[Cites 18, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Vijayakumar Jain vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
CRL.P No. 201268 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201268 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. VIJAYAKUMAR JAIN S/O MITHALAL
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O SINDHANUR, TQ: SINDHANUR
DIST: RAICHUR
2. MITTALAL JAIN S/O SAMEETMAL
AGE: 76 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O SINDHANUR, TQ: SINDHANUR
DIST: RAICHUR
3. RAKESH JAIN S/O MITHALAL
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
Digitally signed by
RAMESH R/O SINDHANUR, TQ: SINDHANUR
MATHAPATI DIST: RAICHUR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 4. R K NAGARAJ S/O RANGAPPA
AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O SINDHANUR, TQ: SINDHANUR
DIST: RAICHUR
5. ANILKUMAR S/O SOHANLAL
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS
R/O SINDHANUR, TQ: SINDHANUR
DIST: RAICHUR
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B K HIREMATH., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
CRL.P No. 201268 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH
SINDHANUR TOWN POLICE STATION
THROUGH ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107
2. SHILLY MALLANNA
S/O SHILLY MALLIKARJUN
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE
R/O PATEL WADI, SINDHANUR
TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHBUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR KALLOOR ADV., FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C (OLD)
U/SEC.528 OF BNSS (NEW) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION
FILED BY THE PETITIONERS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED
COMPLAINT LODGED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED
31.05.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALSO QUASH THE FIR
NO.310/2025 IN CRIME NO.0094/2025 REGISTERED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-B FOR OFFENCE
U/SEC.417, 420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 34 IPC AND
OFFENCE U/SEC.36, 37, 39 OF KARNATAKA MONEY LENDERS
ACT PENDING ON THE FILE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND
JMFC SINDHANUR AND SINDHANUR TOWN POLICE,
SINDHANUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
CRL.P No. 201268 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section
528 of BNSS, 2023 seeking following relief:
"Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the petition
filed petitioners and quash the impugned complaint
lodged by respondent No.2 dated 31.05.2025 vide
annexure-A and also quash the FIR No.310/2025 in
Crime No.0094/2025 registered by respondent No.1
vide Annexure-B for the offence under Section 417,
420, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 34 of the IPC
and offence under Section 36, 37, 39 of the
Karnataka Money Lenders Act pending on the file of
Prl. Civil Judge (Junior Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Sindhanur
and Sindhanur town police Sindhanur in the interest
of justice and equity."
2. In the petition, the petitioners have sought
quashing of the proceedings on the following grounds:
(i). That respondent No. 2 executed an Agreement
of Sale Deed in respect of the suit property and received a
part consideration amount of Rs. 11,60,000/-, and a
balance consideration amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to be
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
HC-KAR
paid by petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 issued a legal
notice to respondent No. 2, and the same was replied to
by respondent No. 2, but he failed to execute a registered
sale deed. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 filed O.S. No.
103/2018 before the Sr. Civil Judge, Sindhanur.
Respondent No. 2 appeared and filed a written statement
on 06.04.2021. Knowing all these facts and circumstances,
thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the
petitioners on 31.05.2025, after 11 years and odd days.
The complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the
petitioners is nothing but harassment, torture, and assault
upon the petitioners. Therefore, the very complaint lodged
by respondent No. 2 is false, baseless, unfair, and unjust,
and the same deserves to be quashed by this Hon'ble
Court, and the petitioners be set free from the said FIR
No. 310/2025 vide Annexure-B and also the complaint
lodged by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure-A dated
31.05.2025.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
HC-KAR
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners
reiterated the grounds urged in the petition and, to
substantiate his argument, relied on the decision of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No.
3632/2024, GTL Infrastructure Limited vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another.
4. As against this, the learned counsel for
respondent No. 2 submitted that there are prima facie
materials to proceed against the accused and that there
are no grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against
the petitioners. Only on the ground of delay, the
proceedings cannot be quashed. To substantiate his
argument, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 140/2026, C.S. Prasad vs.
C. Satyakumar and others. The learned HCGP also
submitted the same and produced documents to show the
progress of the case and the stage of the investigation.
5. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court. On the basis of the complaint filed by M.M.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
HC-KAR
Shilly, the Sindhanur police have registered the case in
Crime No. 94/2025 against accused Nos. 1 to 4 for the
commission of offences under Sections 417, 420, 465,
467, 468, 469, 471, 474, and 34 of the IPC and Sections
36, 37, and 39 of the Karnataka Money Lenders Act, 1961.
