IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3683 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. SMT. K. PUNITHA W/O NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A. NO.F 302, 3RD FLOOR, ROHAN JHAROKA APARTMENTS, YEMLUR MAIN ROAD, ADJACENT TO HAL AIRPORT, YEMLUR, BENGALURU-560037.

2. SRI. DHRUVA RAMA REDDY S/O KODANDA RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A R/A FLAT NO.1422, Location: HIGH COURT OF PRESTIGE KEW GARDENS, KARNATAKA

14TH BLOCK, NEAR OLD AIRPORT ROAD, YEMLUR, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560037.

3. SRI. K. N. KODANDARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O K.H. NARAYAN REDDY, R/A FLAT NO.1422, PRESTIGE KEW GARDENS, 14TH BLOCK, NEAR OLD AIRPORT ROAD, YEMLUR, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560037.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GANESHA G., ADVOCATE FOR P2;

VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.2025 PETITION AGAINST P1 AND 3 IS DISMISSED)

AND:

1. STATE BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560009.

2. N.A.RAVI, S/O N.H. ABBAIA H REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.771 VISHRANTH FERNS, PARADISE OFF OUTER RING ROAD, DODDANEKKUNDI, BANGALORE-560037.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF FIR DATED 20.09.2024, IN CR.NO.505/2024, REGISTERED BY THE MARATHAHALLI POLICE FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 120B, 419, 420, 465, 471, 468 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, 1860 INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER /ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3, PENDING BEFORE THE

29TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,(CMM)

COURT, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE CITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is originally filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.505/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 465, 471, 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') on the file of the 29^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM)

Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City.

2. During the pendency of these proceedings, accused Nos.1 and 3, who are respectively the sister and father of accused No.2, withdrew their petitions, thereby consenting to face investigation and prosecution in the event a final report is filed by the Investigating Officer.

Consequently, the present petition survives only in respect of accused No.2.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 – accused No.2 reiterating the grounds urged submits that petitioner No.2 had no role whatsoever in the execution of the Gift Deed obtained by accused No.1 – Smt.K.Punitha. He contends that accused No.2 is merely a bona fide transferee-donee under the Gift Deed executed in his favour by his sister - accused No.1. Therefore, even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted at their face value, the essential ingredients of Sections 120B, 420, 465 and 471 of the IPC are not attracted against petitioner No.2. He further submits that civil suits concerning the subject property are already pending between the parties and thus, the complainant cannot simultaneously pursue criminal prosecution on the same cause of action. Accordingly, to prevent abuse of the process of law and since the dispute is predominantly civil in nature, this Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section

482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

4. Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S.Reddy and Others¹ submits that accused No.1, the sister of petitioner No.2, had fraudulently procured the Gift Deed by impersonation. Since petitioner No.2 – accused No.2 is the ultimate beneficiary, his active role in facilitating the Gift Deed in favour of accused No.1 and subsequently deriving benefit under it, requires tho