SRI P HARSHAVARDHAN vs STATE BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 998 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /
528(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
SRI P HARSHAVARDHAN
S/O PAVAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
R/AT, NO.48,
RAMYASOWMYA NILAYA,
NAGAMMA LAYOUT, KAVALABYRASANDRA,
R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALURU 560032.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ROOPESHA B.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION
BENGALURU.
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU 560 001.
2. SRI. SURYANARAYAN MURTHY M.R
REP BY HIS GPA HOLDER
SMT. DR.SUDHA RAO,
W/O SURYANARAYAN MURTHY M.R,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
TH
R/AT NO.677, 17 MAIN ROAD,
SARASWATHIPURAM,
MYSURU-570009.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1)
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNSS) PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN CRIME
NO.161/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC, AT DEVANAHALLI AND ETC.
QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN
CRIME NO.161/2023 PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PRL. CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 419,
420, 465, 468, 471 AND 34 OF IPC FILED BY 1ST RESPONDENT I.E.,
DEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU IN CRIME
NO.161/2023.
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:
a. Call for the entire records in Crime No.161/2023
pending before the Hon’ble Prl. Civil Judge and
JMFC, at Devanahalli.
b. Quash the proceedings initiated against the
petitioner in Crime No.161/2023 pending before
the Honble Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli
for the offences p/u/s 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and
34 of IPC filed by 1st respondent i.e., Devanahalli
Police Station, Bengaluru in Crime No.161/2023.
2. The petitioner is before this Court challenging the
proceedings initiated against him in Crime
No.161/2023 registered by Devanahalli Police Station
for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420,
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.
3. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 17.08.2023
alleging that one Priya, falsely claiming to be the
daughter of Smt. Vijayalakshmi, the sister of
respondent No.2, had created false documents,
including a Will, in respect of the property bearing
Sy. No.1/4, measuring 33 guntas. On the basis of the
said documents, Priya had allegedly entered into an
agreement of sale dated 24.12.2021 with one Sri.
Bharath for sale of the aforesaid property for a
consideration of ₹1,50,00,000/-, receiving an
advance of ₹65,00,000/- from him. The said
agreement was notarised.
4. Subsequently, another agreement of sale came to be
executed and registered on 19.12.2022, this time for
a consideration of ₹7,82,00,000/-, against which an
advance of ₹5,00,000/- was received.
5. It is the specific allegation of respondent No.2 that
the subject property belonged to him under the Will
executed by his sister, Smt. M.R. Vijayalakshmi, and
that Priya, by falsely claiming to be her daughter and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
creating documents in support of such claim, had
attempted to deal with the property and deprive
respondent No.2 of his rightful interest therein. It is
in that background that the complaint came to be
lodged seeking initiation of appropriate action against
Priya and the persons involved.
6. During the course of investigation, the statement of
the aforesaid Sri. Bharath came to be recorded. From
the said statement, it allegedly emerged that he,
along with Priya and the present petitioner, had
conspired to fabricate documents relating to the
subject property with an intention to deprive
respondent No.2 of his rights therein.
7. It is further revealed from the investigation that, on
19.12.2022, the petitioner had transferred the
amounts required towards the e-stamp papers, using
his mobile number. It is in the aforesaid
circumstances that the petitioner has also been
implicated in the crime. Aggrieved by the same, the
petitioner is before this Court seeking quashing of
the proceedings.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
8. Sri. Roopesha B., learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submits that the petitioner has been
implicated solely on the basis of the statement made
by the co-accused, namely, Sri. Bharath, which is not
admissible in evidence. It is contended that the mere
statement of one accused implicating another
accused cannot constitute the basis for prosecuting
the latter.
9. He further submits that, at the highest, the allegation
against the petitioner is that he had made payment
towards the stamp duty for the agreement of sale.
There is no other allegation or overt act attributed to
the petitioner which would constitute an offence
punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and
471 read with Section 34 of the IPC. On these
grounds, he seeks quashing of the proceedings.
10. Heard Sri. Roopesha B., learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. Thyagaraja, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2, and the learned
HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the
papers.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
11. A perusal of the material collected during
investigation indicates that, on 19.12.2022, the
petitioner transferred the amount required towards
the e-stamp papers, using his mobile number. The
said circumstance came to the notice of the
Investigating Officer during the course of
investigation, pursuant to the statement made by the
co-accused, Sri. Bharath, who is stated to have
disclosed that he, along with Priya and the petitioner,
had fabricated documents relating to the subject
property.
