Srinivas Reddy vs State of Karnataka - Quashing of Criminal Proceedings

Select the following parts of the judgment
| Facts | Issues |
| Petitioner's Arguments | Respondent's Arguments |
| Precedent Analysis | Court's Reasoning |
| Conclusion | |
For entire doc: Unmark Mark View how precedents are cited in this document View precedents: Unmark Mark View only precedents: Unmark Mark Select precedent ... Filter precedents by opinion of the court
| Relied by Party |

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 20, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Srinivas Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 March, 2026

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:12661
WP No. 29941 of 2018

         HC-KAR

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                  DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                     BEFORE
                   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
               WRIT PETITION NO.29941 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

        BETWEEN:

        1.    SRINIVAS REDDY
              S/O. PILLA REDDY
              AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

        2.    SMT. SUDHA
              W/O. SRINIVAS REDDY
              AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

        3.    THANISH KUMAR
              S/O. SRINIVAS REDDY
              AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

        4.    SMT. YASHASHWINI
              AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
              D/O. SRINIVASA REDDY

Digitally ALL R/OF,
signed by GONIGHATTAPURA VILLAGE
SUMA SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
Location: BENGALURU-562 125
HIGH
COURT OF ...PETITIONERS
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI BRIJESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

        AND:

        1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
              REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
              HOME DEPARTMENT
              VIDHAN SOUDHA
              BENGALURU-560 001
                             -2-
                                         NC: 2026:KHC:12661
                                      WP No. 29941 of 2018

HC-KAR

1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
   INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
   NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
   BENGALURU-560 001

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
   CUNNINGHAM ROAD
   BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
   BENGALURU-560 001

3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   REP. BY SARJAPURA POLICE
   BENGALURU-562 125

4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
   BY BANASHANKARI POLICE
   BENGALURU-560 050

5. SANDEEP REDDY Y.C.
   AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
   S/O. RAMA REDDY Y. C.
   R/AT NO.1010, 26TH MAIN
   4TH T BLOCK, JAYANAGARA
   BENGALURU-560 041
   ...RESPONDENTS
   (BY SRI M. R. PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
   FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 5
   SRI G. H. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.6)

   THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
   PROCEEDING REGISTERED IN C.C.NO.14745/2018 (CRIME
   NO.80/2018) UNDER SECTIONS 120(B), 420 AND 34 OF THE INDIAN
   PENAL CODE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF
   METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU, VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

   THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
   IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
   -3-
   NC: 2026:KHC:12661
   WP No. 29941 of 2018

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

                     ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the charge sheet filed

against them by the respondent No.5 in C.C. No.14745/2018

for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC '),

which is pending consideration before the II Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru. They have also sought for

a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent

authorities to enquire into the complaints dated 21.09.2017,

09.10.2017, 21.04.2018 and 23.06.2018/07.05.2018 filed by

the petitioner No.1 against respondent Nos.6 and others and to

take action in accordance with law.

2(i). The respondent No.6 and others appear to have

entered into an agreement of sale with the petitioner Nos.1 and

2 on 23.12.2015 to purchase 01 Acre 38½ guntas of land in Sy.

No.76/1 situate at Gonighattapura Village, Sarjapura Hobli,

Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, and a

contemporaneous power of attorney was purportedly executed

by the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the respondent No.6

                                         NC: 2026:KHC:12661

HC-KAR

and Mr. Jawahar Gopal in respect of 01 Acre 38½ guntas of

land in Sy. No.76/1 on 23.12.2015. It appears that the

petitioner Nos.1 to 3 executed a sale deed dated 18.05.2016

through their power of attorney in favour of respondent No.6

and Mr. Jawahar Gopal and conveyed them the land measuring

01 Acre 38½ guntas in Sy. No.76/1 of Gonighattapura village.

(ii). It appears that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 executed

another agreement of sale dated 23.12.2015 in favour of M/s.

Classic Featherlite Waterfront Developers LLP, (for short, 'the

Firm'), a limited liability partnership Firm of which respondent

No.6 and Mr. Jawahar Gopal are Partners in respect of 03 Acres

07 guntas of land in Sy. No.33 of Gonighattapura Village,

Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District, and a

contemporaneous power of attorney was executed by the

petitioner Nos.1 to 3 in favour of the said Firm in respect of the

said 03 Acres 07 guntas of land in Sy. No.33.

(iii). The respondent No.6 alleged that the accused No.2

/ petitioner No.2 and accused No.3 represented to him that

they were the absolute owners of the land measuring 02 acres

05 guntas in Sy No.70/1 of Gonighattapura village and that the

                                                 NC: 2026:KHC:12661

HC-KAR

land measuring 03 acres 07 guntas in Sy. No.33 of

Gonighattapura village, was bequeathed to the petitioner Nos.2

and accused No.3 under a Will dated 06.01.2010 executed by

Sri G.P. Laksmaiah Reddy, father of Smt. Sudha (accused No.2)

and father-in-law of Srinivasa Reddy (accused No.3).

