Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 7001 (KAR)

SRI RAJANNA ALIAS RAJESH S/O. YALLAPPA TOTAGANTI v. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR

CRL.P/102181/2023 · 2025-01-21

Hemant Chandangoudar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1109 CRL.P No. 102181 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102181 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJANNA @ RAJESH S/O. YALLAPPA TOTAGANTI, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. MARUTHI NAGAR, 1ST MAIN, 6TH CROSS, RANEBENNUR, HAVERI (DIST)-581115. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVANA GOUD T, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR RANEBENNUR TOWN POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580011. 2. MOHAN S/O. BHEERAPPA MALIGERE, AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. SANAKALABIDARI VILLAGE, PRESENTLY R/AT ACHHAVVA COLONY, 3RD CROSS, HUBBALLI SAI NAGAR, DHARWAD (TQ), DHARWAD (DIST)-580031. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN C.C.NO. 346/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RANEBENNUR AND QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.6 IS CONCERNED IN CC NO.346/2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, RANEBENNUR, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC. 404, 420, 465, 468, 471, R/W SEC. 149 OF THE IPC. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.28 15:16:18 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1109 CRL.P No. 102181 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner, accused No.6, who is sought to be prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 404, 420, 465, 468, and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC, is before this Court. 2. The prosecution’s case is that accused No.1 created a forged will by fabricating the signature of the father of respondent No.2 concerning the subject lands. Based on the fabricated will, accused No.1 approached the Tahsildar for mutating his name in the record of rights. 3. Respondent No.2, the complainant, despite being served with notice, has not chosen to appear either in person or through counsel. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1 – State. 5. The sole allegation against accused No.6 is that he acted as an attesting witness to the will, alleged to have been forged by accused No.1 by fabricating the signature of the father of respondent No.2. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1109 CRL.P No. 102181 of 2023 6. The issue in this case is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M. Srikanth v. State of Telangana, (2019) 10 SCC 373, wherein it was held that witnesses need not necessarily know the contents of the documents they attest, except as brought out in evidence. 7. In the present case, the evidence during investigation does not reveal any role of the petitioner beyond that indicated in column No.17 of the charge sheet. There is no allegation, much less any material, to substantiate that accused No.6 connived with accused No.1 in creating the will by forging the signature of the complainant’s father. 8. In the absence of any allegation or evidence to show that accused No.6 was involved in the creation of the forged will, the continuation of criminal proceedings solely on the ground that he acted as an attesting witness to the alleged fabricated will would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The petition stands allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.346/2023 pending on the file of the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur, insofar far it relates to the petitioner – accused No.6 is hereby quashed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1109 CRL.P No. 102181 of 2023 iii) The Trial Court is hereby directed to proceed against other accused in accordance with law without there being influenced any observation made in this order, and the observation made in this order is only for the purpose of the present petition. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE Bkm Ct:vh List No.: 3 Sl No.: 2