SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 4853

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
SMT. RADHA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16398 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. VENKATAGIRI AMARESH CHANNABASAPPA
For the Respondents: SRI. B.N.JAGADEESHA

Civil and criminal remedies can coexist; the existence of civil disputes does not prevent criminal prosecutions when serious allegations are made.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 3(5), 335, 337, 339, 340, 341, 323, 324, 329, 126, 351(1), 351(2), 351(4), 240, 242, 246, 314, 318, 319, 322, and 308 - Quashing of FIR - Criminal conspiracy, forgery, impersonation allegations against petitioners regarding land ownership disputes - Petitioners sought dismissal of criminal proceedings citing civil litigation. (Para 10)

(B) Principle of concurrent jurisdiction - It is established law that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist based on the same set of facts, and criminal prosecution is not barred merely because a civil remedy exists. (Para 10.4)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, involved in a property dispute, filed a petition to quash an FIR resulting from allegations of impersonation relating to land ownership. These allegations arose after numerous fraudulent documents and claims were made against the true land title holder, a widow whose husband had passed away in 1986. (Paras 4-5)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the allegations necessitated a criminal investigation due to their serious nature, including impersonation and forgery, which are not purely of civil character. The existence of pending civil suits does not obstruct criminal proceedings. (Para 12)

Issues: Whether the FIR should be quashed due to existing civil proceedings and whether the allegations are of a purely civil nature or disclose cognizable criminal offences. (Paras 9-10)

Ratio Decidendi: Civil suits and criminal prosecutions can run concurrently; allegations of serious criminal conduct, such as forgery and conspiracy, necessitate investigation and cannot be quashed based solely on parallel civil litigation. (Paras 12, 10.4)

Result: Petition rejected. (Para 13)

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel, Sri. Venkatagiri Amaresh Channabasappa, appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP, appearing for respondent No.1 and have perused the material on record.

2. The petitioners are before this Court, seeking the following prayer:

"i) To call for entire records pertaining to the Crime No.446/2025 of the Avalahalli Police which is pending on the file of the Hon'ble Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore.

ii) After perusing the records, quash the F.I.R. and complaint registered by the 1st respondent Avalahalli police against the petitioners in Crime No.446/2025 for the offence punishable under section 3(5), 335, 335(A)(iii), 337, 339, 340, 341, 323, 324, 329, 126, 351(1), 351(2), 351(4), 240, 242, 246, 314, 318, 319, 322, 308) of BNSS ACT , which is pending on the file of the Hon'ble Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore as produced at Annexure-'A'.

iii) Grant cost of this petition.

iv) And also grant such other and further relief's as this Hon'ble court deems fit considering the facts and circumstance of the cases to meet the ends of justice."

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Crl.P.No.15776/2025 disposed on 30.01.2026, wherein it has held as follows:

“8. The complainant being a power of attorney holder of Smt. Radha is a matter of record. Smt. Radha owns several properties is again a matter of record. The power of attorney holder notices that the properties belonging to Smt. Radha have all gone to the hands of several people without Radha or her power of attorney holder signing on the sale deeds. Therefore, action is taken by Smt. Radha in instituting a civil suit in O.S.No.859 of 2025 against several persons including the petitioner. The petitioner, in fact is defendant No.5. The prayers that are sought are to declare about 7 sale deeds/agreement to sell to be null and void. After institution of the said suit, criminal law is set into motion by registering a complaint on 22-10-2025. This becomes a crime in Crime No.446 of 2025. Since the entire issue has sprung from the complaint, which is in great detail, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:

“To,

The Station House Officer,

Avalahalli Police Station,

Bengaluru City Police (East Division),

Avalahalli, Bengaluru – 560 049.

From:

Shri. Venkatappa K.

Special Power of Attorney of

Smt. R. Radha

W/o late Sri Krishnan

Aged about 65 years,

Presently residing at No.396.

4th Main, 4th Block, 1st Stage,

HBR Layout, Bangalore – 560 043

Aadhaar No. 2944 1801 2654

Mobile No.9632364117

Sub: Complaint regarding large-scale impersonation, forgery, fabrication of property documents, criminal conspiracy, illegal hoardings, and fraudulent alienation attempts concerning lands bearing Sy. Nos. 20, 21, and 44/1 situated at Bandapura Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

Respected Sir,

1, Smt. R. Radha, W/o Late Sri S. Krishnan, aged about 65 years, presently residing at No. 4, 1st Main Road, Near Railway Station, Boopsandra, Bengaluru - 560 032 (Aadhaar No. 2944 1801 2654), respectfully submit this complaint seeking immediate registration of a criminal case and investigation into the offences of forgery, impersonation, criminal trespass, cheating, intimidation, and conspiracy committed by the accused persons named herein, who have illegally created and registered multiple false documents in respect of my property situated at Bandapura Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk.

The facts of the Complaint are as follows:

1) Originally, three brothers, namely (i) Sri D.R. Madhava Rao, (ii) Sri D.R. Govinda Rao, and (iii) Sri D.R. Jagannatha Rao, were the joint owners of the following agricultural lands situated at Bandapura Village, Bidarahalli Holli, Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru

a) Land bearing Survey No. 20, measuring 4 Acres 15 Guntas (

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top