12. Insofar as the admissibility of the statement made by
the co-accused is concerned, the contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner requires
consideration. A statement made by an accused
before the police during investigation, implicating
another co-accused, cannot be treated as substantive
evidence against such co-accused. The mere fact
that the statement contains an admission or
confession by its maker would not render it
admissible against another accused.
13. In this regard, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in P. Krishna
Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
[2025 INSC 725], has considered the admissibility
and evidentiary value of a statement made by an
accused under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. implicating
another co-accused.
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that an
inculpatory statement made by an accused before
the police cannot be relied upon by the Court against
another co-accused. Such a statement cannot be
rendered admissible against the co-accused merely
by invoking Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872. The conditions prescribed under the said
provision have to be satisfied, and the confession
must independently be relevant and admissible in
law.
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, however, observed that
such statements may be of assistance to the
investigating agency in ascertaining the direction in
which the investigation ought to proceed. Thus, there
is a distinction between the use of such a statement
as an investigative lead and its use by a Court as
material establishing the complicity of another
accused.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
16. In the present case, this Court would not treat the
confession or statement of the co-accused, by itself,
as material establishing the involvement of the
petitioner in the alleged offences. However, the fact
that the petitioner had transferred the amounts
required towards the e-stamp papers on 19.12.2022,
using his mobile number, is a circumstance capable
of independent verification from the relevant
payment and transaction records.
17. The said transaction assumes significance in the
background of the allegation that the documents
relating to the subject property were fabricated and
that the agreement of sale dated 19.12.2022 was
executed on the strength of such documents. The
circumstances in which the petitioner came to make
the payment towards the e-stamp papers, the
purpose for which the payment was made, and his
knowledge, if any, regarding the nature of the
documents being brought into existence are all
matters which require investigation.
18. It is not possible, at this stage, to accept the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner had merely facilitated the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
payment of stamp duty without having any
knowledge of the alleged fabrication of documents.
Equally, this Court is not expressing any opinion that
the mere payment of stamp duty would, by itself,
constitute any of the offences alleged. The question
is whether the circumstances surrounding the
transaction warrant further investigation into the
petitioner's alleged involvement.
19. When the allegations made in the complaint are
considered along with the material collected during
investigation, it cannot be said that the Investigating
Officer has no basis whatsoever to examine the
petitioner's role. The statement of the co-accused
may have provided the investigating agency with a
lead, but the transaction relating to the e-stamp
papers is a circumstance which requires independent
verification and examination.
20. Whether the petitioner had merely facilitated a
payment in the ordinary course or had knowingly
participated in the alleged fabrication of documents
with the other accused persons is a matter which
cannot be conclusively determined at this stage. The
same would require further investigation, including
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
examination of the relevant electronic and financial
records and the circumstances in which the
agreements of sale came to be executed.
21. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has
also submitted that the amounts reflected in the
agreements of sale were paid in cash. In this regard,
reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in The Correspondence, RBANMS
Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar &
Another, Civil Appeal No.5200 of 2025, arising
out of SLP (C) No.13679 of 2022, [decided on
16.04.2025, reported in 2025 INSC 490].
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the
provisions of Sections 269ST and 271DA of the
Income-tax Act, 1961, has issued directions requiring
the disclosure of cash transactions involving
₹2,00,000/- or more to the jurisdictional Income Tax
Authorities for examination of possible violations of
Section 269ST of the Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court
has also directed the jurisdictional Income Tax
Authorities to take appropriate steps in accordance
with law whenever such information is received.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
23. In the present case, if the amounts reflected in the
agreements of sale are found to have been received
in cash in contravention of Section 269ST of the
Income-tax Act, 1961, the Investigating Officer
would be at liberty to forward the relevant
information and material to the jurisdictional Income
Tax Authority for examination and action in
accordance with law.
24. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the petitioner has not made
out a case for interference with the investigation at
this stage. The question of the petitioner's
knowledge, participation and complicity in the
alleged fabrication of documents would require
examination on the basis of the material collected
during investigation. The same cannot be pre-
empted by this Court in exercise of its inherent
jurisdiction.
25. For the aforesaid reasons, no grounds are made out
for quashing the proceedings.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59894
CRL.P No. 998 of 2025
CNR: KAHC010044042025
ORDER
dismissed
(i) The petition is .
(ii) The Investigating Officer is at liberty to proceed
with the investigation in accordance with law
and bring the same to its logical conclusion.
(iii) It is made clear that the investigation shall be
conducted independently, without being
influenced by any of the observations made in
this order.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
04/11/2026, 16:53, Bengaluru
Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
KTY
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12