- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7883 CRL.P No. 5987 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5987 OF 2017 BETWEEN: 1. G. T. RAMESH, S/O. LATE G.N. TUKARAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YERAS, BUSINESSMAN, R/AT NO.687, 6TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BHUVANESHWARINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 085. 2. RAJENDRA KUMAR, S/O. R.G.SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, MANAGER AT PADMANJALI AND PUSHPANJALI THEATRE, LINGESHWARA ROAD, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. 3. L.K.LINGARAJ (AVARAGERE), S/O. L. KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, R/AT NO.1761/32, 17TH CROSS, ANJANEYA BADAVANE, DAVANAGERE - 577 004. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7883 CRL.P No. 5987 of 2017 4. SMT. TUKKAMMA @ G.T. CHANDRAMMA, W/O. LATE G. N.TUKARAM RAO, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/AT NO.387, 6TH MAIN, 7TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 085. 5. G. N. MANOHAR, S/O. LATE G. N. TUKARAM RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, R/AT NO.155, 6TH CROSS, KATHRIGUPPE, BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 085. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P. PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR P1-P6) AND: 1. G. N. SATYANARAYANA RAO, S/O. NINGOJI RAO, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/AT HOUSE NO.3289-1, 10TH MAIN ROAD, MCC 'B' BLOCK, DAVANAGERE - 577 002. 2. THE STATE BY BASAVANAGARA POLICE STATION BASAVANAGARA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7883 CRL.P No. 5987 of 2017 DAVANAGERE - 577 002. REPRESENTED BY ITS GOVERNMENT PLEADER, HIGH COURT BUILIDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.P.B.UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.R.B.DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT.RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R2) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2016 IN C.C.NO.526/2016 (PCR.NO.20/2014) TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 467, 468 AND 420 R/W 120(B) R/W 149 OF IPC AGAINST THESE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 6 AS WELL QUASH AS THE PROCEEDINGS AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. 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.1 to 6 in C.C.No.526/2016 arising out of PCR No.20/2014 (Crime No.5/2012 of Basavanagara Police Station, Davanagere), on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Davanagere registered for the offences under - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7883 CRL.P No. 5987 of 2017 Sections 467, 468, 420, 120(B) r/w. Section 149 of IPC are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.1 as complainant filed the private complaint in PCR 363/2009 renumbered as 20/2014 against accused Nos.1 to 7 alleging that the accused and complainant are relatives and they belong to the same family. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 3 in collusion with one another forged the signatures of Ningoji Rao-the father of the complainant and concocted the Will dated 30.12.1995. The father of the complainant Ningoji Rao died on 24.08.1999 and thereafter, the accused in collusion with one another got the Will registered behind the back of the complainant. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are the attesting witnesses to the said concocted Will. On the basis of forged Will, the katha got changed in the name of accused No.1 with an intention to grab the valuable property belonging to the complainant and thereby, committed the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7883 CRL.P No. 5987 of 2017 offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 120(B) r/w. Section 149 of IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation and accordingly, the FIR was registered in Cr.No.5/2012 of Basavanagara Police Station for the aforesaid offences. 3. After investigation, ‘B' report came to be filed stating that no offence is made out against the accused. The sworn statement of the complainant was recorded by the learned Magistrate and on the basis of materials on record, the Trial Court rejected the ‘B’ report, took cognizance of the offences and the accused were summoned in C.C.No.526/2016. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners- accused Nos.1 to 6 are before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings against them. 5. Heard Sri.P.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.B.Umesh, learned counsel for Sri R.B.Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7883 CRL.P No. 5987 of 2017 for the respondent No.2-State. Perused the materials on records. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" 7. My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: R E A S O N S 8. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that accused No.1 forged the signatures of Ningoji Rao-the father of the complainant and concocted the documents styled as ‘Will’ for which accused Nos.2 and 3 are the attesting witnesses. 9. The Will is dated 30.12.1995. The said Ningoji Rao was alive till 24.08.1999. It is stated that after two - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7883 CRL.P No. 5987 of 2017 years of his death i.e. on 04.12.2001 the Will got registered by the accused in collusion with one another, behind the back of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant requested the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offence. Even though the Investigating Officer filed the 'B' report, the sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and the Trial Court proceeded to take cognizance of the offences by passing the order dated 02.05.2016. 10. The Trial Court formed an opinion that there are prima facie materials to substantiate the contention of the complainant regarding forging of the Will and commission of the offences under Sections 467, 468, 420, 120(b) r/w Section 149 of IPC. Accordingly, summons were issued to accused Nos. 1 to 7. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that no sworn statement of the complainant was recorded by the Trial Court. However, the order sheet of the Trial Court dated 05.01.2015 refers to recording of the sworn statement of the complainant, and copy of the sworn - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7883 CRL.P No. 5987 of 2017 statement of the complainant is produced by the learned counsel for the respondent for perusal of the Court. Therefore, the contention of the complainant in that regard cannot be accepted. 12. The next contention taken by the learned counsel for the complainant is that the Original Suit No. 102/2014 was filed by accused No2 seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule properties wherein he has taken the contention with regard to the execution of the Will, and the finding of the Trial Court regarding the execution of the Wlll by the testator Ningoji Rao has attained finality. 13. When the copy of the judgment passed in O.S.No.102/2014 is produced before the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is seen that the petitioners have never raised their claim over the property in the Will in question. The Court has not framed any specific issue with regard to the proof of the Will relied on by the petitioners nor there is proof with regard to - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:7883 CRL.P No. 5987 of 2017 genuineness of the Will. Admittedly, the original Will or the copy of it was never produced in O.S.No.102/2014 and the attesting witnesses are not examined. Under the said circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the Will is already held to be proved by the Civil Court cannot be accepted. 14. It is pertinent to note that no other grounds are raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners to seek quashing of the criminal proceedings. When serious allegations are made with regard to forging of signatures of the father of the complainant-Ningoji Rao, and registering the same after his death by the accused in collusion with one-another, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings. 15. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the ‘Negative’ and proceed to pass the following: - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:7883 CRL.P No. 5987 of 2017 ORDER Criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24