Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Kar) 41

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. Nagaprasanna, J.
Shri Jagadish Devadas Anchan, S/O Late Devadas Chandrashekar Anchan - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Karnataka Through Mulky Police Station Represented By State Public Prosecutor And Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.4470 of 2025, Criminal Petition No.8628 of 2024
Decided On : 21-07-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Smt. Ananya Praneeth, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, Addl. Spp., Sri K.S.Ponnappa, Advocate

The court established that civil suits do not bar criminal proceedings when allegations reveal potential criminal activities, emphasizing the simultaneous applicability of both legal remedies.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 34 - The petitions challenge FIRs against accused for conspiracy and fraudulent activities in property transactions, involving collusion with public servants. (Paras 1-2)

(B) Civil vs. Criminal Jurisdiction - The court determined that the same facts may give rise to both civil and criminal liability, emphasizing that civil proceedings do not bar criminal investigation. (Paras 12-14)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners are accused of fraudulent property transactions concerning land once owned by Bhavani Adappa, with claims involving forged documents, leading to criminal charges after discovery by the rightful heirs.

Findings of Court:
The petitions were dismissed, affirming that serious allegations warrant investigation despite concurrent civil suit.

Issues: Whether the allegations constitute a purely civil matter and if the FIRs disclose commission of criminal offences.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found a prima facie case exists, rejecting the argument that civil suits preclude criminal proceedings.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the case and factual background. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by both parties' counsels. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. court's observations on the seriousness of the allegations. (Para 7 , 9)
4. details of the complaint and alleged fraudulent activities. (Para 8 , 10 , 11)
5. applicable legal principles regarding civil and criminal proceedings. (Para 12)
6. court's conclusion on the merit of the petitions. (Para 13 , 14)

ORDER :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

These petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.62 of 2024 registered for offence punishable under Sections 419 , 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 34 of the IPC calling in question the FIR registered against them. Therefore, they are taken up together and considered by this common order. For the sake of convenience, facts obtaining in Criminal Petition No.4470 of 2025, which are also common in the other petition, are narrated.

2. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered by the 2^nd respondent stating that he is the power of attorney holder of five persons viz.,(i) Mr. Vijaya Adappa;(ii) Mrs. Yamini Sridevi Mali;(iii) Smt. Manjula Adappa;(iv) Mr. Roshan Adappa and(v) Dipti Adappa.Mr. Vijaya Adappa is said to be the son of one Bhavani Adappa, Mrs. Yamini Sridevi Mali is the daughter of Bhavani Adappa and Manjula Adappa is said to be the daughter-in-law of Bhavani Adappa and Roshan Adappa and Dipti Adappa are the children of Manjula Adappa. Bhavani Adappa is said to have died on 08-11-1990 and the children as mentioned hereinabove are the sole surviving heirs of late Bhavani Adappa. During her lifetime, late Bhavani Adappa had purchased land measuring one acre in Sy.No.186/2 situated at Surathkal Village through a registered sale deed dated 26-02-1964. As observed hereinabove, the legal heir of late Bhavani Adappa who was residing in Mangalore was her daughter-in-law Manjula Adappa, wife of late Dilip Adappa who was, at the relevant point in time, 66 years. One acre of land that was purchased in 1964 ostensibly grew up in Mangalore. The complaint is that it got the eye of land mafia in Mangalore.

2.1. The petitioners in these cases, accused Nos. 1 and 2, are said to have conspired to usurp the property which belonged to late Bhavani Adappa. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, several acts are done by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in connivance with public servants i.e., the Sub-Registrar and officers of the Corporation. This is noticed by Smt. Manjula Adappa when the land was put to auction by YES Bank. Then the respondents come to know that the accused have raised a loan mortgaging the aforementioned property and have defaulted in payment and, therefore, the Bank put up the property for auction. It is then they dig into the matter and got to know the modus operandi of the accused in connivance with public servants.

2.2. Two steps are taken by the complainant; one, immediately registering suits in O.S.Nos.41 and 42 of 2024 seeking injunction against the purchasers of the property and the Bank and further direction from encumbering the property, the said suits are pending consideration. The other step taken is, the registration of a complaint before the jurisdictional police at Mulky against these petitioners, Sub-Registrar and a Second Division Assistant working in the office of the Sub-Registrar. This becomes a crime in Crime No.62 of 2024 and the crime would draw four accused. Two of the accused/public servants were at the doors of this Court in Criminal Petition No.7435 of 2024 and 6522 of 2024 and after arguing the matter at length, they withdrew the petitions to avail of appropriate remedy. The other two i.e., accused Nos. 1 and 2 have now approached this Court in these petitions.

3. Heard Smt. Ananya Praneeth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners; Sri B.N. Jagadeesh, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri K.S. Ponnappa, learned counsel