- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 399 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. NAYAZ KHAN S/O. AMJAD KHAN AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/O.125, HALLIM NAGAR BANNI MANTAPA MYSURU-570 007. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDI POLICE STATION, MANDI MOHALLA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI. V.CHANDRA S/O. LATE K.V.VARADARAJ AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT NO.H-3, SHAKTHI SUNSHINE APPARTMENTS 8TH CROSS, 10TH MAIN MARUTHINAGAR, MALLESHPALYA BENGALURU-560 075. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M. DIVAKAR MADDUR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. UMAPATHI S., ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2024 FOR TAKING OF COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 468, 469, 470, 420, 447, 120(b) AND 201 OF IPC AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.5997/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER. THE ENTIRE ORDER SHEET AT ANNEXURE-D AND TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 29.08.2024, FILED BY THE MANDI POLICE STATION, MYSURU, IN CRIME NO.97/2020, CHARGE SHEET AT ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the order dated 23.10.2024 for taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Sections 468, 469, 420, 470, 420, 477, 120B and 201 IPC and quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.5997/2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in respect of petitioner and also quash the charge-sheet - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 dated 29.08.2024 filed by Mandi Police Station, Mysuru in Crime No.97/2020 at Annexure-C and pass orders as deems fit in the circumstances of the case. 3. The factual matrix of the prosecution based on the complaint filed by respondent No.2 is that accused No.1 had indulged in creation of Will and also conspired with this petitioner and entered into a lease agreement creating the documents and this petitioner, having had the knowledge that property belongs to C.Ws.3 and 5, entered into a lease agreement. At the first instance, the petitioner entered into a fake partition and subsequently, created lease deed dated 21.05.2018 which is produced at Annexure-E, wherein reference is made with regard to payment of advance amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and also payment of additional amount of Rs.25,00,000/-. Hence, based on the complaint, police investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet and offence against this petitioner is under Sections 447 and 420 IPC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for petitioner brought to notice of this Court complaint dated 03.10.2020 Annexure-A, wherein allegation is made against accused No.1 that he had fabricated the Will dated 22.09.1991 and also forged the signature of Sri V. Chinnagiriyappa and projected the same as a genuine document. Hence, invoked the offence under Sections 468, 469, 470 and 429 IPC. Learned counsel also brought to notice of this Court that allegation made against this petitioner is that during Covid-19 and March, 2020, accused No.1 along with this petitioner conspired together to trespass into the property with an object to illegally cause loss, mischief and caused nuisance and both of them committed offence under Sections 447 read with Section 120B IPC Learned counsel would contend that this petitioner is a tenant and he had entered into a lease agreement as at Annexure-E and not indulged in the act of trespassing the property. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that though allegation is made in the charge-sheet that he had knowledge that property belongs to C.Ws.3 and 5, but he was not having any - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 knowledge and not committed any offence and this petitioner has been falsely implicated as accused and this Court has to exercise the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or otherwise, it would amount to clear abuse of process, if proceedings are continued against him. Learned counsel also would submit that taking cognizance is erroneous and Trial Court failed to take note of the material, while taking cognizance and brought to notice of this Court passing of cognizance order. Hence, the charge-sheet is required to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that he had filed detailed statement of objection that the petitioner was having knowledge about creation of document with accused No.1 and also conspired with accused No.1 and trespassed the property. Learned counsel brought to notice of this Court Annexure- R2 which is produced along with statement of objections i.e., lease deed dated 18.06.2019. He also brought to notice of this Court Annexure-R3, since this petitioner had - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 filed O.S.No.670/2020, wherein he has denied execution of lease agreement dated 18.06.2019 and having received an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- and the very document of Annexure-R2 is placed before this Court in the writ petition along with affidavit and when the document dated 18.06.2019 is also confronted, he denies the very document. Hence, matter requires to be adjudicated before the Trial Court. Learned counsel also would contend that while taking cognizance, the Court failed to take note of the material collected by the Investigating Officer and the Trial Court has not passed a detailed order and prima facie the material discloses the fact that matter requires trial. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also in support of his argument, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in BHUSHAN KUMAR AND ORS VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS. reported in MANU/SC/0297/2012 and brought to notice of this - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 Court paragraph No.7, wherein discussion was made with regard to cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons. 7. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court judgment of the Apex Court in R.P. KAPUR VS. THE STATE OF PUNJAB reported in MANU/SC/0086/1960 and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.10, wherein observation is made that the appellant no doubt very strongly feels that on the relevant evidence it would not be reasonably possible to sustain the charge but that is a matter on which the appellant will have to satisfy the magistrate who takes cognizance of the case. However, would like to emphasize that in rejecting the appellant’s prayer for quashing the proceedings at this stage we are expressing no opinion one way or the other on the merits of the case. 8. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in RATHISH BABU UNNIKRISHNAN VS. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) AND ORS. reported in MANU/SC/0542/2022 and brought to notice of this - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 Court paragraph Nos.16 and 17, wherein also discussion was made with regard to what is also of note is that the factual defence without having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint. In paragraph No.17, the Apex Court observed that the consequences of scuttling the criminal process at a pre- trial stage can be grave and irreparable. Quashing proceedings at preliminary stages will result in finality without the parties having had an opportunity to adduce evidence and the consequence then is that the proper forum i.e., the Trial Court is ousted from weighing the material evidence. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 referring these judgments would contend that this Court cannot quash the proceedings without considering the material on record. 9. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 would contend that the Investigating Officer investigated the matter and collected material and also recorded the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 statement of witnesses. With regard to the allegation of creation of document, learned counsel for respondent No.2 brought to notice of this Court Annexure-R3-deposition, wherein the very documents which have been relied upon by the petitioner are denied. Hence, the matter requires trial. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, it discloses that in the complaint, a specific allegation is made against accused No.1 that he had indulged in creating of document of Will and hence, invoked offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 470, 420, 120B, 201 of IPC against him. In respect of this petitioner is concerned, allegation is made that during COVID-19 i.e., in the year 2020, this petitioner along with accused No.1 conspired with each other and created the document with an intention to cause loss and nuisance and also trespassed into the property and hence, invoked the offence punishable under Section 447, 420 read with - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 Section 120B of IPC against him. The specific allegation made in the complaint is with regard to conspiracy and trespassing of the land. Apart from that, column No.17 of the Charge sheet discloses that accused No.2 knowingfully well that this property belongs to CW3 and CW5, entered into the document of lease by paying an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- having the knowledge that the said property not belongs to accused No.1 and hence, charge sheet accusation is also with regard to conspiracy and trespassing of the land against this petitioner. 11. No doubt, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 brought to notice of this Court the order sheet of the Trial Court wherein it discloses that the Trial Court applied its mind and perused the papers and found prima facie material to proceed against this petitioner as well as other accused persons and taken the cognizance. Admittedly, when cognizance is taken by the Trial Court, the Court only have to look into the material collected by the IO and no need to pass any detail order and the Trial Court has to - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 form an opinion that whether prima facie material discloses to go for trial. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Trial Court in taking the cognizance is concerned. 12. The other relief is sought to quash the charge sheet in respect of this petitioner. I have already pointed out that in the complaint and charge sheet, the specific allegation against this petitioner that this petitioner along with accused No.1 have indulged in creation of document and also trespassed into the property. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also brought to notice of this Court to Ex.R2 as well deposition of this petitioner which is marked as Ex.R3 wherein he has denied the very execution of Ex.R2 as well as document dated 18.06.2019. The counsel for the petitioner contend that document at Annexure-R2 not belongs to this petitioner and same is created. But learned counsel for respondent No.2 brought to notice of this Court that the very document was placed by this petitioner along with the affidavit in W.P.No.8977/2020. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 When such material is placed before the Court, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires trial with regard to the conspiracy as well as trespassing of the property is concerned. No doubt, it is settled law that taking of cognizance is against the offences, not against the person and so also in free trial stage, the Court cannot look into the defence and also cannot prevent the prosecution in placing the material or otherwise, it amounts to curtailing and weighing the material evidence collected by the IO. Under such circumstances, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 are aptly applicable to the case on hand since there is a force in the contention of the counsel for the State that if the charge- sheet is quashed, it is nothing but come in the way of conducting of the trial and what is also of note is that the factual defence without having to adduce any evidence need to be of an unimpeachable quality, so as to altogether disprove the allegations made in the complaint and same has to be considered at the time of trial. Hence, I do not find any ground to quash the proceedings as - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:8851 CRL.P No. 399 of 2025 sought by the petitioner and also not found any abuse of process. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. With regard to the delay is concerned, the matter requires to be tried before the Trial Court and only on the ground of delay, this Court cannot invoke the provision under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 14. The observation made by this Court shall not influence the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST,SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79