SRI RAMESH D V vs STATE BY KADUR POLICE
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60075
CRL.P No. 8323 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010395172026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8323 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI RAMESH D V
S/O VENKATASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT. DODDANAYAKANAHALLI,
Y. MALLAPURA POST,
YAGATI HOBLI, KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577140.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARISH KUMAR M C., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY KADUR POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001
2. S.C. BASAVARAJU,
S/O. LATE CHANNALINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS,
NO.890, DR. M.C. MODI HOSPITAL ROAD,
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST,
BANGALORE-560 086
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NAGHARISH G S., HCGP FOR R1;
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60075
CRL.P No. 8323 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010395172026
SRI. AMIT ANAND DESHPANDE.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO
QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED IN C.C.NO.435/2026
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 465, 468 AND
471 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT KADUR POLICE IN CRIME NO.288/2023 AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON, PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT KADUR.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
learned High Court Government Pleader for the first
respondent-State and the learned counsel for the second
respondent.
2. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in
C.C. No.435/2026 registered for the offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468, 471 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIR is registered before the Kadur
Police in Crime No.288/2023. The matter is pending before
the JMFC, Kadur.
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60075
CRL.P No. 8323 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010395172026
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that the second respondent executed a
registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on
31.03.2021. The suit is filed by the family members of the
complainant in respect of the said properties and other
properties and the same is pending in O.S. No.199/2023.
4. It is the contention that the charge sheet is filed
primarily on the basis of the report of the forensic expert
who has opined that the signature on the loan application
filed by respondent No.2 and the signature on the sale deed
signed by the respondent No.2 are forged.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the
contents of the complaint would urge that in the complaint
the complainant/second respondent has stated that on
31.03.2021 the complainant has not gone to the office of the
Sub-Registrar and that the complainant's signature as well
as the thumb impression are forged. The forensic expert's
report would indicate that the thumb impression is that of
the respondent No.2-complainant, as such, there cannot be
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60075
CRL.P No. 8323 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010395172026
any allegation of forgery. Thus, he would contend that the
charge sheet has to be quashed.
6. Learned HCGP would submit that the forensic
expert's opinion would clearly demonstrate that the
signature on the loan application and the signature on the
sale deed do not match with the admitted signature and
merely because the thumb impression is matching with the
admitted thumb impression of the respondent No.2 is not a
ground to quash the proceedings as there is a possibility of
the thumb impression on the document dated 25.03.2021
being used to get the sale deed registered.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
submit that the respondent No.2 is 92 years old and the
petitioner is the caretaker of respondent No.2 and on the
pretext of getting the loan sanctioned respondent No.2 was
taken to the office of the Sub-Registrar on 25.03.2021 and
on that day, the mortgage deed was registered. Later on
31.03.2025 using the thumb impression of respondent No.2
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60075
CRL.P No. 8323 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010395172026
that is affixed while getting the mortgage deed registered,
sale deed is executed.
8. It is the further submission that as per the recital
in the sale deed the entire amount is said to have been paid
in cash on the date of registration. However, in the written
statement the defendant/petitioner has taken a stand that
the consideration amount was paid prior to the sale deed.
9. It is the further submission that the signature on
the mortgage deed is forged. The loan application is forged
and the signature on the sale deed is also forged. This is the
opinion of the expert and at this juncture the expert's
opinion cannot be brushed aside in a proceeding under
Section 528 of Bharathiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(BNSS), is the submission.
10. The Court has considered the contentions raised
at the Bar and perused the records.
Prima facie
11. there are two documents allegedly
executed by the second respondent. The first document is
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60075
CRL.P No. 8323 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010395172026
dated 25.03.2021, which is said to be the mortgage deed.
The second document is said to be the sale deed dated
31.03.2021. The handwriting expert has opined that the
signature on the mortgage deed and the signature on the
sale deed and the signature on the loan application are
forged. It is the submission of the respondents that the
thumb impression given on 25.03.2023 on the mortgage
deed was copied and affixed and pasted in the sale deed.
That being the position, the Court is of the view that the
matter requires trial to appreciate the contentions raised by
the parties.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that the Sub-Registrar is not made a party though there is
an allegation against the Sub-Registrar in the complaint.
13. The Court is of the view that this cannot be a
ground to quash the proceedings. In case, during the course
of trial, the Court finds that the Sub-Registrar is also
involved and there are materials against the Sub-Registrar,
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60075
CRL.P No. 8323 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010395172026
the Court may proceed against the Sub-Registrar in
accordance with law.
dismissed
14. Hence, the petition is .
Digitally Signed by ANANT
RAMNATH HEGDE
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
CHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1