Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/6656/2026 of SRI S SUDEESH Vs THE STATE BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION on 22 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010310032026 NC: 2026:KHC:52166 CRL.P No. 6656 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6656 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI S. SUDEESH
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6656 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI S. SUDEESH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
S/O B. SRINIVASAPPA,
R/AT NO.555, 7TH MAIN,
14TH CROSS, RMV 2ND STAGE,
DOLLARS COLONY, HIG LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
2.
SRI S. ABIRAMAIAH,
S/O B. SRINIVASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT G-1, MURBERRY LANE WEST,
RICHMOND CIRCLE,
DR.RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD,
S.R.NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 025.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M.S.BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. BALAKRISHNA K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION
YELAHANKA, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2.
SMT. KANAKA DURGA
W/O MADDINENI BRAHMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SECTOR-1,
PLOT NO.7, ROAD NO.10,
LOTUS LANDMARK,
KEDARESWARAPETA,
GANDHINAGARAM,
NTR DISTRICT, VIJAYAWADA,
ANDHRA PRADESH - 520 003.
AND ALSO
PRESENTLY R/AT THIMMASANDRA,
DODDABALLAPURA,
BANGALORE RURAL - 561 202.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGHARISH G S., HCGP FOR R1;
R2-SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0071/2026
DATED:14.02.2026 ON THE FILE OF IVTH ADDL. CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU, THE FIR REGISTERED
BY 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE I.E., YELAHANKA POLICE STATION
FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352 READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF THE
BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard Sri M.S. Bhagwat, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Balakrishna K., learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Nagharish, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
There is no representation on behalf of respondent No.2, though notice is served.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would submit that both the petitioners had agreed to sell the immovable property to respondent No.2 and had entered into an agreement for sale on 20.03.2024, which was duly registered on 21.03.2024. It is urged that three months time was fixed for completing the transaction and the petitioners had received a sum of Rs.76,00,000/- as advance consideration.
3. Learned senior counsel would contend that the transaction was not completed within three months as such, the petitioners issued a notice on 25.08.2025 terminating the contract.
HC-KAR
4. The respondent No.2 issued reply on 13.09.2025 and thereafter filed a suit in O.S.No.969/2026 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, seeking the relief of specific performance of the registered sale agreement.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners would further submit that the petitioners have filed a counter-claim in the said case and have made a statement that they are willing to repay the sale consideration amount.
6. It is the contention that the transaction being purely civil in nature cannot be converted into a criminal case to prosecute the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 351(2) and 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in G. Saminathan and Another v. The State, represented by the Sub-
HC-KAR
Inspector of Police and Another1 and Radheshyam and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Another.2
8. The Court has considered the grounds urged as well as the documents produced. The Court has also considered the copy of the complaint.
9. There was an agreement for sale in which there is a clause to conclude the transaction within three months. The petitioners have issued a notice terminating the agreement on the ground that one of the conditions is violated.
10. Respondent No.2 has issued reply notice and filed a suit for specific performance of contract. Thus, the complaint could not have been filed to prosecute the petitioners.
11. The judgments cited by the learned senior counsel would support the case of the petitioners. Hence, the following:
1 2026 SCC Online 1460 2 2024 SCC Online SC 2311
HC-KAR
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed. ii. The proceedings in FIR in Crime No.0071/2026 dated 14.02.2026, on the file of the IV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru City, is hereby quashed. iii. It is made clear that the observations made in this order shall not be construed as observations on the merits of the case or the counter-claim pending before the Trial Court.
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24
…