6. The substance of the FIR is as under:
" ಾ ಾರರು ವ ೕಲ ವೃ ಾ ೊಂ ದು , ಆ ೋ ತರು
ಾ ಾರ ೆ ಪ ಚಯದವ ದು , ಆ ೋ ತರು ಾವ# ೆ ಅನುಮ
ಪ'ೆಯ ೆ (ಾಲ ಾರ ೆ (ಾಲ ೊಟು* ಅವ ಂದ ಒ ಪತ,, -ಾ,.ೕಸ
0ೋಟುಗಳನು3 ಬ ೆ56 ೊಳ78ವ ಬದಲು (ಾಲ ೆ9 ಆ6 ಾ ಾಟ ಾ9:
(ಾಲದ ಹಣ ಾ9: ಕ ಾರು ಪತ,ಗಳನು3 ಬ ೆ56 ೊಳ78ವದು, >ಾ? (ಾ*ಂಪ
-ೇಪ@ ಮತು >ಾ? AೆB ಗಳ CೕDೆ ಸE ಪ'ೆದು FೆGHನ ಬ I ೆ (ಾಲ
ೊಡುವದು ಾಡು ದು , ಸು ಾರು ವಷ ಗಳ Eಂ ೆ ಾ ಾರರು
ಆ ೋ 01 ತಂ ದ >ಾ? (ಾ*ಂಪ -ೇಪ@ ಗಳ CೕDೆ ಸE ಾ ೊL*ದು ,
ನಂತರ ಆ ೋ 01 ಈತನು ಾ ಾರರು >ಾDೆ (ಾ*Nಂಪ -ೇಪರಗಳ
CೕDೆ ಸE ಾ ದ ನು3 ದುರುಪOೕಗಪ 6 ೊಂಡು (ೇP ಅ:,CಂQ ನು3
ಸೃR*6, Sೕಸ ಾಡುವ ಉ ೆ ೕಶ ಂದ ಆ ೋ 01 ಈತನು
ಾ ಾರರ ಮ0ೆ ನಂ 1/3/153 0ೇದ ನು3 ಾ ಾಟ ಾ ದಂVೆ
ಕ ಾರು ಪತ,ವನು3 ಸೃR*6, ಸುಳ78, ದ(ಾ Wೇಜನು3 0ೈಜWೆಂಬಂVೆ ಾ ,
Sೕಸ ಾ ರುVಾ 0ೆ ಅಂVಾ ಇದ ಗಣ ೕಕೃತ ದೂ ನ (ಾ ಾಂಶದ
Cೕ?ಂದ [ಾ\ಾ ಗು0ೆ3 ನಂ: 94/2025, ಕಲಂ: 417, 420, 465, 467, 468,
469, 471, 474 ¸À»vÀ 34 L¦¹ & PÀ®A: 36, 37, 39 Karnataka
Money Lenders Act-1961 ಅ ಯ?] ಪ,ಕರಣ ಾಖ?6 ೊಂಡು ತ_>ೆ
ೈ ೊಂ ದು ಇರುತ ೆ."
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
HC-KAR
7. The main ground urged by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that respondent No. 2 executed an
agreement of sale deed in respect of the suit property and
received a part consideration amount of Rs. 11,60,000/-,
and a balance consideration amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is to
be paid by petitioner No. 1. Petitioner No. 1 issued a legal
notice to respondent No. 2, and the same was replied to
by respondent No. 2, but he failed to execute a registered
sale deed. Therefore, petitioner No. 1 filed O.S. No.
103/2018 before the Senior Civil Judge, Sindhanur.
Respondent No. 2 appeared and filed a written statement
on 06.04.2021. Knowing all these facts and circumstances,
respondent No. 2 filed a complaint against the petitioners
on 31.05.2025, after 11 years and odd days. The
complaint filed by respondent No. 2 against the petitioners
is nothing but harassment, torture, and assault upon the
petitioners, and the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2
is false, baseless, unfair, and unjust, and the same
deserves to be quashed.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
HC-KAR
8. To substantiate this, the petitioners have
produced a copy of the agreement dated 20.12.2013
executed by respondent No. 2, a copy of the plaint
pertaining to O.S. No. 103/2018, and the written
statement filed by respondent No. 2.
9. Before appreciation of the materials on record,
it is necessary to mention here the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 140/2026, C.S.
Prasad vs. C. Satyakumar and others, wherein in
paragraphs 26 to 31, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed
as under:
"26. In the impugned order, the High Court has
quashed the proceedings primarily on the ground that
the validity of the settlement deeds has been upheld in
the proceedings before the Civil Court. We are of the
view that this approach adopted by the High Court is
not correct. It is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that civil liability and criminal liability
may arise from the same set of facts and that the
pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings does not
bar prosecution where the ingredients of a criminal
offence are disclosed. In Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
HC-KAR
Reddy and Others, this Court had made it crystal clear
that "pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject
matter, involving the same parties is no justification to
quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case
exists against the accused persons."
27. Adjudication in civil matters and criminal
prosecution proceed on different principles. The decree
passed by the Civil Court neither records findings on
criminal intent nor on the existence of offences such as
forgery, cheating, or use of forged documents.
