[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Capt.(Retd) V.R.Srinivas vs State Of Karnataka on 7 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18987
CRL.P No. 924 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 924 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. CAPT.(RETD) V.R.SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O LATE BNR CHANDRA,
RESIDING AT NO.823, 5TH CROSS,
9TH MAIN, KALYANNAGAR,
1ST BLOCK, HBBR LAYOUT,
BENGALURU-560043.
2. SMT. KALAVATHI @ KALAVATHI CHANDRA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
W/O LATE BNR CHANDRA,
RESIDING AT NO.5C-823, 5TH CROSS,
9TH MAIN, KALYANNAGAR,
1ST BLOCK, HBBR,
BENGALURU-560043.
Digitally
signed by 3. SRI. YEDUKUMAR
HEMALATHA
J AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
Location: S/O LATE BNR CHANDRA,
HIGH COURT EMPLOYED IN USA,
OF HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT
KARNATAKA NO.5C-823, 5TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN,
KALYANNAGAR, 1ST BLOCK, HRBR,
BENGALURU-560043
4. SMT. LAKSHMI GORUR N
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
W/O SRI. YEDUKUMAR,
RESIDING IN USA ALONGWITH
HER HUSBAND THE 3RD RESPONDENT,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18987
CRL.P No. 924 of 2019
HC-KAR
HAVING PERMANENT ADDRESS AT
NO.5C-823, 5TH CROSS,
9TH MAIN, KALYANNAGAR,
1ST BLOCK, HBBR,
BENGALURU-560043.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. N. PADMAVATHI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION,
BANASWADI, BENGALURU CITY-560043.
2. SMT. PADMAJA S.,
W/O CAPT. (RETD.) SRINIVAS,
D/O LATE P. SAI PRASAD,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.495,
9TH CROSS, RAJMAHAL VILAS EXTENSION,
BENGALURU-560080.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
MOHAMMED ASHHAR C.K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN C.C.NO.54896/2018, ON THE
FILE OF THE XI A.C.M.M., AT MAYO HALL, BANGALORE CITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18987
CRL.P No. 924 of 2019
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have challenged the prosecution launched
against them by the respondent No.1 in C.C.No.54896/2018 on
the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mayohall, Bengaluru City (henceforth referred to as 'Trial
Court') for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 420
read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. On 18.10.2016, the respondent No.2 informed the
respondent No.1 that she was given in marriage to the
petitioner No.1/accused No.1 on 11.10.2000. She claimed that
due to matrimonial disputes, the accused No.1 had thrown her
and her children out of the matrimonial home. She claimed that
she was residing along with her parents in Sadashivanagar,
Bengaluru. She also claimed that accused No.1 had filed
M.C.No.665/2012 before the VI Additional Family Court,
Bengaluru, where an application was filed for claiming
maintenance, which culminated in an order passed in
W.P.No.20615/2015, in terms of which, the accused No.1 was
directed to pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- interim maintenance. She
claimed that on 11.08.2014, M.C.No.665/2012 was posted for
conciliation in the chambers of the Family Judge in Bengaluru.
NC: 2026:KHC:18987
HC-KAR
The accused No.1 refused any settlement. Thereafter, she
made enquiries in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Ulsoor and
came to know that the accused No.1 along with his mother had
executed a release deed in favour of his brother/accused No.3
in respect of a property bearing No.5C/823 at Block - I, HRBR,
Bengaluru, measuring 60' x 80' which purportedly was the
property of her father-in-law. She claimed that it was the
intention of her father-in-law to give the said property to her
and her children. She claimed that the accused had all colluded
and in conspiracy, with a common intention to cheat her and
her children had transferred the property to Mr. V.R.
Yedukumar, who is presently residing in the United States of
America. She claimed that the release deed was executed to
defraud her and her children and she had challenged the same
in O.S.No.6937/2014, where an interim order is passed by the
City Civil Judge, Bengaluru. She therefore, informed the
respondent No.1 that the accused had committed an act of
cheating by transferring the property to Mr. V.R. Yedukumar.
3. Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered a
case in Crime No.538/2016 for the offences punishable under
Sections 418 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and took up
NC: 2026:KHC:18987
HC-KAR
investigation and later after recording the statement of the
relevant witnesses, filed a charge sheet alleging offences under
Sections 418 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Trial
Court took cognizance and then issued process.
4. The petitioners being aggrieved by the charge sheet
filed as well as the order taking cognizance and issuing process,
are before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that M.C.No.665/2012 filed by the petitioner No.1 was
dismissed and thereafter, MFA No.5769/2017 was filed, which
was allowed by this Court and the marriage of the petitioner
No.1/accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 was dissolved.
