- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:5709 CRL.A No. 212 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 212 OF 2015 (A) BETWEEN: H.S. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O LATE SHIVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIRAYU, MANGOTE VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI-577 301. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. A.B. ASHA W/O. H.S. BASAVARAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301. 2. SHIVARAJ S/O GUDDADAMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301. 3. S. G. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O GUDDADAMALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE, Digitally signed by MAYAGAIAH VINUTHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:5709 CRL.A No. 212 of 2015 BHADRAVATHI TALUK, BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301. 4. M.Y. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O GUDDADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301. 5. M.Y. MALLESHAPPA S/O YAGATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301. 6. H. BASAPPA S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301. 7. H.NANJAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT MUNGOTE VILLAGE, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, BHADRAVATHI DISTRICT-577 301. 8. MANJUNATHA S/O SHANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT ARIKERI VILLAGE, HONNALI TALUK-577 217. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.B DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(4) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:4.11.14, PASSED BY THE I ADDLL.CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, BHADRAVATHI, IN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:5709 CRL.A No. 212 of 2015 C.C.NO.313/2005 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420,465,468,471,114, 511,342,415 R/W SEC.149 OF IPC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is sought by the complainant/victim against the judgment of acquittal dated 14.11.2014 passed in C.C.No.313/2005 by the I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Badravathi, whereby the Learned Magistrate acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 511, 342, 415 r/w Section 149 of IPC. 2. The abridged facts of the case are that: The appellant herein has lodged a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the respondents for the offences punishable under Section 420, 465,468,471,114 r/w Section 149 of IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to Balehonnur Police as provided under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation. The police after farce of an enquiry filed "B" report before the learned Magistrate. The complainant has filed his objection (protest petition) against - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:5709 CRL.A No. 212 of 2015 the 'B' report filed by the Police. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of complainant and other two witnesses and took cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 420, 456, 468, 471, 114 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 3. The case of the appellant before the learned Magistrate is that the accused No.1 is his wife and accused No.2 is his mother, the accused No.3 is his father-in-law and accused Nos.4 to 10 are friends of accused No.3. The property bearing Sy.No.22/2, 2 Acres 7 Guntas situated at Mungote village, Bhadravathi Taluk, Sy.No.8, measuring 37 guntas situated at Jangamahally, Bhadravathi Taluk. Sy.No.18, measuring 8 Guntas and Sy.No.86/2, measuring 1 acre, 35 Guntas are ancestral properties of one Late. Shivappa who was the father of the complainant and he expired in the year 1991. Upon his demise the complainant became the absolute owner and was in possession of the properties. 4. On 11.08.1999, the marriage of the complainant was registered with accused No.1 before the Sub-Registrar and the complainant was coerced and forced to marry accused No.1 although he was never inclined to marrying her. The - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:5709 CRL.A No. 212 of 2015 complainant was unable to lodge the complaint with the Police or before the Court since, accused Nos.3, 8 and 9 kept the complainant under house arrest. In the month of April 2000, the complainant was wrongfully confined (detained) in Bangalore for a period of 4 months in an unknown place by accused No.3 with the support of other accused. Thereafter, complainant was taken to accused No.1’s residence, situated at Arakeri village, Honnalli Taluk. The complainant escaped and returned to his native place i.e., Mungote village. However, the complainant was incessantly harassed collectively by all the accused. The properties as stated above are in joint possession of complainant and accused No.2. The complainant doubted accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 regarding the transactions involving the properties and he approached the concerned Village Accountant and obtained RTC extracts and mutation register in the month of April 2001. Following which he learnt that a partition deed was executed between them. Thereafter, on 31.05.2001, he made an application before the Sub-Registrar of Bhadravathi, seeking certified copy of the partition deed. On 06.06.2001, he verified the said deed and found that accused Nos.1 to 10 had forged his signature with an intention to usurp his properties. