- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5162 OF 2018 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) BETWEEN SRI VINOD S/O LATE J BALARAJ R/A NO.A 52 AJ BLESSINGTAN RJ GARDENT CHINNAPPANAHALLI MARATHALLI POST BANGALORE-560037 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR.S ., ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HAL POLICE REP BY THE SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560037. 2. MAJOR THOMAS XAVIER S/O LATE MR V T XAVIER AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A NO.57, 1ST MAIN RJ GARDEN, ANAND NAGAR CHINNAPPANAHALLI MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE-560037 Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 3. MRS KOMALA W/O RAMESH R/A NO.58/A, 1ST MAIN R J GARDEN, ANAND NAGAR CHINNAPPANAHALLI MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE-560037 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL., HCGP FOR R1; SMT. PARVATHY R. NAIR. AND SRI. UDITA RAMESH., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. MANU SHANKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2015 PASSED BY THE LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN CRL.RP.NO.25021/2015 AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT ORDER DATED 29.11.2014 PASSED IN P.C.R.NO.95/2010 (CR.NO.12/2011) PASSED BY THE X ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU TO TRANSFERRED XLIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN P.C.R.NO.95/2010 IN CR.NO.12/2011 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 30.06.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: Quashing the order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the LVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall Unit (CCH-58), Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.25021/2015 and confirming the order of the trail court dated 29.11.2024 passed in PCR No.95/2010 in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 Crime No.12/2011 passed by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore to transferred XLIII Add. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore and quash the complaint in PCR No.95/2010 in Crime No.12/2011 by allowing the above petition in the interest of justice. 2. Respondent No.2-Major Thomas Xavier had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 against one Sri.J. Balaraj, son of late R. Joseph and B. Vinod Kumar, son of Sri Balaraj who is the Petitioner herein, as also against Smt.Komala, wife of Mr. Ramesh who is respondent No.3 herein, alleging offences under section 420, 464, 467, 470 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code on 18.06.2010. 3. The complainant alleged that he is the son of late V.T.Xavier, who had purchased site Nos.53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58 under registered sale deed dated 17.03.1969, and in all, the above sites measure 209+205/2 x 60 feet. It is also contended that Sri.V.T.Xavier also purchased a small piece of land adjacent to site No. 52, measuring 7+11/2 x 60 feet - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 under a registered sale deed dated 23.06.1970. All of the above properties were purchased by Sri.V.T.Xavier from one Sri.R.Joseph, son of Sri.Rayappa, who is the grandfather of the Petitioner herein. 4. It is alleged that the complainant was working in the Army and retired as a Major in the year 1999 and after his retirement, he was working in a central government organisation. His father Sri.V.T.Xavier expired on 1.05.1995. After his death, the complainant and his brother Joseph Xavier succeeded to the above properties. Mr.Joseph Xavier, that is his brother, from his birth was very weak and had been afflicted with one ailment or the other and was totally dependent on the complainant. The complainant, not being in Bangalore for a long period of time, was not aware of the details of the purchases of properties made by Sri.V.T.Xavier, his father. His brother Joseph Xavier was not in a position to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 manage the affairs of the estate of the father due to his ill health. During this time, a portion of the property was acquired by the Bangalore Development Authority fromSri.V.T.Xavier. 5. It was further contended by the complainant that he was under the impression that the remaining property measuring 100 x 60 feet was a property purchased by his father adjacent to site No. 58/A, now standing in the name of the accused Nos.1 and 3, that is Mr.J.Balaraj (who is now deceased) and respondent No.3 herein. 6. It is further alleged that when the complainant was going through the old documents left behind by his late father, he noticed that the sites in occupation were not matching with the description of the property. Hence, a physical measurement was made, when to his shock, he found that there never existed any site bearing No. 58/A and on that basis, he came to a conclusion that site No. 58/A is part of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 property purchased by his father Sri.V.T.Xavier. It is alleged that J.Balaraj taking undue advantage of the long absence of the complainant and the physical condition of his brother had got made a bogus katha and created imaginary site No. 58/A and sold the same to accused No.3, that is respondent No.3 herein. Respondent No.3 after purchasing site bearing No.58/A, is also stated to have sold a portion of same in favour of one Mrs.T.Thulasamma and on that basis it is alleged by the complainant that J.Balaraj (now deceased), the petitioner-Vinod Balaraj in collusion with respondent No.3-Komala have concocted, fabricated and sold the site bearing No.58/A in favour of respondent No.3 without any valid right or title. 7. It is further alleged that J. Balaraj has fraudulently and dishonestly delivered the property bearing site No.58/A situated at Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, which - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 belongs to the complainant and his brother having inherited the same from their father and as such, the conveyance is with a criminal intention to cheat and to make unlawful gain which is an offence under the Indian Penal Code. It is in that background that the complainant filed PCR No.95 of 2010 before the X Additional CMM court, Bangalore on 18.09.2010 which was referred for investigation under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the Station House Officer, HAL police station, Bangalore, in pursuance of which FIR in Crime No.12 of 2011 came to be registered. 