- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32150 CRL.P No. 11991 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11991 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. JAVERIA SHARIFF WIFE OF LATE SHARIFF SAIT, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 69, 7TH MAIN, HOME NEED SUPER MARKET, BTM LAYOUT 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PURNACHANDRA M. PURANIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, ADUGODI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. NARPAT SINGH, SON OF NARAYAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 3, 1ST CROSS, BTS ROAD, CHINNAYANAPALYA, WILSON GARDEN, BENGALURU - 560 030. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32150 CRL.P No. 11991 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.06.2024 (ANNEXURE-B) TAKING COGNIZANCE, DIRECTING THE OFFICE TO REGISTER THE CRIMINAL CASE AND ISSUING SUMMONS TO THE ACCUSED IN PCR.NO.14917/2022 (CONVERTED TO CC.NO.19299/2024) PENDING ON THE FILE OF III ACMM, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 417, 420 OF IPC, 1860. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Respondent No.2/defacto complainant has filed a private complaint against the petitioners herein, alleging that the present petitioners/accused have not disclosed the fact of availing a loan from the Indian bank. This fact was suppressed while selling the property in favour of respondent No.2/complainant in 2011. It is only after receipt of the possession notice on 01.09.2022 that respondent No.2/defacto complainant comes to know that the petitioners have cheated and played fraud on him and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32150 CRL.P No. 11991 of 2025 therefore, a private complaint is filed for the offence punishable under sections 406, 407, 415, 417 and 420 of the IPC. 2. On receipt of a private complaint, the learned Magistrate has referred the matter under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and a crime is registered in Crime No.258/2022. After investigation a charge-sheet is filed by the investigation officer. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP. Perused the records. 4. The petitioner, who is admittedly one of the signatories to the registered sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.2 as far back as on 07.12.2011, has approached this Court seeking quashment of the proceedings. The primary contention urged is that the private complaint instituted by respondent No.2 under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. is hopelessly belated, having been filed nearly after a lapse of 10 years from the date of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32150 CRL.P No. 11991 of 2025 alienation, and therefore the dispute is purely civil in nature and could not have been converted into a criminal prosecution. 5. However, on closer scrutiny of the allegations contained in the private complaint, coupled with the materials placed on record, this Court finds that there is prima facie material which would warrant a trial against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC. It is not in dispute that the petitioner and her husband, being the absolute owners of the subject property, conveyed the same in favour of respondent No.2 by executing a registered sale deed dated 07.12.2011 for valuable consideration of Rs.35,00,000/-. The recitals in the said sale deed, however, do not make any reference to the subsisting loan liability that had been availed by the petitioner and her husband. 6. Whether such suppression of material fact was deliberate and whether the petitioner and her husband - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32150 CRL.P No. 11991 of 2025 entertained a fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of execution of the sale deed are questions of fact which necessarily require appreciation of oral and documentary evidence in the course of a full-fledged trial. The execution of a registered document conveying the property for a substantial consideration of Rs.35,00,000/- by itself cannot absolve the petitioner from the allegations of cheating, as the element of “intention to deceive at the inception” is to be tested during the course of trial and not at the threshold. 7. This Court, therefore, is of the considered view that the materials placed before the learned Magistrate disclose sufficient grounds to proceed against the petitioner. The filing of charge sheet further fortifies the position that a prima facie case exists for trial. At this stage, in the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., this Court cannot embark upon a roving inquiry into disputed questions of fact or record a finding that there was no dishonest intention. Such an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:32150 CRL.P No. 11991 of 2025 exercise would amount to stifling the prosecution at its inception. 8. In the light of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the petition. The petitioner is bound to face trial on the strength of the charge sheet filed against her. No indulgence can be granted at this juncture. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, and all contentions are left open to be urged before the trial Court. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48 CT: BHK