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:5709 CRL.A No. 212 of 2015 The income generated from the properties were collectively enjoyed by accused Nos.1 to 3 without apportioning due share to the complainant. The accused Nos.4 to 10 voluntarily supported the criminal act of accused Nos.1 to 3, however, the complainant repeatedly questioned the said act. The legal right of the complainant over the properties have been illegally suspended by accused Nos.1 to 3 by forging complainant’s signature in executing the partition deed by impersonation. Hence, the complainant has sought for action against the accused persons before the learned Magistrate, by filing a private complaint. 5. After taking cognizance of the offences, the learned Magistrate issued summons to the accused and commenced the trail. The complainant examined himself as PW.1 and another witness Sub-Registrar Bhadravathi as PW-2 and marked Ex-P-1 to 15 through PW.1. The respondents have examined DW.1 to 4 and marked Ex.D1 to D3. On assessment of the evidence and the documents, the learned Magistrate acquitted the respondents/accused. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:5709 CRL.A No. 212 of 2015 6. I have heard Sri Umesh Moolimani for Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R.B.Deshpande, the learned counsel for the respondents. 7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Magistrate erred while acquitting the accused without appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective. He contended that, PW.1 has categorically stated in his evidence that the accused Nos.2 to 10 have solemnized his marriage against his will with accused No.1 and thereafter, he was forcibly brought to Bengaluru and was confined in a remote locality. Further, they executed a partition deed by forging signature of the complainant to usurp his property. He further contended that, the evidence of PW.1 corroborates with the testimony of PW.2. As such the complainant has proved his case before the learned Magistrate. Despite this, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused. Hence the impugned judgment is liable to be set-aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that, there is no such credible evidence placed by the complainant to prove the charges levelled against the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:5709 CRL.A No. 212 of 2015 accused. Further there is no document placed by the complainant to prove that the accused have forged the signature or thumb impression of the complainant to usurp his property. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against them. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents the sole point that arise for my consideration is that: "Whether the Learned Trial Judge is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 468, 471, 511, 342, 415 R/w Section 149 of IPC and if interference is required in the impugned judgment?" 10. I have given my circumspect consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both parties and also have perused the documents produced before me. It could be gathered from the records, to prove the case of the complainant he examined himself as PW.1 and the Sub- Registrar of Bhadravathi was examined as PW.2. On perusal of the evidence of PW.1, he reiterated the complaint averments in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:5709 CRL.A No. 212 of 2015 his evidence and deposed that the accused Nos.2 to 10 solemnised his marriage with accused No.1 against his will and that he was illegally confined in Bangalore and thereafter, his properties were transferred in favour of the accused by forging his signature. However, in his cross-examination he has admitted that, 10 to 12 days prior to the incident a partition deed was executed between the family. Further the complainant, without obtaining a divorce decree married the accused; he harassed her both physically and mentally. To this effect she lodged a complaint against him and in the said case the accused was convicted and when he appealed against the said order, the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court. Further it is also admitted by him that he failed to produce documents to prove who forged his signature/thumb impression. PW.2 the Sub-Registrar also admitted in his cross- examination that, after verifying the persons appearing before the Sub-Registrar Office the thumb impression of the person was affixed on the document and that there was no room for impersonation and forgery at the Sub-Registrar Office. Further on perusal of evidence of DW.1 to DW.4 all these witnesses categorically deposed that there exists a civil Dispute between - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:5709 CRL.A No. 212 of 2015 the complainant and the Accused involving property. Further the complainant admitted to having a prior partition in the family. Also, the complainant harassed the accused No.1 and she filed a criminal case against him where he was convicted. This was also admitted by the complainant in his evidence. In such circumstances, the evidence of PW.1 remains incredible. Further as the complainant failed to place any such expert opinion to prove the forgery committed by the accused, the learned Magistrate has rightly acquitted the accused for the charges levelled against them. Against this backdrop, I am of the considered view that, the learned Magistrate has rightly appreciated the evidence and materials on record while passing the judgment and the same does not call for any interference. Accordingly, I answer the Point No.1 in negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The appeal filed by the complainant is dismissed. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20