SRI. . T G NARASIMHAMURTHY vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 505 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS))


BETWEEN:


SRI. T. G. NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
S/O T.V. GANGARAJU,
R/AT TAVAREKERE VILLAGE,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
POST AND HOBLI - 562 130.
BANGALORE DISTRICT.
…PETITIONER








(BY SRI. PRADEEP J. S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY
VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE STATION,
CUBBON PARK DIVISION - 01.


2. SRI. B. N. SHIVANNA
S/O LATE. NAGAPPA,
NO.648, 12TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN,
M.C. LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 104.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K. NAGENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO a. QUASH THE COMPLAINT
ANNEXURE-A DATED 15.10.2020 LODGED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.2. b. QUASH THE FIR-ANNEXURE-B DATED
15.10.2020 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AGAINST
THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S
465,468,471,420,120B R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE
OF THE 39th ACMM, BANGALORE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard the petitioner counsel and also learned counsel
appearing for the respondent.

2. The prayer is sought in the petition to quash the FIR
Annexure ‘B’ dated 15.10.2020, based on the Annexure ‘A’
dated 15.10.2020 lodged by the respondent No.2 for the
offences punishable under sections 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B
read with Section 34 of IPC registered in respect of
Crime No.47/2020 and pass such other order.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant as
per Annexure ‘A’ is that this petitioner is a developer in respect
of the property belonging to the accused No.1, in respect of the
property belongs to accused Nos.2 and 3 specific allegation is
made that indulged with them and also with the planning
authorities conspired each other included the property of the
complainant and obtained the plan and sold the property
including the property of the complainant and wrongfully
gained the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- and hence specific
allegations are made in the complaint as per Annexure ‘A’ and
FIR registered as per Annexure B.

4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would
vehemently contend that he is only a power of attorney holder
of accused nos.2 to 7 in respect of their converted lands
bearing Survey No.161, 162, 163, 164, situated at Tavarekera
Village and Post and dispute between the petitioner herein and
the complaint is purely civil in nature and counsel also would
submit that there are several pending civil litigations with
respect to the land in dispute. The counsel also would contend
that the petitioner has been defending the litigations in
accordance with law before various courts including the High

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

Court of Karnataka and also before the Civil Court and
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and also before the BMRDA.
Learned counsel would contend that earlier the respondent no.2
had filed Writ Petition No.39400.39402/2013, wherein joint
memo was filed and specifically agreed that each of them are in
possession of their lands and there is no encroachment
physically by each other. But there was an overlapping of the
conversion of the property of the respondent No.2/complainant.
The counsel also relies upon the document ay Annexures C, D,
E and F and G wherein joint memo was filed and order was
passed and also the sketch was also prepared. The Magadi
Planning Authority has approved the layout plan of the
petitioner and accused nos.2 to 7 and the planning authority
have also released the sites for sale. The layout sanction letter
by the Magadi Planning Authority is also produced at Annexure-
J and sites released by the Authority as per Annexure-K against
the said order of sanction plan, respondent No.2 filed an appeal
before the BMRDA in case no. NA.AE.33/BMR/2018
[BMRDA/MPA/19/2017-18 dated 09.04.2019. The notice was
also given to the petitioner as per Annexure ‘L’. The said

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

appeal was withdrawn by the respondent no.2 himself on
25.05.2019 as per Annexure ;M’.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently
contended that the town planning authority, as per the
planning rules issued the plan and respondent No.2 also has
suffered an order and the appeal came to be dismissed vide
order dated 27.11.2019. The complainant has also arrayed the
Secretary, Deputy Director, Assistant and even the Clerk of
Director of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Authority
i.e. Accused No. 11. Further it is submitted that the accused
No.11 also passed an order in his official capacity in Case
No.DTCP.3.CMPL-2019-20 dated 27.11.2019 and also
contended that the complainant herein had threatened the
authorities that he would initiate criminal cases and brought to
notice of the said document also and so also brought to notice
of this Court, the order dated 27.11.2018, which is produced as
Annexure ‘N’ that against the said order the respondent no. 2
has also prepared a Writ Petition No.15526/2020. The
petitioner yet to enter appearance and file his objection. The
printout from the website also is produced at Annexure-P. The

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

respondent No. 2 also preferred a Writ Petition before this
Court in WP No.26232/2019 connected with 29732-734/2019
which are pending for adjudication.

6. The counsel also contend that respondent No.2 filed
another Writ Petition No.34460/2017 and WP No.37454-
456/2017. The said petition came to be dismissed vide order
dated 28.08.2017 with liberty to approach the Karnataka
Appellate Tribunal and also produced Annexure- H. Further,
contended that apart from the aforementioned cases, there
were cases between the petitioner and the respondent and
produced the document at Annexures Q, R, S, T, V, W and X.
So also, on similar facts and allegations a PCR was also filed at
Annexures Y and Z. The main contention of the counsel that it
is a purely civil in nature with regard to the dispute between
the parties and so also counsel would contend that they are the
neighbours and also the respondent No.2 is abusing the
process of law and counsel would vehemently contend that the
way the allegation made against the petitioner by invoking the
offence under Section 465, 468, 471, 420, 120B, read with
section 34 are not made out. When the said complaint is filed

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

and the same is registered and now harassing the petitioner,
learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that
similar set of allegations are also made earlier and also charge
sheet was filed and hence the very approach of the petitioner is
erroneous. The counsel also relies upon document No.1, copy
of the order passed in WP No.12906/2020 and document No.2,
copy of the order passed in WP No.12910/2020 and document
No.3, copy of the revised conversion Order dated 14.07.2021 in
favour of Smt.Rathnamma. Learend Counsel also relies upon
the document No.4, copy of the Revised Conversion Order
dated 14.07.2021 in favour of Smt.Mayamma and document
No.5 copy of the fresh approved layout plan dated 21.02.2022
and so also the copy of the fresh layout plan at Annexure 6 and
document No.7 copy of the order sheet dated 07.10.2021
passed in WP No.26232/2019.
7. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that in
pursuance of the Joint memo filed earlier and this petitioner got
the new layout plan, and only based on the new layout plan
only, he had sold the property and also relies upon the
document No.7 and relying upon this document would contend

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

that this petitioner had not indulged in such acts and question
of facing the criminal prosecution does not arise.

8. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent in this
argument would vehemently contend that he has filed detailed
statement of objections and also brought to notice of this
Court, that the joint memo and conditions imposed in the joint
memo earlier when the joint memo was filed in the Writ
Petition No.39402/2013 and also regarding the paragraph
Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and contends that in pursuance of the
said joint memo, the petitioner has not yet acted upon, instead
again has indulged in selling the property including the property
of the petitioner and caused monetary loss in respect of the
petitioner, that too While selling the property included the
property and made wrongful gain. The counsel would
vehemently contend that the copy of the sale deed is also
produced at annexures R1 and R2 and also the contention that
the accused Nos.2 and 6 have approached the Deputy
Commissioner for the conversion of land and got the conversion
order dated 15.05.2013, as per Annexures R3 and R4 and also
counsel would vehemently contend that by virtue of the above

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

said created documents, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 6 came to
the land belonging to the respondent No.2 in order to encroach
his land and also with regard to the civil suit in OS
No.342/2013 an interim order was also obtained by the
respondent no.2 against the said accused and others.

9. Learned counsel also vehemently contend that during
the pendency of the above proceedings in original suit the
above said accused and respondent no.2 including the
petitioner have entered into compromise by resolving the
boundary dispute and the said parties filed the joint memo and
brought to notice of this court admission on the part of, in the
joint memo itself, that the same was overlapping in respect of
the conversion order and agreed to rectify the said mistake in
their conversion order and also further agreed to rectify the
alleged sale deed with respect to the actual extent of the land,
as per the grant order.

10. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that
without rectifying the sale deed, question of selling the
property doesn't arise. The counsel also produced the
documents at Annexures R8, R9 GPA and also the copy of the

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

objection statement filed before the Magadi Planning Authority
not to issue the approved plan and copy of the alleged layout
plan and order and released letter for sale of sites as per
Annexure 11. Learned Counsel also brought to the notice of this
Court at Annexure-12/copy of the encumbrance certificate
showing the sale of sites produced herewith, which the sale
deeds are executed in respect of the property belonging to the
complainant and so also the JDA and registered GPA at
Annexure R13 and 14. The main grouse of the respondent no.2
is that creating of the documents, sold the property belonging
to the complainant and made wrongful gain and matter has to
be investigated.

11. Learned counsel appearing to the respondent/State
also would submit that the contents of the complaint discloses
committing of an offence and the matter has to be investigated
and the investigating officer is going to file the report in respect
of the allegations made in the complaint.

12. Having heard the petitioner counsel and also the
counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 and so also the
complainant and learned counsel for respondent/State, the

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

court has to consider the documents at Annexure-A, since the
relief is sought for quashing of FIR. It is settled law that while
exercising the power under Section 482 of CrPC while quashing
the FIR, Court has to look into the contents of the complaint
i.e., Annexure-A and specific allegations are made against the
petitioner, that the petitioner had indulged in creating the
documents along with the planning authority and while getting
the layout plan approved, included the property of the
petitioner and by selling the property, caused loss to the tune
of Rs.25 crores and specific allegations are made in the
complaint.

13. The Court has to only look into the contents of the
complaint at the time of exercising the power under Section
482 of Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court judgment is also very clear
in the judgment of Dinesh Bai Chandu Bai Patel Vs the
State of Gujarath reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104 that
Court has to take note of the allegations made in the complaint
and if the same does constitute an offence, allow the IO to
investigate the matter and the same is the domain of the IO.
Whether such allegations made in the complaint is true or not?

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

investigating officer has to unearth the truth. No doubt, the
records reveals that earlier also writ petition is filed before this
court and found that there was overlapping of the conversion of
the property belongs to the respondent/complainant and to that
effect also filed the joint memo, wherein a categorical
statement was made that the same would be rectified.
14. Now counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that in view of the documents which are produced before the
court i.e. document nos.1 to 7 that the said mistake is rectified
and they are selling the property in respect of the property
belonging to the accused Nos.2 and 3 and he is only a GPF
holder. When the specific allegation is made by the respondent
No.2 that while selling the property his property is also
included. Whether the property of the complainant is also
included or not? is a matter to be investigated by the I.O. and
whether the same is also in accordance with the document
nos.1 to 7 or not? this Court cannot give any finding and
disputed facts has to be considered by the I.O. When such
being the case, I do not find any force in the contentions of the
counsel appearing for the petitioner, unless the matter is
investigated by the IO, in the light of the allegations made in

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57179
CRL.P No. 505 of 2021


CNR: KAHC010022292021

the complaint, this Court also cannot venture to consider the
same in keeping the documents which have been relied upon.
The matter has to be investigated and scope of investigation is
the domain of the IO. The investigating officer has to
investigate the matter. If there is no such material is found in
view of the allegations made in the complaint, IO is going to file
‘B report’, if the allegation found in the complaint is confirmed
during the course of investigation, he is going to file an ‘A
report’ before the Court.


15. Under the circumstances, I do not find any grounds to
interfere with, in the investigation and also law is settled that
High Court should not venture to do that exercise, when the
FIR is registered and investigation is required. In view of the
discussions made above, I proceed to pass the following order.

The Petition is dismissed .

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
AKV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22