- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43227 CRL.P No. 8766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 11434 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8766 OF 2022 (482 (Cr.PC)/528 (BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11434 OF 2022 (482 (Cr.PC)/528 (BNSS)) IN CRL.P.No.8766/2022 BETWEEN: 1. RAMANJANI S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.838, 8TH E MAIN 1ST BLOCK, 2ND E CROSS HBR LAYOUT BANGALORE - 560 043. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A V RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY HENNUR POLICE REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. C ANANDA REDDY S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43227 CRL.P No. 8766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 11434 of 2022 R/T NO.109, 1ST MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, ANR COLONY HORAMAVU AGAGRA MAIN ROAD KALYANANAGARA POST BANGALORE-560 043. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R.1; SRI VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2019 PASSED BY THE XI ACMM, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.55380/2019 THEREBY TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 465, 468, 471, 420 READ WITH 34 OF IPC., ETC. IN CRL.P.NO.11434/2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI KRISHNA K G S/O LATE GOOLIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O KAMPLAPURA VILLAGE HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 123 ALSO RESIDING AT: NO.1698/37, 6TH CROSS (OLD STREET NO.5TH 'A' CROSS) 2ND BLOCK, BANASHANAKARI I STAGE BENGALURU-560 005. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI C.R. GOPALASWAMY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G. BHARGAV, ADVOCATE) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43227 CRL.P No. 8766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 11434 of 2022 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BY HENNUR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001. 2. SRI ANANDA REDDY C S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.109, 1ST MAIN ROAD 2ND CROSS, ANR COLONY HORAMAVU AGRAHARA MAIN ROAD KALYANANAGAR POST BENGALURU-560 043. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R.1; SRI VENKATESH R. BHAGAT, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2019 IN C.C.NO.55380/2019 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.79/2017) OF HENNUR POLICE STATION, AS FAR AS THE PETITIONER CONCERNED, INITIATED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 465, 468, 471 AND 420 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XI ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL, BENGALURU CITY, ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43227 CRL.P No. 8766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 11434 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.11434/2022 is accused no.1 in C.C.No.55380/2019 pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No.8766/2022 is accused No.2 in the said case. The complainant is respondent No.2 in both the petitions. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 2. The allegation of the complainant is that accused No.1 was introduced to the complainant by accused No.2. There was a transaction between the complainant and accused No.1 in respect of the sale of an immovable property wherein complainant had agreed to sell the same in favour of accused No.1 and had received the entire consideration amount by way of cheques, however, the same are said to have been dishonoured. In this regard, it is submitted that a civil suit is pending. In the meanwhile, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43227 CRL.P No. 8766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 11434 of 2022 the allegation made by the complainant is that accused Nos.1 and 2 conspired together and created a false bank account in the name of the complainant in a bank and by forging the signature of the complainant everywhere, they have got issued cheques in the name of the complainant by accused No.1 and the same has been subsequently encashed by accused Nos.1 and 2. It is contented that the said acts are done with the sole purpose of absolving the accused from their liability in the original suit filed by the complainant. 3. Based on the complaint, investigation has been conducted and a charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the present petitions are filed. 4. The case of the accused is that, they admit the transaction between the complainant and accused no.1 in respect of an immovable property, as contented by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43227 CRL.P No. 8766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 11434 of 2022 complainant. However, it is submitted that a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- is paid to the complainant as part sale consideration through the bank transaction. It is further submitted that the complaint lodged is false and the account actually belongs to the complainant and they have not indulged in any forgery as alleged. It is also submitted that the FSL report that the complainant has produced along with his objection statement, merely compares the admitted signatures of the complainant with that of the signatures in the bank related documents (questioned signatures) and it is reported that the same does not belong to the complainant. It is submitted that expert opinion is not binding on the Court and no weightage has to be attached to it. On the aforementioned grounds, it is prayed that the petitions be allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.55380/2019 against both the accused be quashed. 5. The question that arises for consideration is whether, presuming that all the allegations made in the police - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43227 CRL.P No. 8766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 11434 of 2022 report are true, can the petitioners be convicted of any of the offences charged in the said police report. 6. Admittedly, the accused and the complainant had certain transactions in respect of an immovable property. Accused No.1 admittedly is required to pay certain amounts to the complainant in respect of the said property. An original suit is pending in this regard. The instant case pertains to payment of certain alleged part consideration towards the said transaction by accused no.1 to the complainant. It is the contention of the complainant that no such amount has been paid. But, to show that a part payment has been paid by accused No.1 to complainant, a false bank account has been created in the name of the complainant, amounts were deposited into that account by accused no.1 and later on by forging the signature of the complainant, the same is withdrawn and the complainant is not aware of any of the same. Based on the allegations made by the complainant, investigation is conducted by the police and after being - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43227 CRL.P No. 8766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 11434 of 2022 satisfied that the allegations made against the accused are true, the police have filed a police report alleging that the petitioners have committed the offences as mentioned in the said police report. 7. Whether the accused are guilty of the offences alleged or not, is a matter of trial. Similarly, whether the FSL report in respect of forgery is proper or not and can be relied for the process of holding the petitioners guilty or not, is also a matter of trial. However, if the allegations made against the petitioners are found to be true, they will be guilty of certain offences as alleged in the police report. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to show any indulgence in exercise of the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and the petitions are hereby dismissed. 9. It is needless to state that any of the observations made herein above is only for deciding the petitions on - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43227 CRL.P No. 8766 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 11434 of 2022 hand and the trial Court shall decide the case independently based on the materials produced and evidence adduced. 10. The petitioners are also having the necessary liberty to file any application as permitted in law (including discharge application) before the trial Court and if the same are filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 11. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37