- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37978 CRL.P No. 10067 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10067 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. VINOD KUMAR.K S/O LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS 2. VIMALA.M D/O LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.4, 3RD CROSS, MUNIKONDAPPA LAYOUT NAGASANDRA POST, BAGALAGUNTE BENGALURU-560073 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAYASIMHA.K.P., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37978 CRL.P No. 10067 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY IT'S THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION BANGALORE -560041 2. SHESHADHRI BHAT S/O LATE. SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.38, SRI. VITOBA TEMPLE, K.KAMARAJ ROAD, BENGALURU-560042. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER DTD 17.03.2025 IN C.C.NO.50533/2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, IT IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE X ADDL.CJM AT BENGALURU IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37978 CRL.P No. 10067 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for respondent No1. 2. The petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 and 2, are aggrieved by the order of the Court below rejecting the discharge application by recording the finding that there is a material to proceed against the petitioners. The said order is under challenge. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. Perused the records. 4. The short question that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner/accused No.1, having availed a loan of Rs.17,00,000/- from Cholamandal Finance by creating a mortgage over the disputed property, could have lawfully entered into a sale transaction with CW.1 and CW.2 for a total consideration of Rs.43,00,000/- and, in pursuance thereof, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37978 CRL.P No. 10067 of 2025 received an advance sale consideration of Rs.19,35,000/-, without disclosing the subsisting mortgage created in favour of the Finance Company. 5. During the course of hearing, when the Court specifically queried the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding this aspect, he fairly conceded that the agreement to sell executed between the petitioners on the one hand and CW.1 and CW.2 on the other does not contain any recital or disclosure with respect to the loan transaction or the mortgage created in favour of Cholamandal Finance. The non-disclosure of such a material fact at the time of executing the agreement is not in dispute. 6. Having regard to the above admitted position, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires a full- fledged trial. At this stage, it cannot be said that the petitioners are entitled to discharge. While the dispute does have significant civil elements, the allegation of suppression of material facts in the course of a sale transaction gives rise to criminal liability as well, and therefore, the petitioners cannot - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37978 CRL.P No. 10067 of 2025 be permitted to avoid trial merely by taking shelter under the plea that the dispute is of a purely civil nature. 7. The real issue which has to be established during the course of trial is, whether the petitioners, being the absolute owners of the property but having mortgaged the same with Cholamandal Finance, deliberately suppressed this fact and entered into an agreement to sell with CW.1 and CW.2. If the prosecution is able to prove that the petitioners, with dishonest intention, executed such an agreement to sell without disclosing the subsisting mortgage, then the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC would be attracted. It is for the prosecution, by leading cogent evidence, to establish such intention and suppression. At this preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to record any findings in favour of the petitioners nor extend any indulgence in their favour. 8. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the petition. The petition, being devoid of substance, is hereby dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37978 CRL.P No. 10067 of 2025 The pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21