- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2659 CRL.P No. 1728 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1728 OF 2018 BETWEEN: MR MOHAMMAD SALEEM S/O LATE M.S.MOHAMMAD FAKRUDDIN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.64, 2ND CROSS, R.T.NAGAR, KAVAL BAIRASANDRA, BANGALORE-560 032. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HEMACHANDRA R RAI.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY. 2. MR.SHAMSUNDER R BHATHIJA S/O R.K.BHATHIJA, R/AT NO.46/E, FAIRLAND LAYOUT, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.K.P. YASHODHA., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. R. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R2(ABSENT)) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2659 CRL.P No. 1728 of 2018 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE FIR IN CR.NO.107/2016 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 i.e. YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 420,471,465 AND 468 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS NOW PENDING BEFORE HON'BLE XLIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.1 in Crime No.107/2016 of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, now pending before the learned XLIV Additional CMM, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 471, 465, 468, read with Section 34 of IPC, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the first information with Yelahanka Police Station against accused Nos.1 to 13 alleging commission of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2659 CRL.P No. 1728 of 2018 offences punishable under Sections 420, 471, 465, 468 read with Section 34 IPC. It is alleged that respondent No.2 purchased 6 acres 4 guntas of land in Sy.No.33 situated at Kenchanahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, under the registered sale deed dated 20.01.1996 from its original owner Sri S.K.Mariyappa. However, even after execution of the sale deed, the name of respondent No.2 was not mutated in the revenue records. Taking advantage of this position, accused No.1/petitioner had concocted and forged the GPA deed in the name of Sri S.K. Mariyappa on 20.06.1998 and also the affidavits and other documents. Based on such concocted, forged and fabricated documents, accused No.1 formed the layout and sold the sites in favour of various persons. In that regard, respondent No.2 has filed a complaint with Rajanukunte Police Station on 27.02.2007 which was registered in Crime No.28/2007. Investigation was undertaken in the said case and the charge sheet came to be filed. The petitioner is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2659 CRL.P No. 1728 of 2018 3. Heard Sri Hemachandra R Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashodha, 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 even after giving sufficient opportunity. Hence, his arguments are taken as NIL. Perused the materials on record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468 and 120B of IPC. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered CC No.1293/2008. The matter is still pending for evidence before the trial Court. According to him, respondent No.2 filed the second complaint making similar allegations against accused No.1. The materials that are placed before the Court substantiate the contention in that regard. In the first information filed by respondent No.2, there is reference to Crime No.28/2007 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2659 CRL.P No. 1728 of 2018 and filing of the charge sheet after investigation. No specific reasons are assigned for filing the second complaint when already investigation was undertaken by Rajanukunte Police in Crime No.28/2007. 5. Now it is the contention of respondent No.2 that even though accused No.1 knew that the original owner Sri S.K.Mariyappa died on 19.03.2004, he continued to rely on the concocted and fabricated GPA deed and continued to sell the properties, thereby committed the offences as stated above. Accordingly, at the request of respondent No.2, Yelahanka New Town Police registered the case and took up investigation. The materials on record makes outs strong prima facie evidence. Hence, he prays for dismissing the petition. 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 Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2659 CRL.P No. 1728 of 2018 and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: R E A S O N S 7. Respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information before the Yelahanka Police Station alleging that the accused fabricated GPA deed and other documents in the name of the original owner of the land in Sy.No.33 situated at Kenchanahalli village, Yelahanka Hobli, and on the basis of such fabricated documents, a layout was formed in 6 acres 4 guntas of land, suppressing the fact that the land was purchased by respondent No.2 under the sale deed dated 20.01.1996. Even according to respondent No.2, a complaint in Crime No.28/2007 of the Rajanukunte Police Station came to be registered for similar offence. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2659 CRL.P No. 1728 of 2018 8. It is pertinent to note that the original owner S.K.Mariyappa died on 19.03.2004, that is much prior to the registration of the Crime No.28/2007. Under such circumstances, there is absolutely no basis for initiation of this criminal complaint by respondent No.2. Registration of the criminal complaint and continuation of the same is clear abuse of process of law and hence, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. 9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.107/2016 of Yelahanka New Town Police Station against the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 420, 471, 465, 468, read with section 34 of IPC, now pending before the - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2659 CRL.P No. 1728 of 2018 learned XLIV Additional CMM, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE NV