8. Respondent No.1-Police after investigation had filed a B-final report as regards which a protest memo was filed by the complainant. However, the X Additional CMM court, Bangalore, rejected the protest memo which came to be challenged by the complainant in Criminal Revision No.25021 of 2015 wherein, on appearance, the Petitioner has filed objections. The Revision Court allowed the Criminal Revision, set - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 aside the order passed by the Additional CMM Court, thereby restoring the complaint which had been filed. It is challenging the same, the Petitioner is before this court. 9. Sri.Ravishankar.S, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that, 9.1. Accused No.1 in the complaint-J.Balaraj has expired. It is the father of J. Balaraj, namely Rayappa, who was the owner of land in Survey No. 27, who had formed a layout in the said survey number and sold all the sites in Survey No. 27 during his lifetime. Rayappa also being the owner of the land in survey No.28, it was succeeded to by wife of Rayappa and J.Balaraj after the death of Rayappa. The wife of Rayappa had later on formed a layout in survey No.28 and some of the sites which are claimed to be owned by the complainant. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 9.2. J.Balaraj had sold site bearing No.58/A to respondent No.3-Komala under a sale deed dated 24-3-1995. The said site does not belong to the complainant and there is no encroachment made of any site belonging to the complainant. There is no site which has been formed on the land sold to the father of the complainant. The land/site in possession of respondent No.3 is not part of the land which was earlier owned by the father of the complainant and now by the complainant. 9.3. The dispute between the parties is also civil in nature inasmuch as the complainant along with his brother has filed a suit against the Petitioner in O.S. No.25514 of 2020 seeking for a declaration that the sale deed dated 24.03.1995 executed in favour of Respondnt No.3 and sale Deed dated 28.01.2002 executed by Respondnt No.3 in favour of T.Tulsamma are - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 not binding on the plaintiffs and for a declaration that plaintiffs are the absolute owners of suit schedule A and B properties, suit schedule A property being site No.58/A measuring east ot west 60 ft and north to west 40+44/2 and schedule B property also bearing site No. 58/A measuring east to west 42 feet and north to south 30 feet, as also for delivery of possession and a mandatory injunction directing the first and second defendants namely Komala and T.Tulsamma to remove the construction put up on schedule A and B properties. 9.4. The suit has been filed for a declaration and mandatory injunction directing respondents No.1 and 3 therein to remove the construction put up on Schedule A and B properties. The sale deed having been executed in favour of Komala on 24.03.1995, the present PCR has - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 been filed in the year 2010, after a gap of 15 years of the sale. 9.5. Even according to the complainant, Sri.V.T.Xavier expired on 1.08.1995 whereas sale deed in favour of Komala was on 24.03.1995. Therefore, the sale deed having been executed during the lifetime of Sri.V.T.Xavier, he did not take any steps as regard to same. It is only after 15 years after death of Sri.V.T.Xavier that a complaint has been filed. 9.6. After the initial investigation having been done, a B-report has been filed. The protest memo has been rejected, it is only in the revision that the B-report has been set aside. Insofar as the order passed, order dated 19.09.2015 in Criminal Revision No.2501 of 2015, the Revision court ought not to have set aside the order of the trial court and ought not to have - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 directed cognizance to be taken for offences under Section 420, 464, 467, 470 and 471 of the IPC. 9.7. He submits that even as per the complaint, Sri.V.T.Xavier is stated to have purchased a portion of the property on 17.03.1969 and another portion on 23.06.1970 and from then he had not put up any construction or taken any action in respect of the property until his expiry in the year 1995. The complaint has been filed only on the basis of the alleged impression of the Petitioner that his father had purchased site measuring 100x60 bearing No.58/A and when he was going through the old documents, he found the original sale deed in respect to the property. 9.8. He submits that the offences which have been alleged under Section 420 would require an intent from the very beginning to cheat - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 Sri.V.T.Xavier and or the complainant. The sale in favour of Sri.V.T.Xavier was executed by R.Joseph in the year 1969-70, whereas sale deed in favour of Komala is executed by J.Balaraj in the year 1995. 9.9. He submits that the sale in favour of Komala being an executed document, there is no question of concoction of the sale deed. Smt.Komala having purchased the property has put up construction on the property and she has sold portion thereof to Tulsamma who has also put up construction thereon which is clearly apparent from the reliefs which have been sought for in the suit filed by the complainant in O.S. No.25514/2010 wherein a mandatory injunction for removal of the construction put up has been sought for. 9.10. In the PCR which has been filed no reference to survey number in which the sites have been - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 purchased by Sri.V.T.Xavier has been indicated and as such, the same cannot be said to be in survey number 28 in which a subsequent layout has been formed by the mother of the Petitioner. 