She also submits that the accused No.1 has paid a sum of
Rs.1,60,00,000/- towards alimony and expenses of the
children. She also submits that the accused No.1 had an
undivided share in the suit property and that he had released
his share in respect of the suit property in favour of the
accused No.3. She submits that there is no criminality involved
in the act of the accused No.1 executing a release deed in
favour of the accused No.3. Besides this, she contends that the
NC: 2026:KHC:18987
HC-KAR
respondent No.2 and her children have already filed
O.S.No.6937/2014 challenging the release deed executed in
favour of the accused No.3. She therefore, submits that the
allegations made against the accused do not constitute an
offence under Section 418 or 420 of IPC. She therefore, prays
that the criminal prosecution launched against the
petitioners/accused is a clear abuse of the process of law and
hence, the same is liable to be set at nought.
6. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent No.2 submitted that mere pendency of a civil suit
would not come in the way of the respondent No.2 initiating
criminal action against the petitioners/accused for fraudulently
executing a release deed. He contends that the Hon'ble Apex
Court in P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana [(2008) 5
SCC 765] and Mohinder Pal Singh vs. Rima Gulshan
[(2022) 4 High Court cases (Del) 623] has considered that
mere pendency of a civil suit would not come in the way of
initiating criminal action for offences committed. He therefore,
submits that in the instant case too, the filing of the suit by
respondent No.2 and the children for setting at nought a
release deed executed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 would not
NC: 2026:KHC:18987
HC-KAR
come in the way of prosecuting the petitioners/accused for
fraudulently bringing about release deed thereby depriving the
interest of respondent No.2 and their children in the property of
grandfather of the children of respondent No.2. He therefore,
contends that there is no need to interfere with the charge
sheet filed as well as the order taking cognizance and issuing
process.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader
reiterated the submissions of the learned Senior counsel for
respondent No.2.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior
counsel for the respondent No.2 as well as the learned High
Court Government Pleader.
9. The relationship between the parties is not in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that the marriage of the
petitioner No.1/accused No.1 with the respondent No.2 is
dissolved in terms of judgment dated 22.10.2024 passed by
this Court in MFA No.5769/2017. It is also not in dispute that
the accused No.1 has paid some amount of permanent alimony
NC: 2026:KHC:18987
HC-KAR
and also some amount towards the expenses of the children.
The property in question was the property of the father of the
accused No.1. It is not in dispute that the father of the accused
No.1 has expired leaving behind him the petitioner Nos.1 to
3/accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, the respondent No.2 and her
children cannot have any grievance over the petitioner
No.1/accused No.1 releasing his interest in the property in
favour of the petitioner No.3/accused No.3. This does not
amount to an offence punishable under Section 418 or 420 of
IPC as none of the ingredients of the offence under Section 418
or 420 of IPC are made out. There is neither entrustment of the
properties by the respondent No.2 to the petitioners/accused
nor is there any representation made by the
petitioners/accused to the respondent No.2, there is no
inducement and there is no exchange of any consideration
between the petitioners/accused and the respondent No.2.
There is also no promise made by the petitioners/accused to
the respondent No.2. In that circumstance, it is difficult to
accept the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent No.2 that mere execution of the release deed by
the petitioner Nos.1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2 in favour of the
NC: 2026:KHC:18987
HC-KAR
petitioner No.3/accused No.3 in respect of a property which
belonged to father of petitioner No.1/accused No.1 amounts to
an offence under Sections 418, 420 of IPC. The respondent
No.2 is already before the Civil Court staking her claim in
respect to the suit property by challenging the release deed
executed by the petitioner No.1/accused No.1 in favour of the
petitioner No.3/accused No.3. Therefore, it would be
inappropriate to expose the petitioners/accused to an unwanted
prosecution.
10. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The
impugned prosecution launched against the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 to 4 by the respondent No.1 in C.C.No.54896/2018 on
the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Mayohall, Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable under
Sections 418, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed.
11. Before parting from the case, the learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that the children of
the respondent No.2 intend to see the petitioner No.2.
12. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner No.2 is
in the care and control of the petitioner No.1, this Court directs
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18987
HC-KAR
the petitioner No.1 to ensure that his children shall meet the
petitioner No.2 at Sri. Ganesha Temple, 1st Block, HRBR, Near
Nandini Milk Booth, Kalyan Nagar, Bengaluru, on 11.04.2026
at 11.00 a.m. for one hour.
13. Ms. K. Kavyashree, learned counsel, who was
present in the Court, was requested to accompany Mr. Vedanth
and Ms.Trisha, son and daughter of the respondent No.2 to the
aforesaid spot. Ms. K. Kavyashree, learned counsel
accepted the request of the Court. She is directed to
accompany Mr. Vedanth and Ms.Trisha, son and daughter of
the respondent No.2 to the aforesaid spot and ensure that
there is no commotion while the children meet their
grandmother. She shall also ensure that the meeting of the
children of the respondent No.2 with the petitioner No.2 shall
be peaceful.
14. The Commissioner's fee is fixed at Rs.25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) payable by the petitioner
No.1 at the spot.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18987
HC-KAR
15. Office is directed to issue appropriate commission
warrant to Ms. K. Kavyashree, learned counsel, to do the
needful.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
PMR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44
