SRI NANDARAJU vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 3428 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4686 of 2024


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3428 OF 2024

C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4686 OF 2024



IN CRL.P No. 3428/2024

BETWEEN:

1. SRI NANDARAJU
S/O LATE VENKATARAYARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,

2. SMT. SATHYABHAMA
W/O SRI. NANDARAJU
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,

3. SRI. DUSHYANTH
S/O SRI. NANDARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE
TH
R/O NO.327-A, 5 MAIN ROAD,
B.C.C LAYOUT,
BANGALORE 560040
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAVI C.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANDRA LAYUOT POLICE STATION
BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER
ND
2 CROSS, BASAVESHWARA HBCS LAYOUT,
ND
2 STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT,
ATTIGUPPE, BENGALURU -560 040












Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 3428 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4686 of 2024


REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE -560 001

2. SRI. V. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE VENKATARAYARAJU
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.92,
TH
4 CROSS, B.C.C LAYOUT,
VIJAYANAGAR
BANGALURU- 560 040
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1,
SRI. V.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2023 OF THE HON'BLE
VIII ACMM COURT, BENGALURU AS PER DOCUMENT NO.2 THAT
HAS BEEN PASSED BASED ON THE PRIVATE COMPLIANT PCR
NO.17051/2022 DATED 25.11.2022 WHEREIN THE CHANDRA
LAYOUT POLICE (RESPONDENT NO.1) HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO
COMMENCE INVESTIGATION BY THE HON'BLE VIII ACMM
COURT UNDER SEC.156(3) OF CRPC.

IN CRL.P NO. 4686/2024

BETWEEN:

SRI PUTTARAJAIAH A
S/O LATE N. ARUNACHALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.124/10
TH
16 MAIN ROAD,
INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE LAYOUT,
BANGALORE 560 040
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI C.S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION,
BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 3428 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4686 of 2024


ND
2 CROSS, BASAVESHWARA HBCS LAYOUT,
ND
2 STAGE, CHANDRA LAYOUT,
ATTIGUPPE, BENGALURU -560 040

REPRESENTED BY THE STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR/ HCGP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE-560 001

2. SRI. V MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE VENKATARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT NO. 92, 4 CROSS,
ND
B.C.C LAYOUT 2 STAGE,
VIJAYANAGAR
BENGALURU-560 040
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S, HCGP FOR R1,
DR. LAVANYA RAMESH FOR
SRI. V.K. RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2023 OF THE
HON'BLE VIII ACMM COURT, BENGALURU AS PER
DOCUMENT NO.2 THAT HAS BEEN PASSED BASED ON THE
PRIVATE COMPLIANT PCR NO.17051/2022 DATED
25.11.2022 WHEREIN THE CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE
(RESPONDENT NO.1) HAS BEEN DIRECTED TO COMMENCE
INVESTIGATION BY THE HONBLE VIII ACMM COURT UNDER
SEC.156(3) OF CRPC.

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS ON 28.10.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 3428 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4686 of 2024


CAV ORDER

These two petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C
seeking to set aside the order dated 10.10.2023 passed in PCR
(FR No.17051/2022) by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’) and
to quash the FIR against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 in
Crime No.472/2023 (arising out of PCR (FR No.17051/2022)
registered by Chandra Layout Police Station for the offences
punishable under Sections 415, 420, 463, 464, 468, 471 r/w
section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of aforesaid learned
Magistrate.
2. The factual matrix of the case are that, respondent
No.2-complainant lodged the complaint alleging that accused
No.1 is his brother, accused No.2 is the wife of accused No.1,
accused No.3 is their son, and accused No.4 is another person
allegedly involved in the transaction. Respondent No.2
contends that he and the accused are members of an undivided
Hindu family and that accused No.1, being the Kartha of the
family, was managing its affairs.
3. It is alleged that the subject property, situated at
No.29, 5th Cross, B.C.C. Layout, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru, was

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 3428 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4686 of 2024


acquired from the nucleus of the joint family and that
respondent No.2 contributed towards its purchase and
construction. Respondent No.2 further alleges that accused
No.1, in collusion with the other accused, forged his signature
on a General Power of Attorney dated 27.12.2002 and, on the
strength of the said document, executed a registered partition
deed dated 02.06.2010 and based on that, transferred the
property to accused No.3, thereby depriving respondent No.2 of
his lawful share in the property.
4. It is further alleged that respondent No.2
repeatedly requested accused No.1 to partition the joint family
properties, but the accused failed to honour the assurances
given by him. Consequently, respondent No.2 instituted a suit
for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.3290/2011
before the Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru, which is
stated to be pending adjudication. During the pendency of said
suit, respondent No.2 sought scientific examination of the
disputed signature on the General Power of Attorney under
Order XXVI Rule 10A of CPC.
5. Respondent No.2 alleges that accused persons
acted in furtherance of their common intention to fabricate