9.11. The sites which have been purchased by the father of the complainant was in survey No.57 and not in survey No.58. Reliance placed by the Sessions court in Lalmuni Devi (smt.) -v- State of Bihar and others1 is misplaced. Though there cannot be a dispute as regard whether a criminal complaint can be filed even if a civil claim is made, the fact in the present matter is that a criminal complaint has been filed much belatedly after 15 years of the execution of sale deed by the father of the Petitioner in favour of respondent No.3 which aspect has not been considered by Sessions court. He therefore submits that the order of 1 (2001)2 SCC 17 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 the Sessions court is not sustainable and is required to be quashed. 9.12. The suit in OS No 25514 of 2010 has also been dismissed vide judgement and decree dated 15.04.2021. The trial court while dismissing the suit has categorically come to a conclusion that the BDA has acquired 6534 square feet from the land purchased by late V.T.Xavier and widened the existing road. The trial court also observed that in the sale deed relied upon by the complainant there was no reference made that the said property was carved out of survey No.28. Plaintiff in the cross examination admitted that late V.T.Xavier knew about the execution of sale deed in favour of defendant No.1- Komala by Balaraj-defendant No.3. The trial court has also doubted the boundaries in the sale deed produced by the complainant and has come to a conclusion that site No.58A - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 claimed by the complainant comes in the acquired land and as such, it was held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they still have ownership over the suit schedule property and rejected all the prayers which have been sought for. 9.13. He relies upon the decision of the hon’ble Apex court in the case of State of Karnataka -v- L.Munishwamy and others2, more particularly para 10 and 11 thereof, which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 10. On the other hand, the decisions cited. by learned counsel for the respondents in Vadilal Panchaly. D.D. Gha- digaonkar AIR 1960 SC 1113 and Century Spinning & Manufacturing co. -v- State of Maharashtra AIR 1972 SC 545 show that it is wrong to say that at the stage of flaming charges the court cannot apply. its judicial mind to the consideration whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of the offence by the accused. As observed in the latter case, the order framing a charge affects a person's liberty substantially and therefore it is the duty of the court to consider judicially whether the material warrants the framing of the charge. It cannot blindly accept the decision of the prosecution that the accused be. asked to face 2 (1977 Supreme (SC) 123) - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 a trial. In Vadilal Panchal's case. (supra) Section 203 of the old Code was under consideration, which provided that the Magistrate could dismiss a complaint if after considering certain matters mentioned in the section there was in his judgment no sufficient ground for proceeding with the case.. To an extent Section 227 of the new Code contains an analogous power which is conferred on the Sessions Court. It was held by this Court, while considering the true scope of Section 203 of the old Code that the Magistrate was not bound to accept the result of an enquiry or investigation and that he must apply his judicial mind to the material on which he had to form his judgment. These decisions show that for the purpose of determining whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against an accused the court possesses a comparatively wider discretion in the exercise of which it can determine the question whether the material on the record, if unrebutted, is such on the basis of which a conviction can-be said reasonably to be possible. 11. We are therefore in agreement with the view of the High Court that the material on which the prosecution proposes to rely against the respondents is wholly inadequate to sustain the charge that they are in any manner connected with the assault on the complainant. We would, however, like to observe that nothing in our judgment or in the judgment of the High Court should be taken as detracting from the case of the prosecution, to which we have not applied our mind, as against accused Nos. 1 to 9. The case against those accused must take its due and lawful course. 9.14. By relying on L.Munishwamy's case, he submitted that judicial mind was required to be - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 applied by the Sessions court on the material and the material disclosing that there is no offence being made out, the Sessions court ought to have confirmed the order of the Magistrate. 9.15. He relies upon the decision in Md.Ibrahim and others -v- State of Bihar and Another3 more particularly para Nos.6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 thereof which are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 6. The question that therefore arises for consideration is whether the material on record prima facie constitutes any offences against the accused. The contention of the appellant is that if the allegations made in the complaint and FIR, even if accepted to be true in entirety did not disclose the ingredients of any offence of forgery Sections 467 and 471 or cheating (Section 420) or insult (Section 504) or wrongful restraint (Section 341) or causing hurt Section 323 and there was no other material to show any offence and therefore, their application ought to have been accepted. 7. This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should 3 [(2009)8 SCC 751] - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurise parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. [See: G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [2000 (2) SCC 636] and Indian Oil Corporation vs. NEPC India Ltd. [2006 (6) SCC 736]. Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind. Sections 467 and 471 of the Penal Code 8. Let us first consider whether the complaint averments even assuming to be true make out the ingredients of the offences punishable either under section 467 or section 471 of Penal Code. Section 467 (in so far as it is relevant to this case) provides that whoever forges a document which purports to be a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 471, relevant to our purpose, provides that whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document. Section 470 defines a forged document as a false document made by forgery. 9. The term "forgery" used in these two sections is defined in section 463. Whoever makes any false documents with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that the fraud may be committed, commits forgery. Section 464 defining "making a false document" is extracted below : "464. Making a false document.--A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record--- - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 First.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently - (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic record; (d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or a part of document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly.--Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alternation; or Thirdly.--Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration. Explanation 1 - A man's signature of his own name may amount to forgery. Explanation 2 - The making of a false document in the name of a fictitious person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by a real - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 person, or in the name of a deceased person, intending it to be believed that the document was made by the person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery. [Note: The words `digital signature' wherever it occurs were substituted by the words `electronic signature' by Amendment Act 10 of 2009]." The condition precedent for an offence under sections 467 and 471 is forgery. The condition precedent for forgery is making a false document (or false electronic record or part thereof). This case does not relate to any false electronic record. Therefore, the question is whether the first accused, in executing and registering the two sale deeds purporting to sell a property (even if it is assumed that it did not belong to him), can be said to have made and executed false documents, in collusion with the other accused. 10. An analysis of section 464 of Penal Code shows that it divides false documents into three categories: 10.1) The first is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently makes or executes a document with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by some other person, or by the authority of some other person, by whom or by whose authority he knows it was not made or executed. 10.2) The second is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document in any material part, without lawful authority, after it has been made or executed by either himself or any other person. 10.3) The third is where a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, execute or alter a document knowing that such person could not by reason of (a) unsoundness of mind; or (b) intoxication; or (c) deception practised upon - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 him, know the contents of the document or the nature of the alteration. 11. In short, a person is said to have made a `false document', if (i) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorised by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of his senses. 12. The sale deeds executed by first appellant, clearly and obviously do not fall under the second and third categories of `false documents'. It therefore remains to be seen whether the claim of the complainant that the execution of sale deeds by the first accused, who was in no way connected with the land, amounted to committing forgery of the documents with the intention of taking possession of complainant's land (and that accused 2 to 5 as the purchaser, witness, scribe and stamp vendor colluded with first accused in execution and registration of the said sale deeds) would bring the case under the first category. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bonafide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of `false documents', it is not sufficient that a document has been made or executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 executed. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither section 467 nor section 471 of the Code are attracted. 9.16. By relying on Md.Ibrahim's case, he submits that what is required to be considered by the Sessions court is whether the material on record prima facie constitutes any offence. A criminal complaint having been filed only to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute ought not to be encouraged. He submits that forgery as used under Section 463 is creation of false document with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or any person. Section 464 deals with making a false document. His submission is that the condition for invoking an offence under Section 467 and 471 is forgery, execution and registration of a sale deed would - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 not be forgery within the meaning of Section 463, 464, as also 467 and 471 since there cannot be a false document executed dishonestly or fraudulently. 9.17. He relies upon the decision in K.R.Rajashekar Reddy, S/o Rama Reddy -v- State of Karnataka4, more particularly para 12 thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference: 12 In case of a private complaint, the Magistrate can issue summons when the evidence prudced at the pre-summoning stage shows that there is sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused. The material on record should indicate that the ingredients for taking cognizance of an offence and issuing summons to the accused is made out. [Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel -v- State of Gujarat, 92019) 16 SCC 547; (2020)2 SCC (Cri) 361; sunil Bharti Mittal -v- CBI (2015)4 SCC 609; (2015)2 SCC (Cri) 687; and Pepsi foods Ltd. -v- Judicial Magistrate (1998)5 SCC 749; 1998 SCC (Cri) 1400. The proviso to Section 200 of the Code is not applicable in the present case. 9.18. By relying on K.R.Rajashekar Reddy's case, his submission is that in case of private complaint a Magistrate can issue summons only 4 [2024 Supreme (Kar) 148] - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 when there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. If the material on record does not indicate the ingredients for taking cognisance, summons could be refused to be issued and as such, he submits that the Sessions court ought to have refused the indulgence sought for by the complainant in the Revision petition. 