- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1990 CRL.P No. 100524 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100524 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: ANUPAMA W/O. SANJAY JOSHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. “SRI DURGA”, I CROSS, YALAKKI SHETTAR COLONY, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DAYANAND M.BANDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH DHARWAD SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER. 2. BASAVVA W/O. NINGAPPA GAMANAGATTI @ CHIMATAPPANAVAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SHIVANAND NAGAR, HOSAYALLAPUR, DHARWAD-580004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HEMANTH L.HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT (FIR) IN CRIME NO.0124/2021 U/S 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 34 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(f) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT-2015 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 LODGED BY DHARWAD SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:24 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1990 CRL.P No. 100524 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner (accused No.2), who has been charge- sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 419, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution’s case is that the father of the de facto complainant had filed Form No.7A, and while the said application was pending consideration, he passed away. Subsequently, the competent authority granted an extent of 5 acres of land in favor of the de facto complainant under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The prosecution further alleges that during the subsistence of the grant order, accused No.1, by impersonating the de facto complainant, executed an agreement of sale in his own favor concerning the subject land. The petitioner (accused No.2) is a witness to the registered agreement of sale, and accused No.3 is the Sub-Registrar. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order granting the subject land to the de facto complainant under Section 77A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act was challenged by the de facto complainant in an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. As of the date of the agreement of sale, the de facto complainant was not the owner of the land. Therefore, the allegations made in the FIR are baseless. 4. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that against the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, writ petitions filed by the de facto complainant and the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1990 CRL.P No. 100524 of 2022 GPA holder are pending consideration. In the writ petition filed by the GPA holder, there is no order directing the parties to maintain the status quo. He further argued that the FIR and charge-sheet materials clearly disclose that the accused, in connivance with an unknown person, fabricated and forged the signature to create the agreement of sale. He contended that the veracity of these allegations must be assessed at trial and cannot be adjudicated in this petition, and therefore, he sought the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for both parties have been duly considered. 6. A perusal of the charge-sheet materials indicates that the signature/thumb impression on the agreement of sale does not belong to the de facto complainant. On 05.05.2010, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal stayed the grant order dated 09.11.2019, and subsequently, on 10.06.2016, the Tribunal set aside the order of grant. The unknown lady, who allegedly executed the agreement of sale, challenged the Tribunal’s order by filing a writ petition before this Court, as did the de facto complainant. In the writ petition filed by the petitioner herein, this Court granted an interim order directing the parties to maintain the status quo regarding possession. Subsequently, both the de facto complainant and the GPA holder withdrew their writ petitions. 7. A perusal of the charge sheet further reveals that the charge of forgery of the de facto complainant’s signature and impersonation by accused No.1 is attributed to the unknown lady. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1990 CRL.P No. 100524 of 2022 The only allegation against the petitioner is that she signed as a witness on the forged GPA and the agreement of sale was executed in his favor. Additionally, the subject land was acquired by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board on 19.02.2013, and a compensation amount of ₹2,75,00,000/- was received by the de facto complainant. The petitioner, having paid ₹24 lakh, as evidenced by the agreement of sale, has suffered financial loss. Since the unknown lady has not been arraigned as an accused, and there are no allegations of the petitioner colluding with the unknown lady in creating forged and fraudulent documents, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in Spl.SC/ST No.44/2001 pending on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE Bkm Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25