The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a 73-year-old widow and her elder daughter, ruling that criminal law cannot be weaponized to gain leverage in pending civil inheritance disputes.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by M V Mythili, 73, and her elder daughter M V Smitha, 50, effectively cancelling charges of cheating and forgery registered against them. The criminal complaint had been lodged by Mythili’s younger daughter, M V Shruthi, 48, who resides in Singapore.
In the order dated July 21, the court held that police intervention in an ongoing property division dispute constitutes an unwarranted intrusion into private family matters and amounts to an abuse of the legal process.
Background of the Estate Dispute
The conflict originates from the estate of Mythili’s late husband, Vasantha Rangan, who died in 2015 leaving behind various movable and immovable properties.
Shruthi initiated a civil suit for partition in a Bengaluru court regarding her father’s estate. Subsequent to filing the civil case, she lodged a criminal complaint on October 22, 2025, alleging that her mother had unlawfully altered the khata property records and committed forgery and fraudulent transactions without her consent.
Allegations of Police Intimidation and Harassment
Appearing for Mythili and Smitha, advocate Thejaswini G informed the court that the elderly widow, who lives alone, experienced persistent harassment following the criminal registration. Defense counsel produced photographs depicting suspected hired individuals near her home and noted that frequent police visits created an environment of fear.
The court was also presented with formal representations sent by Mythili to the Bengaluru Commissioner of Police, the State Human Rights Commission, and the Elderly Helpline detailing her safety concerns.
Counsel representing Shruthi argued against quashing the proceedings, maintaining that the petition was premature because police investigations were still at an early stage.
Court Findings and Observations
Rejecting the complainant’s arguments, Justice Nagaprasanna stated that the primary dispute belongs strictly within civil jurisdiction. The bench observed that because the matter was already pending before a civil forum, setting criminal law into motion was improper.
The court noted that representations submitted by the mother reflected a genuine apprehension for her safety and personal dignity due to threats linked to the police complaint and unknown individuals acting on the complainant’s behalf.
Justice Nagaprasanna highlighted that if the younger daughter claims a legitimate share in the property, her proper legal recourse remains within the civil suit she previously filed. The court added that the circumstances provided a prima facie basis for the mother to consider filing a civil suit for malicious prosecution against her daughter, subject to her own discretion.