Subsequently, khatas of the said properties were changed to

the names of accused Nos.2 and 3.

(iv). The respondent No.6 alleged that the accused No.2/

petitioner No.2 and accused No.3 after receipt of the entire sale

consideration, have fraudulently executed a release deed dated

14.02.2017 in favour of accused No.5 releasing their rights in

respect of the land measuring 03 Acres 05 guntas in Sy. No.33.

(v). The respondent No.6 further alleged that the

accused No.5 / petitioner No.4 colluding with accused Nos.1 to

4 has filed appeal R.A. No.359/2017 on 21.02.2017 challenging

the mutation orders passed in favour of her mother and father

i.e. accused No.3 and accused No.4 / petitioner No.3 stating

that the properties were ancestral in nature and she also had

rights over the properties and the said appeal was posted on

20.03.2017 for issuance of notice to other parties. On the very

                                         NC: 2026:KHC:12661

HC-KAR

same day, accused Nos.2 to 5 filed a compromise petition

stating that the properties were ancestral properties and

accused No.2 to 4 had no objection for change of khata in

favour of accused No.5. The respondent No.6 contended that

the property was the self acquired property of the mother of

accused Nos.4 and 5 and on the date of compromise, accused

Nos.2 and 3 had no right, title or interest over the properties as

they had sold the same in the year 2015 itself and had

misrepresented to the Court and obtained an order of partition.

(vi). It is alleged by the respondent No.6 that the

petitioner Nos.3 and 4 had fraudulently transferred the said

land in Sy. No.76/1 of Gonighattapura village to one Sri

Rajashekar @ Rajashekar Munireddy / accused No.3 through a

sale deed dated 06.06.2017.

(vii). In this regard, the respondent No.6 had earlier

lodged a complaint against petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and another

before the Sarjapura Police Station alleging the commission of

an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC following which

Crime No.229/2017 was registered. It appears that even while

the said case was pending investigation, the respondent No.6

                                                  NC: 2026:KHC:12661

HC-KAR

filed PCR No.1416/2018 which was referred for investigation

under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(for short, ' Cr.P.C.) to the Station House Officer, Banashankari

Police Station, who after registering Crime No.80/2018, took up

investigation and filed a charge sheet for the offences

punishable under Sections 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. Copies of the charge sheet were furnished to the

petitioners and the Trial Court after perusing the same, took

cognizance of the said offences against the petitioners herein

and issued process to the petitioners vide order dated

01.06.2018. Being aggrieved by the criminal proceedings

initiated against them, the petitioners are before this Court.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the respondent No.6 had earlier lodged a complaint against the

petitioners herein before the Sarjapura Police Station, who

registered Crime No.229/2017. He submits that this complaint

was investigated into and a 'B' report was filed which is not

questioned by the respondent No.6. However, without

disclosing the filing of the earlier complaint before the

Sarjapura Police Station, the respondent No.6 filed a private

complaint (PCR No.1416/2018) before the Trial Court which

                                        NC: 2026:KHC:12661

HC-KAR

was referred to the Station House Officer, Banashankari Police

Station, for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and

the Police after investigation, have filed a charge sheet against

the petitioners for the offences punishable under [Sections

120B](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1897847/), 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. He, therefore, contends

that this is a clear case of abuse of process of law and Courts.

He contends that once the initial complaint lodged by the

respondent No.6 was concluded by filing a 'B' report,

respondent No.6 is not entitled in law to lodge a second

complaint on virtually the same facts. In this regard, he invited

the attention of this Court to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of [T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and

Others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1974324/) [(2001) 6 SCC 181], and in the case of [Tarak Dash

Mukharjee and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and

Others](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198668893/) [2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731]. He thus contended that

the impugned criminal proceedings against the petitioners are

liable to be halted. Besides this, he contends that the

respondent No.6 has filed a suit in O.S. No.142/2017 before

the Civil Court, Anekal in respect of his rights in the land

bearing Sy. No.76/1 and therefore, the continuation of the

criminal proceedings against the petitioners would be an abuse

                                         NC: 2026:KHC:12661

HC-KAR

of the process of Courts. He, therefore, prays that the

impugned proceedings against the petitioners be halted.

1. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent

No.6 submits that the respondent No.6 had though filed a

complaint earlier before the Sarjapura Police Station, the same

was transferred to the Cyber, Economic and Narcotics Division,

who had filed a 'B' report and a notice of such report was

issued to the respondent No.6. He contends that since the 'B'

report was filed, the respondent No. 6 felt it expedient to file a

private complaint. He contends that the respondent No.5 after

investigating the case, had rightly filed a charge sheet against

the petitioners for the offences punishable under [Sections

120B](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1897847/), 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. He, therefore, submits

that this writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be

dismissed.

1. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for respondent Nos.1 to 5, on the other hand, submitted that

the respondent No.6 did not disclose about the filing of the first

complaint before the Sarjapura Police Station in his private

complaint. He, therefore, submits that the respondent No.5 did

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12661

HC-KAR

not have any inkling about the prior complaint lodged by the

respondent No.6.

1. I have considered the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for the official respondents and

the learned counsel for the respondent No.6.

1. The fact that the respondent No.6 had lodged a

complaint before the Sarjapura Police Station in respect of the

land bearing Sy. No.76/1 is not in dispute. It is also not in

dispute that Sarjapura Police Station had registered Crime

No.229/2017. The case in Crime No.229/2017 was closed by

filing a 'B' report. It is not known whether the respondent No.6

had filed a protest petition after receiving a notice of the filing

of the 'B' report. Be that as it may, when the respondent No.6

filed a private complaint, it was incumbent upon him to disclose

in the private complaint about the filing of the earlier complaint

before the Sarjapura Police Station. A perusal of the entire

private complaint shows that there was not even a whisper

about the respondent No.6 filing a prior complaint before the

Sarjapura Police Station. The respondent No.5 has proceeded

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12661

HC-KAR

to investigate the offence in view of the private complaint being

referred to it for investigation under Section 156(3) of the

Cr.P.C. and thereafter, filed a charge sheet for the offences

punishable under Sections 120B, 420 read with Section 34 of

IPC, which is presently challenged in this petition.

1. The purpose of ensuring that there is no repeated

complaints, is underscored by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of T.T. Antony (referred supra), where it held as under:

"20. From the above discussion it follows that under the
scheme of the provisions of Sections 154, 155, 156, 157, 162, 169, 170 and 173 CrPC only the earliest or the first
information in regard to the commission of a cognizable
offence satisfies the requirements of Section 154 CrPC.
Thus there can be no second FIR and consequently there
can be no fresh investigation on receipt of every
subsequent information in respect of the same cognizable
offence or the same occurrence or incident giving rise to
one or more cognizable offences. On receipt of
information about a cognizable offence or an incident
giving rise to a cognizable offence or offences and on
entering the FIR in the station house diary, the officer in
charge of a police station has to investigate not merely
the cognizable offence reported in the FIR but also other
connected offences found to have been committed in the
course of the same transaction or the same occurrence

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12661

HC-KAR

and file one or more reports as provided in Section 173 CrPC.

xxx

1. For the aforementioned reasons, the registration of the second FIR under Section 154 CrPC on the basis of the letter of the Director General of Police as Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station is not valid and consequently the investigation made pursuant thereto is of no legal consequence, they are accordingly quashed. We hasten to add that this does not preclude the investigating agency from seeking leave of the Court in Crimes Nos. 353 and 354 of 1994 for making further investigations and filing a further report or reports under Section 173(8) CrPC before the competent Magistrate in the said cases. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment of the High Court under challenge insofar as it relates to quashing of Crime No. 268 of 1997 of Kuthuparamba Police Station against the ASP (R.A. Chandrasekhar); in all other aspects the impugned judgment of the High Court shall stand set aside."
2. The above position is reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Tarak Dash Mukharjee referred supra.

Therefore, respondent No.6 could not have subverted the law

by filing a private complaint against the petitioners without

disclosing filing of the earlier complaint before the Sarjapura

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12661

HC-KAR

Police Station. If only the respondent No.6 had disclosed such

filing of earlier complaint, the Trial Court would not have

ventured to refer the private complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. This is indeed a clear case of

abuse of process of law and the Courts. The respondent No.6

after being served with the copy of the 'B' report in the

complaint lodged before the Sarjapura Police Station, which

was transferred to the Cyber, Economic and Narcotics Cell, he

must have been cautious by challenging the 'B' report that was

filed. It would have augured well for the respondent No.6 if he

had filed a protest petition against the acceptance of the 'B'

report in which event, the Court could have exercised

jurisdiction to take cognizance for the offences, if any,

committed by the petitioners herein. Even otherwise, the

allegations made in the private complaint give an impression

that a civil dispute is given a criminal angle thereby abusing the

process of law.

1. In view of the fact that the respondent No.6 is

already before the Civil Court i.e. Court of Senior Civil Judge

and JMFC., Anekal in O.S. No.142/2017, it is not worthwhile to

proceed with the prosecution of the petitioners in C.C.

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:12661

HC-KAR

No.14745/2018 pending trial before the II Additional

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable

under Sections 120B, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

Hence, the following :

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned prosecution of the petitioners,

who are accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 respectively, in

C.C. No.14745/2018 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 120B, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 pending

trial before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed.

Sd/-

(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE

SMA/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47