- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12453 CRL.P No. 13705 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7656 of 2024 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13705 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7656 OF 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13544 OF 2024 IN CRL.P NO.13705/2024 BETWEEN: SMT.TARA VENKATESH S/O LATE SRI.MUNISWAMAPPA VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.A-102 AJMERA ARISTA APARTMENTS NO.16 SERVICE RING ROAD BANASWADI BENGALURU - 560 043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI.NEERAJ SASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MVN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT 2013 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.58A/1, KALU SARAI NEW DELHI - 110016 Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12453 CRL.P No. 13705 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7656 of 2024 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2024 AND AT ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, JANSON'S MALL PLOT NO.48, MEENAKUNTE (ABOVE MC DONALD'S) NEW AIRPORT ROAD JALA HOBLI BENGALURU - 562 157 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH AVALAHALLI POLICE OLD MADRAS RD VIRGONAGAR AVALAHALLI BENGALURU - 560 049 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.UDYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND SRI.PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI.ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.12.2023 PASSED BY THE A.C.J.M BENGALURU RURAL IN CR.NO.267/2022 (ANNEXURE- A) AND ETC. IN CRL.P NO. 7656/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI PRABHU VENKATESH S/O LATE VENKATESH MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.A- 102 AJMERA ARISTA APARTMENTS NO.16, SERVICE RING ROAD BANASWADI BENGALURU - 560 043 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12453 CRL.P No. 13705 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7656 of 2024 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2024 2. SRI.SHRIDHAR VENKATESH S/O LATE VENKATESH MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.A- 102 AJMERA ARISTA APARTMENTS NO.16, SERVICE RING ROAD BANASWADI BENGALURU - 560 043 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI.NEERAJ SASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MVN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT: 2ND FLOOR, JANSON'S MALL PLOT NO.48, MEENAKUNTE, NH-44 (ABOVE MCDONALD'S) NEW AIRPORT ROAD JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU -562 157 REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SRI.YATHISHA R SON OF LATE P.K.REVANNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS C/O MVN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED 2ND FLOOR, JANSON'S MALL PLOT NO.48, MEENAKUNTE NH-44 (ABOVE MCDONALD'S) NEW AIRPORT ROAD JALA HOBLI BENGALURU - 562 157 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH AVALAHALLI POLICE OLD MADRAS RD VIRGONAGAR - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12453 CRL.P No. 13705 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7656 of 2024 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2024 AAVALAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 049 REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.UDYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND SRI.PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI.ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.12.2023 PASSED BY THE I A.C.J.M BENGALURU RURAL IN CR.NO.267/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. IN CRL.P NO.13544/2024 BETWEEN: SRI.SHASHIDHAR VENKATESH S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.A-102 AJMERA ARISTA APARTMENTS NO.16, SERVICE RING ROAD BANASWADI BENGALURU -560 043 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI.SANDESH CHOUTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI.NEERAJ SASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MVN INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.58A/1, KALU SARAI NEW DELHI-110 016 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12453 CRL.P No. 13705 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7656 of 2024 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2024 AND AT ITS LOCAL OFFICE AT: 2ND FLOOR, JANSON'S MALL PLOT NO.48, MEENAKUNTE (ABOVE MCDONALD'S) NEW AIRPORT ROAD JALA HOBLI BENGALURU -562 157 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH AVALAHALLI POLICE OLD MADRAS ROAD VIRGONAGAR AVALAHALLI BENGALURU -560 049 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.UDYA HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE AND SRI.PRAMOD NAIR, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI.ANAND MUTTALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.PC (FILED U/SEC.528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.12.2023 PASSED BY THE I ADDL. CJM, BANGALORE RURAL IN CR.NO.267/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:12453 CRL.P No. 13705 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7656 of 2024 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Trial Court, wherein cognizance was taken of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of the IPC. 2. Respondent No. 2, the complainant, filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. stating that the petitioner—accused, being the owner of the subject land— executed a Non-Binding Term Sheet in favor of the complainant. After the Non-Binding Term Sheet was executed, the accused issued a Letter of Confirmation dated 13.12.2021, confirming that they would execute an Agreement of Sale in favor of the complainant, and that they had agreed to enter into a sale agreement for conveying the subject land to the complainant. Thereafter, although accused No. 1 had entered into the Non-Binding Term Sheet, he did not personally appear, along with accused Nos. 2 and 3, to execute the sale deed; instead, he insisted that the sale deed be executed by accused No. 1 through his Power of Attorney holder. The complainant specifically contends that, as per the terms of the Non-Binding Term Sheet, accused No. 1 was required to personally appear at the Sub-Registrar Office to execute the Sale Agreement in her favor. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:12453 CRL.P No. 13705 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7656 of 2024 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2024 3. The complainant further stated that the Power of Attorney executed in favor of accused No. 2 was a fabricated document. Since the document was executed by forging the signature of accused No. 1, the learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The Police, after their investigation, submitted a ‘B’ Report stating that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. The complainant then filed a Protest Petition. After considering the Protest Petition, the learned Magistrate rejected the ‘B’ Report, took cognizance of the aforesaid offence, recorded the sworn statement, and issued summons. 4. Sri Sandesh Chouta, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners, submitted that, in the absence of any material allegation that the petitioner induced the complainant to enter into the Non-Binding Term Sheet with an intention to deceive, the cognizance taken in respect of the aforesaid offences is unsustainable. He further submitted that the complainant has filed two suits for specific performance in relation to the subject land, and having failed to obtain an order of temporary injunction, filed a private complaint solely to pressure the accused to settle. Even if the allegations are accepted on their face, they merely amount to a breach of the terms and conditions of the Non-Binding Term Sheet, rather than a criminal offence. 5. In response, Sri Udaya Holla and Sri Pramod Nair, learned Senior Counsels representing the complainant, submitted that the allegations made in the complaint disclose - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:12453 CRL.P No. 13705 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7656 of 2024 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2024 the commission of a cognizable offence, and that the veracity of these allegations should be considered at trial rather than at the stage of investigation. They contended that the averments made in the complaint and the supporting documents clearly establish that accused No. 2 forged the signature of accused No. 1 and created the Power of Attorney with an intention to deceive the complainant. Therefore, they argued that the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, and 471 of the IPC, and that the complainant was induced to spend a huge amount of money on the development of the land by the accused. Consequently, the learned Magistrate rightly took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. 6. The arguments of the learned counsels for both parties have been duly considered. 7. Admittedly, a Non-Binding Term Sheet was entered into between the parties, and under its terms, the petitioner- accused had agreed to execute an Agreement of Sale in favor of the complainant for conveying the subject land; however, no consideration was paid under the Non-Binding Term Sheet. 8. Subsequently, the petitioner-accused terminated the Non-Binding Term Sheet. Since the complainant insisted that the petitioner/accused No. 1 personally appear at the Sub- Registrar Office to execute the Agreement of Sale, but the petitioner did not personally attend, the complainant alleges that the signature of accused No. 1 was forged by accused No. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:12453 CRL.P No. 13705 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7656 of 2024 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2024 2 in creating the Power of Attorney. However, accused No. 1 has not made any allegation that her signature was fabricated. Even if the signature was forged, no legal injury is caused to the complainant sufficient to sustain a complaint for the offence of forgery. 9. The complainant further alleges that upon execution of the Non-Binding Term Sheet, the accused induced her to spend a huge sum of money toward the development of the subject land or house. Except for the complainant’s sworn statement, there is no material or any averment in the Non- Binding Term Sheet indicating that she was permitted to develop the subject land before an Agreement of Sale was executed in her favor. The learned Magistrate has opined that the signature of accused No. 1 was forged by accused No. 2; however, no material was placed before the learned Magistrate to substantiate that allegation. 10. It is apposite to note at this stage that a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Ravikumar v. Mrs. KMC Vasantha and Anr, ILR 2018 KAR 1725, has prescribed the procedure to be followed upon the filing of the ‘B’ Report, and observed at paragraph No. 5, as follows: “...iii) If the court is of the opinion that the ‘B’ Summary Report submitted by the Police has to be rejected, then by expressing its judicious opinion, after applying its mind to the contents of ‘B’ report , the Court has to reject the ‘B’ Summary Report. iv) After rejection of the ‘B’ Summary Report, the court has to look into the private complaint or Protest Petition - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:12453 CRL.P No. 13705 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7656 of 2024 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2024 as the case may be, and contents therein to ascertain whether the allegations made in the Private complaint or in the Protest Petition constitute any cognizable offence, and then it can take cognizance of those offences and thereafter, provide opportunity to the complainant to give Sworn Statement and also record the statements of the witnesses if any on the side of the complainant as per the mandate of Section 200 Cr.P.C.” 11. In the case at hand, the Ld. Magistrate has passed the impugned order of rejecting the ‘B’ Summary report by referring to the protest petition, which is contrary to the law enunciated by this Court, which is that a ‘B’ report submitted by the Police has to be considered independently, at time of its rejection. 12. The learned Magistrate rejected the ‘B’ Report on the grounds that no notice was issued before its submission, and also rejected it because no report was secured from the Forensic Science Laboratory, which was called by the Police. The complainant produced an FSL report submitted by Naveen S to establish that the signature of petitioner-accused No. 1 on the Power of Attorney was forged. However, this report was furnished without calling upon petitioner-accused No. 1 to produce her admitted signature; moreover, petitioner-accused No. 1 has categorically stated that her signature on the Power of Attorney is genuine. Therefore, the report submitted by the private laboratory has no evidentiary value. 13. The learned Magistrate committed an error in relying on the report submitted by the private laboratory. Admittedly, the complainant has filed two suits for specific performance of - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:12453 CRL.P No. 13705 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7656 of 2024 CRL.P No. 13544 of 2024 the Non-Binding Term Sheet, and those suits are pending. Furthermore, even if the allegations against the accused are accepted on their face, they merely amount to a breach of the terms and conditions of the Non-Binding Term Sheet, which has been given a criminal texture solely to pressure the petitioner- accused into a settlement. In such circumstances, the continuation of the proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. 14. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The Criminal Petitions are allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.3482/2024 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural are hereby quashed. iii) Pending I.As. do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3