10. Sri.Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 would submit that, 10.1. The order passed by the Sessions court is proper and correct. There is fabrication of documents inasmuch as by way of the sale deed executed as regard to the very same property sold in favour of Sri.V.T.Xavier, a right over the property of Sri.V.T.Xavier is sought to be created by respondent No.3. In furtherance of the said sale deed, several documents have been created namely khatha, etc., which also - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 amount to fabrication of documents. These are all aspects which are required to stand the test of trial. 10.2. The investigation which had been carried out has not been properly done inasmuch as the sale deeds, the boundaries have not been correlated. Admittedly, the father of the Petitioner had sold the sites to Sri.V.T.Xavier. In this regard, he relies on the cross- examination of the Petitioner, who was examined in the suit in O.S. No.25514 of 2010 and submits that in the year 1968 itself, his grandfather Joseph had carved survey Nos.27 and 28 and sold it to several persons. There is an admission made that his grandfather Joseph had sold sites No.53 to 58 to the father of the plaintiff. By relying on the layout plan which had been marked as Exhibit-P11 in the said suit he contends that the layout had been formed - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 both in survey number 27 and 28 in order to establish that site number 53 to 58 were abutting each other. His submission is that there was an admission made that a layout had been formed in survey number 27 and 28 and the sites had been sold to V.T.Xavier, the father of the complainant, there being no other property which is available, these lands or any portion thereof could not be sold by the Petitioner to respondent No.3. 10.3. He relies on the statement of objections filed by the petitioner and respondents No.3 herein and submits that even in the said objections, there is clear admission made that V.T.Xavier had purchased the property bearing site number 53, 54, 55, 56, 57 and 58. Thus, there being admission to that effect, it is exfacie evident that an offence of cheating has been - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 committed, so also fabrication and forgery of documents has been committed. 10.4. On that basis, he submits that the above petition is required to be dismissed. 11. Heard Sri.Ravishankar.S, learned counsel for the Petitioner, Sri.M.R.Patil, learned HCGP for respondent No.1, Sri. Ramesh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.Manu Shankar, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused papers. 12. The facts and the contentions have been stated hereinabove. What is required to be considered by this court is, whether the order dated 19-09- 2015 passed by the Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No.25021 of 2015 requires any interference at the hands of this court? 13. From the facts above, it is not in dispute that the grandfather of the Petitioner had sold site Nos. 53 to 58 in favour of Sri.V.T.Xavier in the year 1969 and 70. The said sites had been formed in survey number - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 27 and 28 of Chinnappanahalli village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. There is a clear and categorical admission by the Petitioner of such sale and purchase in the aforesaid survey number. The aforesaid properties having been sold, it cannot be said that there is any property remaining in the hands of the grandfather of the Petitioner to be succeeded to by the father of the Petitioner or the mother of the Petitioner and consequently the Petitioner. Be that as it may, the same would require trial. 14. Though the suit in O.S. No.25514/2010 also has been dismissed, the submission of counsel for respondent No.2 is that an appeal has been filed and as such, it cannot be said that there is a finality which has been arrived at in respect of the said suit. 15. The Petitioner having admitted the execution of sale in favour of Sri.V.T.Xavier, as also the concerned sites having been identified, what is required to be - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 ascertained is, whether there was any property available after the expiry of Sri.R.Joseph which the Petitioner's father Sri.J.Balaraj could succeed to and or could be succeeded to by the wife of Rayappa as claimed by the Petitioner? What would also be required to be ascertained is whether the property sold by the Petitioner to respondent No.3 is the very same or forms part of site bearing No. 53 to 58? If that were to be so, then the sale deed executed by the Petitioner in favour of respondent No.3 would amount to a fabricated document, forgery, committed to usurp the rights of the complainant. These aspects cannot be ascertained or verfied in a proceedigns under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure, all these would have to be ascertained during the course of trial. The property being one and the same I’am of the considered opinion that this is not a case where the discreetionary powers are required to be exercised. - 31 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35467 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018 16. As such, I pass the following: ORDER i. Criminal petition is Dismissed. ii. All contentions are left open to be adjudicated after trial. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE LN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1