- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2641 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI C BOMMEGOWDA, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 2. SRI BOMMEGOWDA, S/O SRI NINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 3. SRI C.NAGARAJU, S/O LATE SHINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 4. SHRI NANDISH C K, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 5. SHRI C.S.CHANDREGOWDA, S/O LATE MANDYA SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 6. SHRI C.K.KAMARAJ, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 7. SHRI C.B.PRAKASH, S/O SHIVALLI BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 8. SHRI SRINIVAS, S/O YEDIYURAIAH, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 9. SHRI C.K.SHLINGEGOWDA, S/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 10. SHRI C.K.NAGANNA, S/O LATE KALAIAHA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 11. SHRI JAYARAMU, S/O PATRE BAIRANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 12. SMT.LINGAMMA, W/O LATE KALEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 13. SMT. MANJULA C.R, D/O SAVADE RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. 14. SHRI CHANDRA K, S/O KALAIAH @ NATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT CHAMALAPURA VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, KERAGODU POST, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 416. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HARIPRASAD M B, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY KERAGODU P.S., REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SHRI JAVAREGOWDA @ JAVARAYEE, S/O CHANNEGOWDA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, CHAMALAPURA VILLAGE, KERAGODU HOBLI, KERAGODU POST, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 416. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI GAURAV RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 [ABSENT]) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE KEREGODU POLICE STATION, i.e., RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CR.NO.8/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 166, 167, 192, 193, 197, 199, 415, 420, 467, 470, 471, 109, 120B OF IPC AND THE P.C.R. BEARING NO.51/2020, PENDING PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND C.J.M. COURT, MANDYA AT ANNEXURE-A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.2 to 15 in Cr.No.8/2022 of Keragodu Police Station, Mandya arising out of PCR.No.51/2020 on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Mandya, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 192, 193, 197, 199, 415, 420, 467, 470, 471, 109 and 120B of IPC, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as complainant has filed the private complaint in PCR No.51/2020 against accused Nos.1 to 15 alleging commission of offences as stated above. It is the contention of the complainant that 16 guntas of land including 1 gunta karab in Sy.No.72/1 of Chamalapura Village, Keregodu Hobli, Mandya Taluk was originally owned by Channegowda S/o Doddamanchegowda. The revenue records were standing in his name. After his death, the revenue records were mutated in the name of his wife-Smt.Kempamma as per M.R.31/1988-89. The RTC was standing in her name till 2004-05. Said Kempamma is none other than the mother of the complainant. The complainant and his brother-C.Ramchandra have entered into a registered partition deed on 24.11.2004 partitioning the family properties, including the property referred to above. In the family partition, 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.72/1 had fallen to the share of the complainant. It is stated that the accused were not having any right over the property. In spite of that, accused No.1 being the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 public servant, concocted the application projecting that the complainant had given an application for survey of the said land. He has also concocted the mahazar and the statement of the son of the complainant by forging the signatures in collusion with other accused. The accused collectively were intended to make wrongful gain for themselves by concocting and forging the documents. The complainant stated that immediately after coming to know about the concoction and forgery of the documents and the commission of various offences, the son of the complainant filed the complaint with ADLR, Mandya against accused No.1. The departmental enquiry was initiated and accused No.1 was kept under suspension. It is alleged that accused Nos.2 to 15 being the private persons have also colluded with accused No.1 in commission of the offences. The complainant requested the Court to take cognizance of the offences. The complainant also states that even though a complaint was filed by the Police, the same was not received and no FIR was registered. Therefore, requested the Court to take - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 cognizance of the offences. Learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) and accordingly, Keregodu Police registered the FIR in Cr.No.8/2022 for the aforesaid offences and took up investigation. In the meantime, the petitioners being aggrieved by the same, approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 3. Heard Sri.Hariprasad M.B., learned counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. No representation. He has not addressed his arguments in spite of giving sufficient opportunity. Hence his arguments is taken as nil. Perused the materials on records. 4. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners and respondent No.1, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is ‘partly in the affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 5. The main contention taken by the learned counsel for petitioners is that there is inordinate delay of more than a year in filing the complaint. The second contention taken by the learned counsel for petitioners is that there is non-compliance of directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER V. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS1. Thirdly, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the learned Magistrate has not applied mind and mechanically referred the matter for investigation. Lastly, it is his contention that no specific overtact is alleged against any of these petitioners and such allegations are only against accused No.1. Under such circumstances, the petition is to be allowed. 1 (2015) 6 SCC 287 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 6. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No. 1, I have perused the materials on record including the averments in the private complaint. The complainant specifically states that he was the owner of 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.72/1. He explains deriving of title from his father and under the registered partition deed dated 24.11.2004. However, specifically it is contended that the accused in collusion with the petitioners herein concocted an application under the name of the complainant requesting for surveying the land. A mahazar was also fabricated projecting that the same was drawn at the spot in the presence of panchas. A statement said to have been given by the son of the complainant was also concocted and his signatures were forged. These facts came to the knowledge of the complainant belatedly and immediately, his son filed a complaint with ADLR, Mandya, upon which, an enquiry was initiated and accused No.1 was kept under suspension as per order dated 21.07.2020. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 7. The complaint also makes it clear that accused No.1 being the Government Servant in collusion with accused Nos.2 to 15 have committed the offences. Even though no details of such concoction of documents and commission of forgery is given by the complainant, the same is not fatal. In view of the facts and circumstances, when concoction of document and commission of forgery is alleged, the same are supposed to be carried out secretly. The complainant is not supposed to know every detail of it, unless a detailed investigation is undertaken by the Investigating Officer. It is premature to throw away the complaint stating that no specific overtact is alleged against each of the accused. There is absolutely no reason for the petitioner to shy away from investigation by the Investigating Officer. 8. It is the contention of the petitioners that there is delay in filing the complaint. Here again, the facts and circumstance of the case discloses that the allegation is regarding concoction of documents and forgery, which was - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 said to be carried on secretly by the accused. The complainant is not supposed to know about the commission of offence immediately. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. 9. Next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that non-compliance of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA (supra). The complainant has stated in the complaint that the complaint given to the Police was not accepted and no FIR was registered but it is stated that there is no compliance of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Of course, no materials are placed before the Court to evidence filing of such complaint as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. But it is a curable defect and the complainant can file such documents before the learned Magistrate. That cannot be the sole ground to quash the criminal complaint in toto. 10. The last contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned Magistrate - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 has not applied his mind before passing the order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The order dated 13.08.2020 justifies such submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The learned Magistrate only directed the jurisdictional Investigating Officer to file the report after investigation. There is nothing on record that the learned Magistrate has applied his mind before passing such order. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order dated 13.08.2020 referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is to be set aside and complainant may be permitted to cure the defect by filing the affidavit as required in view of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA (supra). However, I do not find any reason to quash the complaint filed by the complainant. 11. In view of the above, I answer the above point 'partly in the affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 ORDER (i) The petition is allowed-in-part. (ii) The prayer of the petitioners requiring to quash the criminal complaint in PCR.No.51/2020 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Mandya registered for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 192, 193, 197, 199, 415, 420, 467, 470, 471, 109 and 120B of IPC is hereby rejected. (iii) However, the order dated 13.08.2020 passed by the learned Magistrate directing the Investigating Officer to file the report of investigation, is set aside. (iv) The complainant is permitted to file necessary affidavit in compliance of directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA (supra) in compliance of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, the learned Magistrate has to apply his mind and pass necessary orders for referring the matter for investigation. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2925 CRL.P No. 2641 of 2022 (v) Office is directed to communicate this order to the trial Court. In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2023 filed for vacating stay stands disposed of. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26