Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21794
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8637 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6145 OF 2021
IN CRL.P No. 8637/2021
BETWEEN:
MS. THEJAVATHI D/O V. LAKSHMINARAYAN B AG RA E H 4 M 8 I Y N E ARS R/AT NO.252, SHOBHA ONYX, SARJAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560078 A N L O S .2 O 8 R 5 E , S 3 I R D D I C N R G O A S T S , 2ND MAIN, 3RD PHASE, J.P. NAGAR BENGALURU-560078
(BY SRI. RAVI B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VIJET … H P A E TI R T I N O A N I E K R , H OF IGH COURT ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING BENGALURU-560001.
2. V. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O LAKSHMINARAYAN AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.285, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN, 3RD PHASE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. M. VEERABHADRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
IN CRL.P NO. 6145/2021
BETWEEN:
1. V. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O. LATE H. VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO.48, 7TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU-560011.
2. MS. TEJAVANTHI D/O. V.LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.252, 5TH FLOOR, MARATHAHALLI-SARJAPUR ROAD, AGARA VILLAGE, JAKKASANDRA EXTENSION, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560102.
3. SOMAIAH S/O LATE P.S. APPACHA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.24/265, PAVAMANA EXTENSION, NANDANAVANA LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA POST, BENGALURU-560083.
4. ASHOK S/O SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.222/A, PAVAMANA EXTENSION, NANDANAVANA LAYOUT, BANNERGHATTA POST, BENGALURU-560083.
....PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAVI B. NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. VIJETHA R NAIK, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VC))
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH J.P. NAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. V. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O.LAKSHMINARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.285, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN, 3RD PHASE, J P NAGAR, BENGALURU-560078.
....RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. M. VEERABHADRAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
ORDER
(i) Crl.P.No.8637/2021 is dismissed.
(ii) Crl.P.No.6145/2021 is allowed. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in C.C.No.15978/2021 by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed.
(iii) In view of disposal of the petitions, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same stand disposed off.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ)
JUDGE
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CR.NO.200/2021 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT J.P.NAGAR POLICE STATION FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXX ACMM, BENGALURU CITY.
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT J.P.NAGAR POLICE IN C.C.NO.15978/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 448, 341, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SAID CASE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXX A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
In Crl.P.No.8637/2021, the petitioner has challenged the registration of an FIR in Crime No.200/2021 for an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC pending on the file of the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
In Crl.P.No.6145/2021, the petitioners have challenged the criminal proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 against them in C.C.No.15978/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC pending on the file of the XXX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
3.
(i) The respondent No.2 in both these petitions is the wife of petitioner No.1 and mother of the petitioner No.2 in Crl.P.No.6145/2021. She informed the respondent No.1 on 18.10.2021 that she had undergone a hip replacement surgery on 02.11.2020 and was completely bedridden. At that time, her daughter used to visit her at her house under the pretext of assisting her. During one such visits, the daughter told respondent No.2 to keep some major diamond and gold jewels in the locker of bank for safety as respondent No.2 would be alone at home and cannot grapple, if something untoward happened at home. She alleged that her daughter by saying so asked her to handover the keys of the almirahs and lockers. She, believing the representations of her daughter reposed faith and trust and handed over the keys to her to take diamond and gold jewels from her home and keep them in lockers for safety as suggested by her daughter. On the next day, her daughter informed her that she had taken almost all the jewels except a few items required for daily use and kept them in the locker. She also represented that she would keep keys of the almirahs with her for safety as she would be alone in the house.
(ii) The respondent No.2 alleged that after few months, she could see changes in the attitude of her daughter whenever she visited her and she used to taunt respondent No.2 as to why respondent No.2 needed so much of gold jewels at that old age and that she would sell some big items etc., Therefore, respondent No.2 alleged that she feared something fishy and asked her daughter to handover keys of the almirah. However, her daughter dragged the issue on one or the other pretext.
The respondent No.2 alleged that her daughter had joined the hands with her husband (petitioner No.1 in Crl.P.No.6145/2021) who was pressurizing her through her daughter to give divorce. She claimed that earlier her daughter had advised her not to accept for divorce as she thought that her husband would marry his kept mistress working in the office and spoil the entire family wealth. She alleged that her daughter started pressurizing her to give consent for divorce by taking money from her husband. The respondent No.2 alleged that since she feared that daughter might join the hands with her husband and deprive her of her money and property, she sent a Whatsapp message on 03.04.2021 to her daughter asking her to return gold and diamond jewels which approximately weighed 7.5 kgs. However, her daughter replied stating that she would return the same. She claimed that even after such a reply, her daughter did not return the jewels and therefore, she alleged tha