Therefore, civil adjudication cannot always be treated
as determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of
quashment Moreover, in the case at hand, the civil
proceedings have not attained finality
28. Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of
forged documents in relation to a settlement deed will
always carry a civil element Therefore, there cannot be
any general proposition that whenever dispute involves
a civil element, a criminal proceeding cannot go on
Criminal liability must be examined independently
Respondent Nos 1 to 3 were entitled to acquittal only
upon failure of proof in the trial and not at the
threshold jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr PC.
To permit quashing on the sole ground of a civil suit
would encourage unscrupulous litigants to defeat
criminal prosecution by instituting civil proceedings.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
HC-KAR
29. A further perusal of the impugned order would
show that the High Court has also attached significance
to the conduct of the appellant and the delay of almost
6 years on his part in initiation of criminal proceedings
without any plausible explanation The High Court had
noted that the appellant remained ex parte instead of
participating in the civil proceedings in O.S. No. 2190 of
2014 of which he was already a party Instead, the
appellant had preferred a private complaint suppressing
the fact that the settlement deeds are already a subject
matter of the said suit. The High Court had found this
conduct of the appellant to be in favour of respondent
Nos. 1 to 3 and had proceeded to quash the
proceedings against then. Before we express our
opinion on this, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant
observations of the High Court on this aspect:
8. ......In the said suit OS No 2190/2014,
the defacto complainant CS. Prasad was
arrayed as 2nd defendant. He had entered
appearance through a counsel, but had not
contested the suit neither he filed statement
or adduced evidence challenging the validity
of the registered documents. He remained
exparte. If really he had any material to
establish that he was cheated by his elder
brother by making false documents and
forgery, he should have participated in the
suit proceedings or atleast filed complaint
immediately. He had filed a complaint to the
Commissioner of Police only on 08.01 2020
and the same after enquiry was closed on 17
03 2020 as civil dispute When his complaint
was closed as dispute is civil in nature, the
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
HC-KAR
suit OS No. 2190 of 2014 was pending.
Hence, he had all opportunities to file
application to set aside the exparte order
passed against him on 08.06.2015 and
participate in the suit where the validity of the
3 settlements deeds were one of the issues
under consideration.
9. Instead of participating in the civil
private complaint filed on 12.10 2021 156(3)
of Cr.P.C., suppressing the fact deeds are
subject matter in the pending suit. In this
regard it can be safely presumed that the 2l
respondent herein had knowledge about the
settlement deeds if not earlier at least on the
date of receipt of suit summons in OS.No
2190 of 2014. Whereas no plausible
explanation placed by him in his complaint for
delav of 6 years in filing the complaint.
30. We are not impressed with the above findings
reached by the High Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure
Private Limited (supra), this Court had made it clear
that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of
the Cr. PC, the High Court cannot undertake a roving
inquiry into the disputed questions of fact or record
findings on the merits of the allegations. On perusal of
the above observations of the High Court, we find that
the High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an
inquiry with regard to the conduct of the appellant and
credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the
complaint and the FIR. Delay in filing a complaint, by
itself, is never a ground for quashing criminal
proceedings at the threshold. Whether the delay stands
satisfactorily explained or whether it impacts the
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
HC-KAR
credibility of the prosecution, is a matter of
appreciation of evidence before the Trial Court and not
for summary determination by the High Court under
Section 482 of the Cr.PC.
31. It is a settled proposition that when a factual
foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot
be short-circuited by invoking inherent jurisdiction
under Section 482 of the Cr.PC. Where allegations
require adjudication on evidence, the proper course is
to permit the trial to proceed in accordance with law. In
the present case, the issues relating to the state of
mind of the executants at the time of execution of the
settlement deeds, the role of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in
the execution and the use of the settlement deeds, the
existence of fraudulent intent, and the manner in which
proprietary advantage was obtained by them, all
require a full-fledged trial on evidence."
10. In the case on hand, the alleged sale
agreement is said to have been executed by respondent
No. 2 on 20.12.2013. The petitioner, Vijaykumar Jain, who
is petitioner No. 1, had filed a suit against respondent No.
2 in O.S. No. 103/2018 for specific performance of
contract. Respondent No. 2 had filed a written statement
on 06.04.2021, and thereafter, an amended written
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:2888
HC-KAR
statement was filed on 24.07.2022, in which he stated
that the defendant had signed on blank sheets of paper
and that he had no intention to sell the suit property to
any extent whatsoever. In view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, at this stage, the proceedings cannot
be quashed on the basis of delay in filing the complaint.
The investigation is not yet completed. At this stage, it is
not just and proper to quash the proceedings initiated
against the petitioners. I do not find any grounds to quash
the proceedings.
11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
TIN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
