Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/8580/2026 of AMMULU S Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 19 August 2026
CNR: KAHC010403512026 NC: 2026:KHC:44768 CRL.P No. 8580 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8580 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: AMMULU S D/O SUBBAIAH, AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8580 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
AMMULU S
D/O SUBBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT, NO.26,
3RD CROSS,
VINAYAKANAGARA,
HANUMANTHA NAGARA POST,
BANGALORE - 50
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINOD N.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION BANGALORE
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2.
C SHIVALINGHAIAH
S/O CHINNEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT. NO.421,
TRINETHRA 12TH MAIN ROAD,
RVM BADAVANE,
SADASHIVA NAGARA
BANGALORE - 570 089
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI
B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
PANKAJA S
DIRECTOR
KARNATAKA STATE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPARATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
NO.EF-64, 1ST FLOOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALURE - 560 001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B N JAGADEESHA.,SPP-I FOR R1;
SMT. KEERTHI KRISHNA REDYY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST
THE
PETITIONER
I.E.,
ACCUSED
NO.5
IN
CC.NO.8971/2007 I.E., CRIME NO.43/2006 FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/S 406, 465, 468, 471, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING
BEFORE IV ACJM AT BANGALORE., ANNEXURE-C.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
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
Petitioner - accused No.5 stands at the doors of this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.8971/2007, which arose out of Crime No.43/2006 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 465, 474, 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, pending before IV ACJM, Bengaluru.
HC-KAR
2. Heard Sri. Vinod M., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B.N.Jagadeesha, learned SPP-I appearing for respondent No.1, Smt. Keerthi Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.
3. The subject petition by accused No.5 is preferred on the score that there is a settlement arrived at between the parties in O.S.No.6128/2010, which is subsequent to registration of the crime. On that score, the Court had entertained the petition and granted an interim order of stay solely after perusing the condition that was in the deed of settlement, which directed closure of all proceedings between the parties.
4. Smt. Keethi Krishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 - Society would take this Court through the objection so filed to demonstrate that there is fraud played at every stage of the proceedings. The settlement that is shown to the Court is also a settlement that could not have been arrived at between the parties. The same contention is advanced by other accused albeit it is of the other areas
HC-KAR
where the society had distributed the sites to its members or otherwise. The learned counsel submits that the matter is at the stage of evidence by taking this Court through the order sheet appended to the petition itself to demonstrate that the petitioner - accused No.5 is not appearing before the concerned Court, but chooses to file the present petition and secures an interim order on the strength of the settlement deed that could not have been executed at all.
5. Be the submissions and contra-submissions as they are. It is an admitted fact that the matter is at the stage of evidence as could be gathered from the order sheet appended to the petition. At the stage of evidence, that to on the plea that there is a settlement between the parties, which is alleged to be a fraudulent settlement, there cannot be interdiction of a proceeding before the concerned Court.
6. In the light of the said circumstance, reserving liberty to the petitioner or the respondents to urge their respective contentions before the concerned Court, the criminal petition stands disposed.
HC-KAR
7. In the light of the proceedings being of the year 2006 and the Criminal Case is of 2007, and 19 years having passed, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality into the proceedings by directing the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. It is needless to observe that petitioner - accused No.5, who has filed the present petition shall co-operate with the closure of the proceedings.
9. In the event of his non-co-operation, it is open to the concerned Court to pass necessary orders in accordance with law.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
PHM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16