ORDER

Accused Nos.1 to 3 in crime No.16/2023 registered by J.C. Nagar police station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under sections 506, 120B, 384, 420, 447, 448, 465, 468, 471, 426 of IPC arising out of P.C.R.No.417/2023 pending before the Court of VIII ACMM, Bengaluru are before this Court with a prayer to set aside the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the learned Magistrate and also to quash FIR in Crime No.16/2023 registered by J.C. Nagar police station, Bengaluru.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent no.1.

3. Respondent No.2 herein had filed P.C.R.No.417/2023 before the Court of VIII ACMM, Bengaluru and learned Magistrate by order dated 13.01.2023 had referred the said complaint to the jurisdictional Police, who in turn had registered FIR in Crime No.16/2023 for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners herein and 20 others. The petitioners are arrayed as accused nos.1 to 3 in the FIR. Crl.P.No.2365/2023 is filed by accused no.3, who is the brother of accused No.2 defacto complainant and Crl.P.No.2917/2023 is filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 who are the parents of respondent no.2 and accused No.3. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The allegation in the private complaint is about partition of joint family property. The grievance of respondent no.2 is that he has been denied share in the family property. He submits the respondent No.2 has already filed suit in O.S.No.224/2023 before the jurisdictional civil Court at Hyderabad as against the petitioners and other accused in the present case seeking for a decree of partition and separate possession of ancestral and joint family properties. He submits that even if the allegations made in the private complaint are presumed to be true, the alleged offences do not get attracted against the petitioners. Respondent No.2-defacto complainant prior to filling the private complaint had approached the police alleging that he was denied share in the ancestral property. However, the police had refused to entertain the complaint since the dispute was civil in nature. He submits that learned Magistrate without appreciating the contents of private complaint has mechanically referred the complaint under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, which has now resulted in registration of criminal case as against the petitioners.

Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.

5. Per Contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition.

6. From a perusal of the averments made in the private complaint, which has now resulted in registration of FIR in crime No.16/2023 as against the petitioners and other accused for the aforesaid offences it is seen that respondent No.2 is the son of accused No.1 and 2 and the brother of accused No.3. The grievance of respondent No.2 in the complaint appears to be that he has denied his rightful share in the ancestral property of the family. He has alleged in the complaint that he has got a reasonable suspicion that accused Nos.1 and 2 have purchased properties in their names from the rental income and sale proceedings of ancestral property without his knowledge. He has referred to various sale transactions in his private complaint and his allegations are that sale proceedings derived from the aforesaid transactions have been utilized by accused persons for purchasing property in their names.

7. From a perusal of entire averments made in the private complaint, it is very clear that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. By giving a criminal texture to the dispute which is otherwise civil in nature, criminal proceedings cannot be initiated. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioners even if the allegations made in the private complaint are presumed to be true, the alleged offences do not prima facie get attracted against the petitioners, who are family members of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 has already filed a suit in O