- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:141 CRL.P No. 3283 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3283 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS) BETWEEN: SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA. N. V. S/O VENUGOPAL N.V. AGED 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.119/2, GANESH MANDIR ROAD, 2ND BLOCK, T.R..NAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 028. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.MADHUSUDHAN ,FOR SRI. SESHAGIRI K T., ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI.VIJAY STEPHEN EDBERG.A.D. S/O ARUL DOMNIC AGED 32 YEARS, NO.748, 10TH CROSS, 25TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560029 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1, R-2 SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.16/2023 OF KAGGALIPURA P.S. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 465 AND 468 Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:141 CRL.P No. 3283 of 2023 OF IPC REGISTERED BY 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This petition by the petitioner, who is accused No.2 in Crime No.16/2023 registered by the 1st respondent – police seeks quashing of the proceedings for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl.SPP for the 1st respondent-State and perused the material on record. The 2nd respondent – complainant having been served with the notice of this petition has chosen to remain unrepresented and not contested the petition. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 09.01.2023, the 2nd respondent – complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioner – accused No.2 and one M.N.Ramaiah – accused No.1 interalia alleging that the aforesaid Ramaiah fabricated the GPA and other documents and sold the immovable - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:141 CRL.P No. 3283 of 2023 property in favour of the petitioner – accused No.2. In pursuance of the said complaint, the respondent – police have registered FIR in Crime No.16/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC. It is also relevant to state that in addition to the aforesaid criminal proceedings, a civil suit in O.S.No.109/2024 have been instituted by the father of the complainant against the petitioner and accused No.1 – Ramaiah and the same is pending adjudication. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the aforesaid FIR does not disclose commission of any cognizable offences alleged against the petitioner and the entire allegations are attributed only against accused No.1, the alleged GPA Holder and consequently, continuation of the proceedings as against the petitioner would tantamount to abuse of process of court warranting interference in the present petition. 5. As stated supra, the 2nd respondent – complainant having served with the notice of this petition, has not contested the same. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner, a perusal of the contents of the complaint and the FIR will indicate that it is specifically contented by the 2nd respondent – complainant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:141 CRL.P No. 3283 of 2023 that accused No.1 – Ramaiah fabricated the GPA and executed the registered sale deed dated 29.12.2022 in favour of the petitioner who is merely purchaser of the land in question. In other words, in the absence of any allegations made regarding the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner – accused No.2, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings arising out of the aforesaid FIR in Crime No.16/2023 would tantamount to abuse of process of court if they are directed to continue, especially when no serious allegations in this regard have been made by the 2nd respondent – complainant against the petitioner and the entire allegations are attributed only as against accused No.1 – Ramaiah and not against the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed insofar as the petitioner – accused No.2 is concerned. 6. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER (i) Petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.16/2023 registered by the 1st respondent – police for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC are - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:141 CRL.P No. 3283 of 2023 hereby quashed insofar as the petitioner – accused No.2 is concerned. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43