SRI MUNIKRISHNA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.898 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. MUNIKRISHNA,
S/O LATE SRI. MUNIBYRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.
2. SRI. R. RAJA,
S/O SRI. MUNIKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS.
3. SRI. MUNISWAMY,
S/O SRI. MUNIKRISHNA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.
PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 3 ARE
R/AT NO.101, JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE,
SRI SAJJAPURA MAIN ROAD,
KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU-560034.
4. SRI. D. ANAND,
S/O LATE SRI DODDABBAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT L-74, L.H.COLONY,
TH TH
5 MAIN, 15 CROSS,
TH
6 SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT
BENGALURU-560102.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R.B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY MADIVALA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. SRI. G. SANTHOSHAREDDY,
S/O LATE SRI. L. GOKULAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT NO.203,
BEHIND VENKATESHWARA TEMPLE,
AGRA VILLAGE, HSR LAYOUT POST,
BENGALURU-560102.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. H.L.PRADEEP KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.PC PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION AND BE
PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
RD
C.C.NO.11171/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 3
ADDITIONAL CMM CITY, BENGALURU PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 420, 465, 471, 468 AND 120-B R/W SECTION 149
OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned
High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent
No.1/State and the learned counsel for respondent
No.2/complainant.
2. The prayer sought in the petition is to quash the
proceedings initiated against the petitioners in
C.C.No.11171/2018, pending on the file of the III Additional
CMM Court, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 465, 471, 468, 120B read with Section 49 of IPC.
3. The complainant/Sri G.Santhosh Reddy in his
complaint dated 24.12.2015 made an allegation in paragraph
No.1 of the complaint that, petition Nos.1 to 3 along with two
minors have executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner No.4
on 10.10.2011, in respect of the property which is mentioned in
the complaint. The said sale deed has not been signed by the
minors and hence, no grievance against the two minors.
However, in paragraph No.2 of the complaint, it is specifically
stated that while executing the sale deed in favour of petitioner
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
No.4 before the Sub-Registrar Office, they have produced the
documents of khata certificate, khata extract and tax paid
receipts dated 29.08.2011 of BBMP and those documents are
fabricated and forged documents and the same have been used
for registration of the sale deed with an intention to grab their
valuable property. It is also stated that when he approached
the BBMP under the Right to Information Act and asked
whether the above documents were issued by the BBMP, the
BBMP issued an endorsement dated 16.03.2015 that those
documents are not issued by them. Hence, an allegation is
made against the petitioners herein that they have indulged in
creation of documents and transferring the property in favour
of petitioner No.4.
4. Based on the complaint, the police registered the
FIR in Crime No.2353/2015 and investigated the matter and
filed the charge-sheet. The accusation made in column No.7 of
the charge-sheet while invoking the offences under Sections
465, 468, 471, 420, 120B read with Section 149 of IPC is in
respect of the very same property of khata No.101, PID No.66-
207-101. The said property was purchased in the year 1972 by
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
the grandfather of CW1, late Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy, from
late Sri Patel Munibyrappa, the father of the accused, under a
registered document bearing No.2759/1972-73 dated
24.07.1972. A fter the death of the said Lakshminarayana
Reddy, his son i.e., father of CW1 Mr. Gokul Reddy sold 13 x
120 sq.ft. in favour of Narayana Reddy and remaining
properties were in their possession. It is stated that accused
Nos.1 to 3, who are the children of late Patel Munibyrappa and
accused No.4, joined together with an intention to cheat the
complainant and committed fraud in creating the document of
fake khata certificate, fake khata extract and fake property tax.
Based on those fake documents, sale deed was executed
knowing fully well that the property belongs to CW1 even
though the suit was pending before the Court in
O.S.No.2487/2003, wherein accused No.6 was also witness and
accused Nos.1 to 4 also filed an affidavit before the Court.
Inspite of all having the knowledge, 792 sq.ft of northern
portion of the property was sold and accused Nos.1 to 6 have
cheated the complainant.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
5. Having filed the charge-sheet, the Trial Court has
taken cognizance and comes to the conclusion that there are
sufficient material to proceed against accused Nos.1 to 6 for
the said offences. Being aggrieved by the filing of the charge-
sheet, the present petition is filed before this Court.
6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the very initiation of prosecution against
these petitioners is nothing but an abuse of process. The
respondent No.1 police have not investigated the complaint
properly and failed to note that the matter in dispute is of civil
nature and civil litigations are also pending and one of the suit
is already partly decreed in favour of the mother of petitioner
No.1 and the deceased accused No.4 by name Sri Narayana
Swamy. The police failed to take note that the complaint is
without any substance, since the vendors had authority to sell
the site and they have sold it and based on the title deeds,
obviously the BBMP might have made the khata in favour of the
purchasers i.e., accused No.6/petitioner No.4 in the above
petition. The learned counsel would contend that the allegation
made in the complaint that the documents are created before
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
selling the property, cannot be accepted. The learned counsel
also brought to the notice of this Court that the documents
which have been produced are issued by the Department based
on the information sought. If those documents are not issued
by the BBMP, what made them to issue such documents under
the Right to Information Act, no explanation. The learned
counsel also vehemently contend that the documents which the
complainant relies upon as fabricated documents are not part
of the charge-sheet. The learned counsel also submits that in
the sketch which is produced along with the plaint is also very
clear that the same is not included in O.S.No.2487/2003 and
hence, the question of the petitioners facing the criminal
prosecution does not arise. The learned counsel would contend
that the said purchaser is a bona fide purchaser and he had no
any knowledge about the dispute while purchasing the property
and he has paid the sale consideration. Hence, he cannot be
prosecuted.
7. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would
vehemently contend that the grandfather of the complainant Sri
Lakshminarayana Reddy had purchased the land measuring
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
4,558 sq.ft. situated at Jakkasandra Village, Begur Hobli,
Bangalore, from accused’s grandfather Sri Patel Munibyrappa.
Subsequent to the death of Sri Lakshminarayana Reddy, by
inheritance, Sri Gokul Reddy got his father's properties
including land measuring 4,558 sq.ft. The learned counsel also
contend that during the lifetime of Sri Gokul Reddy, he sold
land measuring 13 x 120 i.e., 1,560 sq.ft. to one Sri Narayana
Reddy. The said Gokul Reddy passed away on 28.07.1994. A
suit was filed in O.S.No.2487/2003 by Smt. Bachamma and her
children, who are the legal heirs of Patel Munibyrappa against
the legal heirs of Lakshminarayana Reddy and Gokul Reddy for
declaration to declare sale deed dated 24.07.1972 as null and
void on the ground fabricated documents. Copy of the order
passed in O.S.No.2487/2003 is also enclosed along with
affidavit evidence of Sri D.Anand/petitioner No.4 herein. The
learned counsel also contend that during the pendency of
O.S.No.2487/2003, Smt.Bachamma and her children purchased
13 x 120 from Narayana Reddy. The petitioner No.4 is one of
the witnesses to the above suit, who is said to have purchased
33 x 24 i.e., 792 sq.ft. of land from Smt. Bachamma and her
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
children by fabricating Khata certificate, Khata extract and tax
paid receipt. The suit in O.S.No.26681/2013 filed by
Thimmakka and others, who are the legal heirs of
Lakshminarayana Reddy against Bachamma and her children
challenging the sale deed dated 10.10.2011 in respect of
33 x 24 sq.ft. came to be decreed and RFA against the said
judgment is pending before this Court.
8. The learned counsel referring these documents
would vehemently contend that even petitioner No.4 was also
having the knowledge about the same and he was examined
before the Court in O.S.No.2487/2003, wherein the prayer is
sought for quashing the sale deed of the year 1972 executed in
favour of the complainant’s grandfather and now he cannot
contend that the said suit schedule property not belongs to the
said property included in the sale deed of the year 1972. In
respect of the very same property, sale was made in favour of
petitioner Nos.1 to 3 and all of them joined together in
defeating the rights of the complainant. Hence, complaint was
filed and the police have investigated the matter and filed the
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
charge-sheet against the petitioners and in the charge-sheet in
column No.17 specific accusations are made.
9. The learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1/State also produced the
documents of charge-sheet, FIR, copy of the complaint, spot
mahazar, endorsement dated 16.03.2015 given in favour of the
complainant when the complainant had sought the information
from the BBMP, document dated 29.08.2011 i.e. khata extract
and khata certificate and also the tax paid receipts and so also
the sale deed in favour of accused No.6/petitioner No.4 dated
10.10.2011. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this
Court the discussion made in the judgment passed in
O.S.No.2487/2003 dated 01.10.2015. The learned counsel
would contend that prior to that, already there was a sale deed
in favour of petitioner No.4. The learned counsel would
contend that all of them have had the knowledge about the
same and they entered into the sale deed during the pendency
of the suit and the grounds which have been urged are to be
considered at the time of trial.
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
10. Having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel
for respondent No.2/complainant, based on the complaint, FIR
was registered in Crime No.2353/2015. Having considered the
contents of the complaint dated 24.12.2015, specific accusation
is made against the petitioners that they have indulged in
forging of documents of khata certificate, khata extract and tax
paid receipts and based on those fabricated documents, sale
deed was executed in favour of petitioner No.4 i.e., sale deed
dated 10.10.2011. The said sale deed is also part of the
charge-sheet and so also the fabricated documents are also
mentioned in charge-sheet in column Nos.4, 5, 6 and 7. The
very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
those documents are not part of the charge-sheet cannot be
accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioners would
vehemently contend that it is a civil dispute between the
parties. When specific allegations are made that khata
certificate, khata extract and tax paid receipts are created and
made use of the same for registration of the document in
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
favour of petitioner No.4, it attracts the ingredients of the
offence under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
11. The learned counsel for respondent
No.2/complainant also brought to the notice of this Court that
the allegations made in the charge-sheet is that during the
pendency of the suit, the sale deed was executed in favour of
petitioner No.4. The learned counsel for respondent No.2
brought to the notice of this Court that the very petitioner No.4
who had purchased the property during the year 2011 was the
witness to the original suit, wherein he has been examined as
PW2 i.e., in 2009 and sale deed came into existence in 2011.
The petitioner No.4 had the knowledge and the fact is that he is
a beneficiary in respect of the portion of the property which
was purchased. It is also important to note that a suit was filed
for the relief of declaration to declare the sale deed of the year
1972 made in favour of the complainant’s grandfather as null
and void and the suit was filed in the year 2003. During the
pendency of the suit, the document came into existence based
on the fabricated documents alleged in the charge-sheet and so
also information is sought by the Investigating Officer during
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57947
CRL.P No. 898 of 2020
CNR: KAHC010563352019
the course of investigation and concerned authorities have also
given reply that those documents are fabricated and the
persons who have issued those documents are not working in
the same department. When such material is available before
the Court, this is an issue to be tried before the Trial Court and
this Court while exercising the power under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. cannot dwell upon the disputed issue and facts between
the parties. Hence, no grounds are made out to quash the
proceedings initiated against the petitioners.
12. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the
observations made by this Court while dealing with
the matter on merits.
Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11