                        BEFORE

                   THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                      CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13387 OF 2023


            BETWEEN:
            1.    SRI. RAMESH. G
                  S/O. G.T. GANGAHANUMAIAH,
                  AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
                  RESIDING AT NO. NA,
                  GANAKALLU VILLAGE,
                  TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
                  BENGALURU-562 130.

            2.    SMT. MANJULA. R
                  W/O. RAMESH. G,
                  RESIDING AT NO. NA,
                  GANAKALLU VILLAGE,
                  TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
Digitally         BENGALURU-562 130.
signed by
VANAMALA    3.
N                 SRI. RAMAIAH
Location:         S/O. GANGAIAH,
HIGH              AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
COURT OF          RESIDING AT NO. NA,
KARNATAKA
                  GANAKALLU VILLAGE,
                  TAVAREKERE HOBLI,
                  BENGALURU-562 130.
                                                          ...PETITIONERS

            (BY SRI.BRIJESH KALAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR P1 AND
                SRI.KULKARNI ABDUL RASHEED
            SIKANDER SAB, ADVOCATE FOR P2 AND P3)
                               -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:5815
                                        CRL.P No. 13387 of 2023




AND:
1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY KENGERI POLICE STATION,
     BENGALURU-560 060,

     REPRESENTED BY
     STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
     HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
     BANGALORE-560 001.

2.   SRI. GANGAIAH. G
     S/O. LATE GANGANARASIHMAIAH,
     AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT NO.1255/A,
     5TH MAIN, BHARATH NAGARA,
     BYDARAHALLI,
     BENGALURU-560 091.
                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.THEJESH.P. HCGP FOR R1
    SRI.NISCHAY.S.P. FOR R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE
FOR R2)

       THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING THAT
THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1
TO 3 IN KENGERI POLICE STATION CR.NO.411/2023 FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.120-B,417,419,420,465,468,471,34
OF   IPC   ON   THE   FILE   OF   THE   LEARNED    46TH   ACMM
BENGALURU.

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

CORAM:     HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
                                           -3-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:5815
                                                    CRL.P No. 13387 of 2023




                                  ORAL ORDER

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following relief:

"The Petitioners most respectfully pray that, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the First Information Report registered against the petitioners-Accused Nos. 1 to 3 in Kengeri Police Station Crime No.411/2023 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 120B, 417,419,420,465,468,471,34 of Indian Penal Code, on the file of the learned 46th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in the interest of justice equity."

2. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that

on 31.08.2023, the respondent No.2/Complainant filed the instant

complaint registered as FIR in Crime No.411/2023 inter alia

alleging that land bearing Sy. No.3/1 measuring 1 acre 3 guntas,

Ganakallu Village, belonged to the respondent No.2 and that the

petitioners created documents viz., sale deeds/gift deed dated

21.10.2006, 19.12.2007 and 02.02.2008 by impersonation and

fraud and as such necessary action has to be taken as against the

petitioners. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, the

respondent No.1 has initiated the present proceedings which are

assailed in the present petition.

NC: 2025:KHC:5815

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and

learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Complainant and perused

the material on record.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would reiterate

the various contentions urged in the petition and invited my

attention to the impugned complaint in order to point out that apart

from the fact that the respondent No.2 has put forth a claim over

the immovable property in relation to a dispute which is essentially

predominantly and overwhelmingly of a civil nature, the same

cannot be given a criminal colour/flavour which is impermissible in

law as held by the Apex Court in the case of 'NARESH KUMAR

AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER' -

2024 INSC 196.

5. It is pointed out that in the complaint, the respondent

No.2 having made allegations against the petitioners for offence in

relation to the documents of the years 2006 to 2008, has not

explained the delay in approaching the Police authorities and on

this ground also the impugned proceedings deserves to be

NC: 2025:KHC:5815

quashed as held by the Apex Court in the case of

'CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL' - AIR 2023

SC 2710. It is therefore submitted that the impugned proceedings

deserves to be quashed.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

No.2/Complainant submits that there is no merit in the petition and

the same is liable to be dismissed.

7. In Chanchalpati Das case supra, the Apex Court has

held as under:

"11. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the concerned Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata would not have taken any action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the powerful body like the ISKCON Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30.09.2006 written by the Branch Manager of the ISKCON, Kolkata. The respondent no. 2-complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the Court was filed in the year 2009. In the

NC: 2025:KHC:5815

opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by the ISKCON, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court."

8. Similarly, in the case of 'HASMUKHLAL D VORA

AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU' reported in [2022]

12 SCC 164 in paragraphs 22 to 24 has held as under:

"22. There has been a gap of more than four years between the initial investigation and the filing of the complaint, and even after lapse of substantial amount of time, no evidence has been provided to sustain the claims in the complaint. As held by this Court in Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar [Bijoy Singh v. State of Bihar, (2002) 9 SCC 147 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1093] , inordinate delay, if not reasonably explained, can be fatal to the case of the prosecution. The relevant extract from the judgment is extracted below : (SCC p. 153, para 7)

"7. ... Delay wherever found is required to be explained by the prosecution. If the delay is reasonably explained, no adverse inference can be drawn but failure to explain the delay would require the Court to minutely examine the prosecution version

NC: 2025:KHC:5815

for ensuring itself as to whether any innocent person has been implicated in the crime or not. Insisting upon the accused to seek an explanation of the delay is not the requirement of law. It is always for the prosecution to explain such a delay and if reasonable, plausible and sufficient explanation is tendered, no adverse inference can be drawn against it."

23. In the present case, the respondent has provided no explanation for the extraordinary delay of more than four years between the initial site inspection, the show-cause notice, and the complaint. In fact, the absence of such an explanation only prompts the Court to infer some sinister motive behind initiating the criminal proceedings.

24. While inordinate delay in itself may not be ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, in such cases, unexplained inordinate delay of such length must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor as grounds for quashing a criminal complaint."

9. As held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgments,

in the absence of any explanation in the complaint as to the long,

unexplained and inordinate delay and laches of more than fifteen

years in approaching the Police authorities, I am of the considered

opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings qua the

petitioners deserve to be quashed especially when the dispute

between the parties as alleged in the impugned complaint arises in

NC: 2025:KHC:5815

relation to the immovable property which is claimed by both the

respondent No.2 and the petitioners thereby indicating that the

dispute is essentially of civil nature/character which is sought to be

given a criminal colour which is impermissible in law and

consequently the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

In the result, the following:

ORDER

[a] The petition is allowed.

[b] The impugned proceedings in Crime No.411/2023 on

the file of the 46th Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed.

[c] Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent No.2 to

take recourse to such remedies as available and in

accordance with law, subject to all just exceptions and

defences available to the petitioners.