- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1381 OF 2022 (397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. G. SUDHA W/O VENKATARAVANAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT PRASHANTH NAGARA CHINTAMANI TOWN CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT 2. SRI K N RAMESH S/O NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT KOTHUHUDYA, CHINTAMANI TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.V.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHINTAMANI TOWN POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560001 Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2022 2. NARAYAN SWAMY S/O LATE VYAMANNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, CHIKALNERPU HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA. (AMENDED AS PER ORDER DATED 03.01.2023) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYAN.A, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.GOPAL GOWDA.H.K, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.08.2022 AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THIS PETITIONER U/S 239 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C.NO.116/2019 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., CHINTAMANI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER In this petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C, accused Nos.2 and 4 have challenged the impugned order passed by the trial Court, rejecting their application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C seeking discharge. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2022 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. A first information came to be filed by respondent No.2, alleging that his senior paternal uncle Patel Venkatarayappa purchased site No.3, measuring 30 x 30 ft through registered sale dated 30.05.1989 from one B.M.Chikkavenkatappa. Thimmaraya, the grandfather of complainant had seven sons and all of them are living in the joint family and the said site is in their joint possession and enjoyment. Patel Venkatarayappa was the eldest son and was managing the affairs of the joint family. He died on 04.06.1991. Even after his death, the family continued to live together in joint family. 3.1 When things stood thus, recently, when complainant went to the Panchayat to get the Khatha changed, he came to know that already Khatha is transferred. In this regard on enquiry with the office of Sub Registrar, he came to know that on 10.06.2013 accused No.1 Venkataswamy, the junior paternal uncle of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2022 complainant has executed Sale deed in respect of the said site in favour of accused No.2 G. Sudha, wife of Venkataravanappa by impersonating as Patel Venkatarayappa, accused No.3 K.S.Srinivas and accused No.4 K.N.Ramesh have attested the Sale deed as witnesses, identifying the seller and purchaser. In order to make wrongful gain, the accused have colluded together and hence, the complaint. 4. Based on the First information, the concerned police have registered case in Cr.No.76/2017 and after conducting detailed investigation, including subjecting the document to handwriting expert, filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under sections 417, 419, 420, 468, 471 and 114 of IPC. 5. Accused Nos.2 and 4 filed application under Section 239 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to discharge them. Through the impugned order dated 18.08.2022, the trial Court rejected the said application. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2022 6. Aggrieved by the same, they have filed the present petition contending that the impugned order is not sustainable either in law or on facts and liable to be set aside. The impugned order is not speaking order. The Magistrate has failed to exercise the discretion vested with him. He has also failed to appreciate the fact that none of the witnesses have deposed regarding the involvement of accused Nos.2 and 4. They have no role to play in misrepresenting, forging and cheating. The trial Court has also relied upon decisions which are not applicable to the case on hand. The Magistrate has not even referred to the statements of witnesses. Viewed from any angle, the impugned order is not sustainable and pray to allow the petition, set aside the same and discharge them. 7. On the other hand, supporting the impugned order learned HCGP would submit that while accused No.1 impersonated as the original owner of the site, accused No.2 is the beneficiary of the sale transaction, accused Nos.3 and 4 are the witnesses who have identified accused - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2022 No.1 as Patel Venkatarayappa and thereby facilitated the execution of the sale deed. There is prima facie evidence to frame charge against all the persons, including the petitioners. Rightly the trial Court has rejected the application filed by petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4 and sought for dismissal of the petition also. 8. Thus, it is the definite case of the prosecution that site No.3 of Ulavadi Gram Panchayath, Kasaba Hobli of Chintamani Taluk was purchased by Late Patel Venkatarayappa, the Senior paternal uncle of complainant as a manager of the joint family. In fact he died on 04.06.1991. However, accused No.1, who is no other than the junior paternal uncle of complainant and brother of late Patel Venkatarayappa has alienated the said property in favour of accused No.2, vide Sale deed dated 10.06.2013 and accused Nos.3 and 4 are the at testing witnesses identifying the vendor and purchaser. 9. During the course of investigation, the original sale deed is recovered from the possession of accused - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2022 No.2. It is sent for forensic examination of the signature of the vendor. The report is awaited. Having regard to the fact that Patel Venkatarayappa has died on 04.06.1991 and the sale in question has come into existence on 29.05.2013 makes it explicit that the person who has executed the sale deed has impersonated Patel Venkatarayappa. Accused No.2 being the beneficiary is also involved. Accused Nos.3 and 4 being the testing witnesses have identified the vendor as Patel Venkatarayappa. In the above facts and circumstances, there is a prima facie material to frame charge against all the persons, including the petitioners. What exactly is the offence committed by each of the accused persons is a matter to be decided at the trial. Having regard to the fact that there is a prima facie case made out against the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4, the trial Court has rightly rejected application filed by petitioners Nos.2 and 4. This Court finds no perversity in the impugned order. In the result the petition fails and accordingly the following: - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13526 CRL.RP No. 1381 of 2022 ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 4 under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is rejected. (ii) The impugned order dated 18.08.2022 in C.C.No.116/2019 on the file of Prl.Civil Judge and JMFC, Chintamani is hereby confirmed. (iii) The Registry to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30