P.M. LOKANATH AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER

                  [2025] 2 S.C.R. 622 : 2025 INSC 202

                       P.M. Lokanath and Others
                                   v.
                    State of Karnataka and Another
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 2514 of 2014)
                               06 February 2025
             [B.R. Gavai* and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings at the instance of
       respondent no.2 in the present case was totally activated by mala
       fide, instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and
       with a view to spite the appellants.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – ss.448 and 506 – Appellants had filed
       two civil suits, i.e. one for permanent injunction to prohibit
       respondent no.2 and the other for declaration of ownership of
       the suit property – Respondent no.2 filed an FIR u/ss.448 and
       506 IPC alleging that appellants had threatened respondent
       no.2 to withdraw the civil suits – Appellant sought to quash
       criminal proceedings by filing criminal petition u/s.482 of
       CrPC, which was dismissed by the High Court – Correctness:
       Held: The allegations in the FIR are totally absurd – When
       respondent no.2 has not filed any suit, there is no question of
       appellants threatening him of dire consequences if he does not
       withdraw the suit – It further appears from the record that respondent
       no.2 is in the habit of filing false cases against the appellants
       and his family members – As in another criminal case No.6969
       of 2007, respondent no.2 made similar allegations against the
       appellants and his relatives, which were found to be totally false
       and appellants were acquitted – Further, brother of respondent
       no.2 filed another criminal case, PCR No.9345 of 2009, alleging
       that the sale deed on basis of which the appellant claimed title
       was fraudulently executed – The said proceedings were quashed
       by the High Court – Therefore, respondent no.2 and his relatives
       were in habit of filing false and malicious cases against appellants
       on account of long-standing civil dispute pending between them –

* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                               623

      P.M. Lokanath and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another


     The instant case falls in the categories provided by this Court in
     the case of Bhajan Lal – The initiation of criminal proceedings
     at the instance of respondent no.2 in the present case is totally
     activated by mala fide, instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking
     vengeance and with a view to spite the appellants – Therefore,
     the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the appellants
     would be abuse of the process of law – The criminal proceedings
     against the appellants are hereby quashed. [Paras 16, 17, 18,
     19, 22, 23, 24, 25]

                               Case Law Cited
     State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others [1992]
     Supp. 3 SCR 735 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908;
     Penal Code, 1860.

                              List of Keywords
     Section 448 of Penal Code, 1860; Section 506 of Penal Code,
     1860; False cases; Malicious cases; Long-standing civil dispute;
     Article 226 of Constitution; Ulterior motive.

                             Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     2514 of 2014
     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.2013 of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bangalore in CRLP No. 3850 of 2010

                          Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv., Suraj Kaushik, Varun Prasad,
     Ms. Rashika Kapoor, M/S. Nuli & Nuli.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Ms. Mythili S, P. Ashok, Shiv
     Kumar, Ms. Vaishnavi, Prakash Jadhav, Ravichandra Jadhav,
     Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, V. N. Raghupathy.
624                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


                  Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

       B.R. Gavai, J.

1.     The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 14th
       November 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court
       of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No. 3850 of 2010,
       whereby the High Court has dismissed the petition filed by the present
       appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
       1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) praying thereby to quash
       proceedings registered in C.C. No.29027 of 2010 pending on the
       file of IIIrd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore (for
       short, “ACMM, Bangalore”).
2.     A perusal of the materials placed on record would reveal that there
       is a longstanding dispute between the appellants on one hand and
       respondent No.2 and his brothers/sisters on the other hand. The
       appellants are the absolute owners and in actual possession and
       enjoyment of the property bearing No.13 situated at Subbanna
       Char Lane, 2nd Cross, Cottonpet, Bangalore, Karnataka (hereinafter
       referred to as the “suit property”). The suit property has fallen to the
       appellants on account of them being the legal heirs of one Smt. K.
       Janakamma. Respondent No.2 and his siblings are the legal heirs
       of one Shri Narasimha Murthy, who was a party to the sale deed
       executed on 16th November 1953 whereby the suit property was
       sold to said K. Janakamma.
3.     It appears that respondent No.2 and his siblings thereafter attempted
       to encroach upon the appellants’ suit property and as such the
       appellants filed a civil suit being O.S. No.11107/2016 in Court of
       Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore seeking a
       decree of permanent injunction to prohibit respondent No.2 and his
       siblings from interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of
       the suit property. In the said suit, an application under Order XXXIX
       Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “CPC”),
       also came to be filed by the appellants. In the said proceedings, the
       learned Principal City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore, vide the
       judgment and order dated 19th December 2006, granted temporary
       injunction in favour of the appellants restraining respondent No.2 and
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                      625

      P.M. Lokanath and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another



     his siblings from encroaching upon any portion of the suit/schedule
     property and from changing katha of suit property.
4.   It further appears that the appellants thereafter filed another civil
     suit being O.S. No.1943/2008 in the Court of City Civil Judge at
     Bangalore for declaration of ownership of the suit property.
5.   On 25th November 2008, respondent No.2 however lodged an FIR
     under Sections 448 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
     short, “IPC”) alleging therein that the appellants had threatened
     respondent No.2 to withdraw the civil suits. In the said FIR, it was
     further alleged that respondent No.2 was threatened by the appellants
     that in case he does not withdraw the civil suits, he will meet with
     the dire consequence of his death.
6.   On the basis of the FIR lodged by respondent No.2, an investigation
     was carried out and a chargesheet was filed by the PSI of Cottonpet
     Police Station on 24th March 2010.
7.   On 26th June 2010, the ACMM, Bangalore took cognizance and
     issued summons to the appellants herein.
8.   Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants approached the High
     Court praying to quash the criminal proceedings. The learned
     Single Judge of the High Court, though noticed that there was a
     longstanding civil dispute between the parties, refused to quash
     the proceedings and dismissed the criminal petition under Section
     482 of the Cr.P.C.
9.   Being aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed the present appeal by
     way of special leave. While issuing notice, this Court by an order
     dated 8th May 2014 stayed the proceedings before the trial court for
     three months. By an order dated 28th November 2014, while granting
     leave, the interim order of stay was made absolute by this Court.
10. We have heard Shri Anand Sanjay M. Nuli, learned Senior Counsel
    appearing for the appellants and Shri V.N. Raghupathy, learned
    counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Karnataka. Though
    respondent No.2 has been duly served, no one has entered
    appearance on his behalf.
11. We are informed by the counsel for the parties that appellant No.2
    (accused No.2) has died during the pendency of the proceedings.
    The appeal, therefore, stands abated qua appellant No.2.
626                                                        [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


