MONISHA RAJ T G vs SHYLA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59085
CRL.P No. 10150 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010469752025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10150 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
MONISHA RAJ T G
D/O. LATE.P.GANGARAJU,
W/O. J.SIDDAYOGEESHA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
PERMANENT RESIDENT OF
NO.4/230, BEHIND HEALTH QUATRES,
K.H.B. COLONY GUBBI TOWN,
GUBBI TALUQ
TUMAKURU DIST-572216
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PATEL.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
SHYLA
W/O. LATE GANGARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDENT OF
SREE YADIYURU SIDDALINGESHWARA NILAYA,
ST
31 WARD, 'E' CROSS, 1 MAIN ROAD,
SHETTIHALLI MAIN ROAD,
NRUPATHUNGA EXTN,
TUMAKURU-572107
…RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IF NECESSARY AND
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20.02.2025, PASSED IN
CRL.RP.NO.107/2022 BY THE III ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59085
CRL.P No. 10150 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010469752025
JUDGE, TUMAKURU VIDE ANNEUXRE-A AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 17.08.2022 PASSED IN PCR NO.555/2021 BY THE IV
ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT TUMAKUR VIDE ANNEXURE-B
AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
1. Call for records if necessary and set aside the order
dated 20.02.2025, passed in Crl.RP.No.107/2022
by the III Addl.District and Sessions Judge,
Tumakuru vide Anneuxre-A and also set aside the
order dated 17.08.2022 passed in Pcr No.555/2021
by the IV Addl.Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Tumakur
vide Annexure-B.
2. Consequently, restore the proceedings in PCR
No.555/2021, by directing the IV Addl. Civil Judge
& JMFC, Tumakuru to proceed in accordance with
law by against the accused/Respondent and.
3. Grant such other order or orders, in the
circumstances of the case.
2. The petitioner had filed a private complaint under
Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
alleging that the respondent, who was the accused
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59085
CRL.P No. 10150 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010469752025
therein, was falsely claiming to be the second wife of
the petitioner's father, namely, P. Gangaraju. It was
alleged that the respondent was already married to
one Sri Basavaraj Kodikoppalu and, therefore, could
not have married the petitioner's father without
obtaining a divorce. The petitioner contended that
the claim made by the respondent was false and that
the documents created by her, including the Will
allegedly executed by the petitioner's father in
respect of his property, were fabricated. On these
allegations, the petitioner sought initiation of criminal
proceedings for the offences punishable under
Sections 415, 416, 417, 418, 420, 467, 468 and 471
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section
177 of the IPC.
3. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 17.08.2022,
dismissed the private complaint. The learned
Magistrate held that the question as to whether the
Will was invalid or fabricated was a matter requiring
adjudication by a competent Civil Court and that the
Magistrate could not decide the validity of the Will in
the criminal proceedings. The learned Magistrate
further held that the other allegations concerning the
respondent's claim to be the wife of the petitioner's
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59085
CRL.P No. 10150 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010469752025
father were also essentially civil in nature and,
accordingly, dismissed the complaint.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred
Criminal Revision Petition No. 107 of 2022 before the
III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru.
The Revisional Court, by order dated 20.02.2025,
dismissed the revision petition.
5. The Revisional Court observed that no allegation had
been made against the respondent during the
lifetime of the petitioner's father. With regard to the
finding of the learned Magistrate that no document
had been produced to establish the alleged marriage
between the respondent and Gangaraju, the
Revisional Court held that the document relied upon
by the petitioner had not been accompanied by an
application under Section 65-B of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the decision of the
learned Magistrate not to rely upon the said
document could not be faulted.
6. The Revisional Court further held that the allegations
relating to the Will were essentially civil in nature
and required adjudication by a competent Civil Court.
It is challenging the orders passed by both the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59085
CRL.P No. 10150 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010469752025
learned Magistrate and the Revisional Court that the
petitioner has approached this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterates the
contention that the respondent was already married
to Sri Basavaraj Kodikoppalu and, therefore, could
not have married the petitioner's father. It is
contended that the respondent's claim to be the wife
of the petitioner's father is false and that the
documents relied upon by her, including the Will, are
fabricated.
8. The complaint, in substance, relates to the
respondent's claim to be the wife of the petitioner's
father and the Will allegedly executed by the
petitioner's father in her favour. The questions as to
whether the respondent was legally married to the
petitioner's father, whether such marriage was valid
and whether the Will relied upon by her is genuine or
fabricated are matters which require adjudication by
a competent Court in accordance with the procedure
prescribed by law.
9. The validity and genuineness of a Will must be
established in accordance with the applicable
provisions of law. The mere allegation that a Will is
fabricated or invalid does not, by itself, establish the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59085
CRL.P No. 10150 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010469752025
commission of a criminal offence. At the same time,
the question as to whether the respondent has
committed any offence by creating or using a forged
document would depend upon the specific allegations
and the material placed on record.
10. The learned Magistrate, having considered the
allegations made in the complaint, held that the
dispute was essentially civil in nature and that the
issues raised therein required adjudication by a
competent Civil Court. The Revisional Court, upon
examining the order of the learned Magistrate, found
no reason to interfere with the said conclusion.
11. Having considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the petitioner and the orders passed by
the learned Magistrate and the Revisional Court, this
Court is of the opinion that the principal dispute
between the parties concerns the respondent's claim
to be the wife of the petitioner's father and her claim
under the Will allegedly executed by him.
12. The petitioner is at liberty to establish his
contentions regarding the alleged marriage, the
validity of the Will and the rights of the parties in
respect of the property in appropriate civil
proceedings. The question as to whether the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59085
CRL.P No. 10150 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010469752025
respondent's claim is legally sustainable would have
to be determined by the competent Civil Court on the
basis of the pleadings and evidence placed before it.
13. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any
infirmity in the orders passed by the learned
Magistrate and the Revisional Court warranting
interference in the present proceedings.
14. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.
15. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of the
present petition shall not come in the way of the
petitioner pursuing appropriate civil proceedings, for
adjudication of the grounds raised herein. All
contentions of the parties in such proceedings are
left open to be decided in accordance with law.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
29/10/2026, 13:40, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
LN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14