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 3428 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4686 of 2024


documents and unlawfully transfer the subject property in
favour of accused No.3. Further, the General Power of Attorney
is forged and that the partition deed executed on its basis is
invalid and does not bind him. Despite his efforts to resolve the
dispute amicably, accused persons allegedly refused to partition
the properties. Hence, respondent No.2 lodged the private
complaint against the petitioners/accused.
6. On the strength of said private complaint, FIR came
to be registered in Crime No.472/2023 against the petitioners
for the aforementioned offences. Aggrieved by the same,
accused Nos.1 to 3 have preferred Crl.Pet.No.3428/2024 and
accused No.4 has preferred Crl.Pet.No.4686/2024 to quash the
FIR registered against them.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 -
State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 –
complainant in both the petitions.
8. The primary contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners in both petitions is that, the learned Magistrate,
while referring the private complaint to the jurisdictional police
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., failed to apply his judicious

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 3428 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4686 of 2024


mind and mechanically referred the private complaint for
registration of the FIR. It is further contended that respondent
No.2 instituted the private complaint with an intention to give a
criminal colour to a civil dispute, in respect of which respondent
No.2 had already instituted O.S.No.3290/2011 on 07.05.2011,
seeking partition and separate possession of the joint family
properties. According to the learned counsel, the present
complaint came to be lodged after a lapse of nearly eleven
years from the institution of the civil suit, particularly after the
police had earlier returned the complaint dated 17.10.2022. It
is also contended that the FSL report relied upon by the
respondent No.1-police was questioned in the civil proceedings
during the course of cross-examination, by disputing the
admitted and disputed signatures. On these grounds, the
learned counsel prays for allowing the petition. In support of his
contentions, he places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in BHIKHUBHAI GOVINDBHAI PATEL AND
ANOTHER V. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER - 2026
LiveLaw (SC) 593 .
9. Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
the learned HCGP opposed the petitions, contending that mere
pendency of a partition suit is not a ground to quash the

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 3428 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4686 of 2024


criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for the
serious offences of forgery and cheating. It is further contended
that the petitioners, colluding with each other, concocted the
General Power of Attorney dated 27.12.2002 and, on the
strength of the said document, executed a partition deed and
based on the said deed, transferred the ancestral property in
favour of accused No.3. It is also submitted that the disputed
General Power of Attorney was referred to the FSL for
examination and the opinion of the expert indicates that the
signature appearing on the document differs from the admitted
signature of respondent No.2. In such circumstances, it is
contended that, when the investigation is still at a nascent
stage, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Accordingly, they
sought dismissal of the petitions.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submission made by the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the entire materials on record.
11. As could be gathered from the averments of the
private complaint, the primary allegation against the petitioners
is that they, in collusion with each other, forged the General
Power of Attorney dated 27.12.2002 purportedly executed by

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 3428 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4686 of 2024


respondent No.2 and, on the strength of said document,
executed a partition deed and based on that, they transferred
the ancestral property in favour of accused No.3. Immediately
upon coming to know of the alleged act, respondent No.2
instituted suit in O.S.No.3290/2011 seeking partition and
separate possession, along with consequential relief of
injunction. Subsequently, on 17.10.2022, respondent No.2
lodged a complaint before the police alleging forgery of the
aforesaid General Power of Attorney. However, the police did
not register an FIR and issued an endorsement in that regard.
Thereafter, the disputed General Power of Attorney was
referred to the FSL for examination, and the report indicated a
discrepancy between the disputed and admitted signatures. In
the above circumstances, respondent No.2 proceeded to file the
present private complaint.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in SHARLA BAZLIEL V.
BALDEV THAKUR AND OTHERS - 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 256 ,
held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed in a petition
filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. when the FSL report is
available or its consideration is pending. In the present case,
the FSL report indicates a discrepancy between the disputed

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 3428 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4686 of 2024


and admitted signatures. Therefore, the allegation of forgery
requires proper investigation by respondent No.1-police.
13. Nevertheless, the matter is at a nascent stage and
the investigation has not progressed beyond the preliminary
steps taken immediately after registration of the case. The
relevant evidence is yet to be collected upon a thorough
investigation and placed before the Court. At this stage, this
Court cannot anticipate the outcome of the investigation or
record a finding on the allegation of forgery merely on the basis
of the defence raised by the petitioners. Therefore, the
complaint cannot be thrown out at the threshold on the basis of
an unsubstantiated defence. In the case on hand, the complaint
and the material collected thus prima facie disclose the
commission of a cognizable offences against the petitioners.
14. As regards the contention of the petitioners that the
learned Magistrate failed to apply judicious mind while referring
the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., on perusal of
the order dated 10.10.2023, it is evident that the learned
Magistrate considered the private complaint and the
accompanying affidavit in detail and recorded a finding that a

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 3428 of 2024
C/W CRL.P No. 4686 of 2024


prima facie case was made out against the petitioners. Hence,
the aforesaid contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
15. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the
considered opinion that the allegations in the private complaint
and the material available on record prima facie warrant
investigation. The petitioners have failed to make out any
ground for quashing the FIR under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Hence, the petitions, being devoid of merits, are hereby
dismissed.


SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE










PKS/K