12. Shri Nuli submits that the proceedings are totally mala fide. He further
    submits that it is the appellants who have filed the civil suits and,
    therefore, there is no question of respondent No.2 being threatened
    by the appellants to withdraw the suits. He further submits that
    respondent No.2 is in the habit of filing false cases as is evident from
    the material placed on record. He, therefore, prays for the quashing
    of the chargesheet and the criminal proceedings arising therefrom.
13. Per contra, Shri Raghupathy, learned counsel appearing for the
    respondent-State has vehemently opposed the present appeal.
14. From the perusal of the record, it is clear that it is the appellants,
    who have filed two civil suits, i.e. one for permanent injunction and
    the other for the declaration of the ownership of the suit property.
15. In the suit for permanent injunction, an order under Order XXXIX
    Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC has been passed by the Principal City Civil
    and Sessions Judge, Bangalore on 19th December 2006, thereby
    restraining respondent No.2 and his siblings from interfering with the
    physical possession of the appellants.
16. It is thus clear that the allegations in the FIR are totally absurd.
    When respondent No.2 has not filed any suit, there is no question
    of appellants threatening him of dire consequences if he does not
    withdraw the suit. It further appears from the record that respondent
    No.2 is in the habit of filing false cases against the appellants and
    his family members.
17. It can further be seen that in another criminal Case being No. 6969
    of 2007 on the file of ACMM, Bangalore filed by respondent No.2,
    there are similar allegations that the appellants and his relatives
    were threatening respondent No.2. The learned ACMM, Bangalore,
    vide judgment and order dated 29th March 2008, after considering
    the evidence placed on record found that the allegations made by
    respondent No.2 were totally false and the appellants were, therefore,
    acquitted.
18. Further, in another criminal case being P.C.R. No.9345 of 2009 (in
    Crime No.245 of 2009) on the file of ACMM, Bangalore filed by the
    brother of respondent No.2 against the appellants alleging that the
    sale deed on the basis of which the appellant claimed title, and the
    suit are fraudulently executed. The appellants herein had challenged
    the initiation of the said criminal proceedings before the High Court,
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           627

      P.M. Lokanath and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another


     praying for quashing of the said proceedings. After perusal of the
     material placed on record, learned Single Judge of the High Court
     of Karnataka at Bangalore, vide the judgment and order dated 8th
     September 2009, found that the proceedings initiated were not
     sustainable and, therefore, quashed the criminal proceedings qua
     that criminal case.
19. We are, therefore, of the considered view that respondent No.2
    and his relatives are in the habit of filing false and malicious cases
    against the appellants only on account of long-standing civil dispute
    pending between them.
20. This court in the case of State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan
    Lal and Others1 has held that the High Courts in exercise of
    extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
    or inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. can prevent
    abuse of process of any court or otherwise secure ends of justice.
    This Court in paragraph 102 of the said case provided the following
    categories:
            “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
            relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of
            the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series
            of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary
            power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under
            Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and
            reproduced above, we give the following categories of
            cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be
            exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
            court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it
            may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined
            and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
            rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad
            kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
            (1)    Where the allegations made in the first information report
                   or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value
                   and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute
                   any offence or make out a case against the accused.


1   (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335
628                                                      [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


       (2)   Where the allegations in the first information report and
             other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
             disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
             by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
             under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section
             155(2) of the Code.
       (3)   Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR
             or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
             same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
             make out a case against the accused.
       (4)   Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
             cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
             offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
             without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
             Section 155(2) of the Code.
       (5)   Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
             absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no
             prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there
             is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.
       (6)   Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
             the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
             which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
             and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there
             is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
             providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
             aggrieved party.
       (7)   Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
             mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
             instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
             on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private
             and personal grudge.
       103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that
       the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be
       exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that
       too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be
       justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability
       or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                           629

      P.M. Lokanath and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another


             FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent
             powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court
             to act according to its whim or caprice.”
21. This Court, however, gave a note of caution that such powers should
    be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in
    rarest of rare cases.
22. We are therefore of the considered view that the present case would
    squarely fall under points 1, 3, 5 and 7 of paragraph 102 of the
    aforesaid categories provided by this Court in the case of Bhajan
    Lal (supra).
23. The initiation of criminal proceedings at the instance of respondent
    No.2 in the present case is totally activated by mala fide, instituted
    with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance and with a view to
    spite the appellants.
24. We, therefore, find that the continuation of the criminal proceedings
    against the appellants would be nothing else but an abuse of the
    process of law.
25. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned judgment and
    order dated 14th November 2013 passed by the learned Single Judge
    of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, is quashed and set
    aside. The chargesheet registered as C.C. No. 29027/2010 before
    the Court of IIIrd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, the
    order dated 26th June 2010 issuing summons to the appellants and
    the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are also quashed
    and set aside.
26. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan