- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3054 CRL.P No. 100760 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100760 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. GEETA W/O. GANGADHAR ELIGAR AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/AT. TIPPU NAGAR, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. 2. SHANKARAPPA S/O. HANAMAPPA ELIGAR AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/AT. NAGARAL S.B, TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. 3. HANAMANTAPPA S/O. FAKIRAPAP ELIGAR AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. FARMER R/AT. YARAGERA, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583277. 4. MANJUNATH S/O. HANAMAPPA ELIGAR AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/AT. NAGARAL S.B., TQ. BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.S.MOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA KUSHTAGI POLICE STATION, DIST. KOPPAL, REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT. DHARWAD. 2. HUSENAMMA W/O. YALLAPPA ELIGAR AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:36 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3054 CRL.P No. 100760 of 2022 R/AT. YALABURTI VILLAGE, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583277. …RESPONDENTS (BY PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. AVINASH S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE COGNIZANCE DATED 08.05.2015 AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4/ PETITIONERS AS HELD IN KUSHTAGI POLICE STATION CRIME NO.104/2014 REGISTERED IN CC NO.174/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, AT KUSHTAGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 419, 420 AND 468 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, and 468 of the IPC, have approached this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that the land bearing Sy.No.37/5, measuring 1 acre 23 guntas, originally belonged to Mudukappa. Upon his death, his elder son, Hanamanthappa, succeeded as the owner of the said land. Hanamanthappa was the elder brother of respondent No.2 (complainant). After Hanamanthappa’s death, the petitioners/accused allegedly produced a false genealogy and got their names mutated in the Record of Rights concerning the subject land, fully knowing that the de facto complainant is the sister of respondent No.2. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the de facto complainant had filed a suit in O.S. No.711/2013 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3054 CRL.P No. 100760 of 2022 seeking declaration and permanent injunction in relation to the subject land. After conducting a full-fledged trial, the Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the de facto complainant had failed to establish ownership over the land. Therefore, the allegation that the petitioners fraudulently mutated their names in the Record of Rights is devoid of substance, and the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law. 4. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 – State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the allegations and charge-sheet material clearly establish that the petitioners fraudulently mutated their names in the Record of Rights. They submitted that the veracity of these allegations should be examined during trial, and not at this stage, and thus, sought dismissal of the petition. 5. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 6. The Trial Court, in its judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.711/2018, recorded a finding that accused No.1 is the first wife of Hanamanthappa, and the other accused are their children. Accused No.2 is the brother of accused No.1. Therefore, accused No.1, being a Class-I legal heir, had a rightful claim over the subject land, whereas the de facto complainant had no legal right over the same. The decree passed by the Trial Court has attained finality. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3054 CRL.P No. 100760 of 2022 7. In light of the Trial Court’s findings, the allegation that accused No.1 fraudulently produced a false genealogy and got their names mutated in the Record of Rights is baseless. Under these circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 8. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.174/2015, pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kushtagi, insofar as they relate to petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 4, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 66