Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28692

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Umamaheshwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.25199 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION No.7176 OF 2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: D.R. Ravishankar, Mayur D.Bhanu, H.S. Chandrashekar
For the Respondents: B.N. Jagadeesha, N Khetty, Sridhara K.

The pendency of civil proceedings does not bar criminal prosecution where the FIR discloses the essential ingredients of a cognizable offence. Criminal and civil remedies are not mutually exclusive and can coexist, and the High Court should not quash proceedings at the initial stage based on disputed factual questions.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Sections 3(5), 316(2), 318(4), 329(3), 336(2), 336(3), 340, 351(2), 352, 61(2), 62 and 79 - Quashing of First Information Report - Allegations of forgery, impersonation, and fraudulent allotment of property - Pendency of civil proceedings involving identical subject matter is not a ground for quashing criminal proceedings if allegations disclose a prima facie cognizable offence - Criminal law and civil law operate in distinct spheres and can coexist where factual matrix supports both. (Paras 10.1, 10.3, 10.5, 11)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Scope of jurisdiction - High Court cannot conduct a mini-trial or embark upon an inquiry into the genuineness or credibility of allegations at the stage of investigation - Power to quash must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection in rarest of rare cases - Investigation into cognizable offences should not be thwarted if the FIR discloses essential ingredients of an offence. (Paras 10.2, 10.5, 30)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners sought the quashing of criminal proceedings registered for various offences under the new criminal code. The dispute arose from the alleged fraudulent allocation and re-sale of plots by current office bearers of a cooperative society, involving the creation of false documents, impersonation, and forgery. The petitioners argued that the dispute was essentially civil in nature and that parallel civil litigation had already been initiated by the complainants, thereby rendering the criminal complaint an abuse of process.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that mere existence of civil remedies or the pendency of a civil suit does not preclude criminal prosecution where the allegations clearly disclose the commission of criminal offences such as forgery and cheating. The court held that civil and criminal proceedings are not mutually exclusive and can run concurrently. Since the FIRs contained categorical allegations of criminal acts that require investigation, the court declined to interfere at the nascent stage.

Issues: The main issues were whether a criminal prosecution can be quashed solely on the ground of the existence of a parallel civil dispute, and whether the High Court should perform a factual inquiry into the merits of the allegations under its extraordinary jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Criminal proceedings cannot be scuttled at the initial stage if the FIR discloses ingredients of a cognizable offence. The law is well-settled that civil and criminal liabilities can arise from the same set of facts, and the court must not conduct a roving inquiry or replace the trial court's function by resolving disputed questions of fact during a petition for quashing.

Result: Petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual basis regarding property disputes, alleged forgery, and criminal fir registration. (Para 24)
2. parties' contentions regarding the civil vs. criminal nature of property disputes. (Para 25 , 26 , 27)
3. civil and criminal proceedings can coexist; criminal investigation should not be thwarted. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 09.08.2025 IN CRIME NO. 247/2025 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 351(2), 352, 61(2) READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, AT BENGALURU, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. (ANNEXURE-A).

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 10.01.2025 IN CRIME NO. 04/2025 OF THE RESPONDENT RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(5), 316(2), 318(4), 329(3), 336(2), 336(3), 340, 351(2), 352, 62 AND 79 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED; (ANNEXURE-A).

THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.04.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of crime in Crime No.4 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 3(5), 316(2), 318(4), 329(3), 336(2), 336(3), 340, 351(2), 352, 62 and 79 of the BNS in Writ Petition No.7176 of 2025 and the crime in Crime No.247 of 2025 registered for offences punishable under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 351(2), 352, 61(2) r/w 3(5) of the BNS in Writ Petition No.25199 of 2025.

Heard Sri D.R. Ravishankar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 in both the writ petitions; Sri K. Sridhara, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in W.P.No.7176 of 2025 and Sri N. Khetty, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in W.P.No.25199 of 2025.

Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

W.P.No.7176 OF 2025:

One Krishna Bhat was the President of Vishwa Bharathi House Building Co-operative Society (‘the Society’ for short). It is alleged that during his tenure as President, he had conspired with other three Directors and had sold the same plot/site developed by the said Society to many individuals and had further conspired to transfer plots to his family members and to the Directors of the said Society, which had caused a loss of ₹19,09,54,267.66 to the Society and also to its members. The petitioners aver in the petition that after noticing the said discrepancy a complaint is made before the Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 29C(8)(b) and (d) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (‘the Act’ for short) and on perusal of records by the Registrar, it was prima facie found that it was Krishna Bhat who was guilty of having misused the power of office of the President and had allocated sites in violation of the Rules as obtaining under the Act, as a result thereof, Krishna Bhat was disqualified as Director of the Society for a period of three years from 17-08-2009. It is the further averment of the petitioners that one Vadhiraj H.V., Secretary of the Society upon noticing that Krishna Bhat had fraudulently allocated plots developed by the Society, files a complaint before the jurisdictional Police against Krishna Bhat and three other Directors, which becomes a crime in Crime No.246 of 2012 for offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120B of the IPC.

The Society, due to the aforesaid misconduct of Krishna Bhat and others, issues publications in the newspa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 28692

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAM. Nagaprasanna, JUmamaheshwar – AppellantVersusState of Karnataka – RespondentWRIT PETITION No.25199 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION No.7176 OF 2025

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M. Nagaprasanna, J
Umamaheshwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.25199 OF 2025|WRIT PETITION No.7176 OF 2025