- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8636 CRL.P No. 1124 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1124 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JANARDHANA .G.C S/O LATE GOVINDA RAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO.28, 1ST CROSS, A K COLONY R K BLOCK MUNIREDDY PALYA J.C.NAGAR, BENGLAURU NORTH BENGLAURU-560 006. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR .K.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY TAVAREKERE POLICE RAMANAGARA REPRESENTED HEREIN BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BENGLAURU-560 001. 2. MADEGOWDA S/O G.H. KRISHNAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT GANAPATHIHALLI TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALAUR SOUTH TALUK-562 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. THILAK RAJ .S.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8636 CRL.P No. 1124 of 2022 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY RESPONDENT POLICE AND PENDING NOW ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGARAM IN S.C.NO.63/2021 PRODUCED AT DOCUMENT NO.1 IN BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is accused No.14 in S.C.No.63/2021 is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagaram. 2. The complainant in the case on hand claims that in terms of the memorandum of understanding(MOU), he procured agricultural land and converted the same for residential purpose and developed the land to be utilized for full fledged residential houses to enable the housing society to distribute sites to its primary members. The genesis of the dispute lies in the MOU dated 9.10.2009 between the complainant and the Society. The complainant has attributed serious allegations against the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8636 CRL.P No. 1124 of 2022 directors of the Housing Society alleging that, with the malafide intention of causing wrongful loss to scuttle the MOU dated 9.10.2009, have created E-stamp paper wherein time was tampered with and the same was utilized to prepare the alleged MOU dated 29.10.2018. 3. The petitioner, who has been arraigned as Accused No.14, has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him. The primary contention of the petitioner is that he has no involvement in the alleged transaction and that his name has been included in the charge sheet solely on the basis of the fact that his mobile number was furnished while securing an E-Stamp. It is his case that there is no substantive evidence against him and that the proceedings, if continued, would amount to an abuse of the process of law, warranting the intervention of this Court under its inherent jurisdiction. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8636 CRL.P No. 1124 of 2022 4. The petitioner asserts that even if the allegations in the complaint and the charge sheet materials are taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, no prima facie case is made out against him. He contends that the inclusion of his mobile number in the transaction does not by itself implicate him in any wrongful act. He further argues that the continuation of the criminal proceedings against him, in the absence of any cogent evidence linking him to the alleged offence, would be an unnecessary harassment and would amount to misuse of the judicial process. On these grounds, he has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings against him. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/complainant, as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP), have vehemently opposed the petition. They have placed strong reliance on the charge sheet materials and have contended that there is sufficient evidence implicating the petitioner in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8636 CRL.P No. 1124 of 2022 alleged offence. It is their submission that the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly and only in cases where there is a clear abuse of process or where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offence. They further argue that in the present case, the prosecution has laid specific allegations against the petitioner regarding his role in securing an anti-date document by tampering with an E-Stamp paper, thereby facilitating Byraveshwara Enterprises to circumvent the MOU dated 09.10.2009. Given the gravity of these allegations, they assert that this is not a fit case for quashing the proceedings at the threshold. 6. Section 482 of Cr.P.C. empowers the High Court to quash criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. However, it is well settled that this power must be exercised with great caution and only in exceptional circumstances. The scope of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been elucidated in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8636 CRL.P No. 1124 of 2022 several judicial pronouncements, including those by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which have consistently held that the High Court should not embark upon an inquiry into the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations at the stage of considering a petition under this provision. Unless it is evident that no prima facie case is made out or that the proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious, the High Court should refrain from interfering in the matter. 7. Upon careful examination of the charge sheet materials, this Court finds that the petitioner’s contention, that his involvement is limited to the use of his mobile number for securing the E-Stamp, does not hold merit. The charge sheet materials contain several statements and pieces of evidence that clearly outline the specific role attributed to the petitioner in the alleged offence. The prosecution has alleged that the petitioner is the mastermind behind the tampering of the E-Stamp paper, which ultimately facilitated Byraveshwara Enterprises in overcoming the MOU dated 09.10.2009. Such allegations, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8636 CRL.P No. 1124 of 2022 being of a serious nature, necessitate a full-fledged trial to ascertain the truth. The petitioner’s involvement in securing and allegedly manipulating the E-Stamp paper is a crucial aspect of the prosecution’s case, and thus, at this stage, this Court finds no reason to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 8. Given the gravity of the allegations and the materials available in the charge sheet, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires trial. The burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to establish that the petitioner played a key role in the tampering of the E- Stamp paper, thereby causing financial loss to the complainant. Whether or not the petitioner was involved in the alleged act is a question of fact that must be determined through a full-fledged trial. As such, the petitioner cannot seek indulgence of this Court at this stage under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petition, therefore, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8636 CRL.P No. 1124 of 2022 stands dismissed, and the petitioner is directed to face trial as per due process of law. Accordingly, this criminal petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49