- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1554 CRL.P No. 103642 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103642 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. HANAMANTAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA HUGAR AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BOMMASAMUDRA, TAL. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-581207. 2. MOHD. RAFIQ S/O. IMAMSAB SHOLLAPUR AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. MECHANIC, R/O. DIDDI ONI, OLD HUBBALLI, TAL. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580028. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAURABH A. SONDUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LINGARAJ S/O. SHANKARAPPA TOTAGER @ KORISHETTAR, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. S.F.01, SHRADDHA APARTMENT, LINGRAJ NAGAR (SOUTH), TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580031. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH CORUT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH-580011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. R.H.ANGADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN P.C. NO.1875/2017 (VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION CRIME NO. 9/2018) WHICH IS REGISTERED AS C.C. NO.7479/2021 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.30 11:52:52 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1554 CRL.P No. 103642 of 2022 JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HUBBALLI, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 465, 468, 471, 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4 ARE CONCERNED. 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 petitioners/accused, who are facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), are before this Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 8/3B/12D, measuring 1 Acre, situated in Sutagatti village, Hubballi Taluk, had entered into an agreement with one Rekha Anvekar and her son Aravind Anvekar. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with their three sisters, filed a suit in O.S. No. 874/2008, which ended in a compromise decree. The terms of the settlement were that a total area of 9 guntas was relinquished in favor of the complainant. Accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with their three sisters, were permitted to retain 1.5 guntas each, and the remaining land was retained by Rekha Anvekar and her son Aravind Anvekar. Subsequently, the complainant, accused Nos. 2 and their three sisters, executed a power of attorney in favor of accused No. 1 on 29.12.2014. The complainant then filed an application seeking correction of the compromise decree in O.S. No. 874/2008, citing an error in the survey number. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1554 CRL.P No. 103642 of 2022 3. Despite the service of notice, accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not cooperate in the early disposal of the application. Later, the complainant was shocked and surprised to discover that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had illegally entered the number “1” in the survey number of the property in the compromise decree. They submitted a varadi to the Tahsildar and got the names of the complainant, accused Nos. 1 and 2, and their three sisters entered. 4. Accused No. 1, in collusion with accused Nos. 2 to 4, allegedly fabricated the original copies of the power of attorney. Based on the power of attorney, a relinquishment deed was created, under which the land belonging to the complainant was relinquished in favor of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are the attesting witnesses to the relinquishment deed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that there are no allegations or materials to substantiate that these accused conspired with accused Nos. 1 and 2 in fabricating the power of attorney. Therefore, they cannot be prosecuted solely on the ground that they were attesting witnesses to the power of attorney. He further submitted that the validity of the relinquishment deed is the subject matter of a suit in O.S. No. 315/2018 filed by the complainant, and thus, the criminal proceedings cannot continue in the absence of any established criminal elements. 6. In support of this, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sardar Ali Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1554 CRL.P No. 103642 of 2022 7. In response, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 (de facto complainant) vehemently contended that the charge sheet material discloses that these accused conspired with accused Nos. 1 and 2 in fabricating the power of attorney. The allegation of conspiracy can only be considered at the time of trial, and this issue cannot be addressed in this petition. Therefore, the respondent No. 1 seeks the dismissal of the petition. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No. 2 (State) reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 9. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the following points are noted: 10. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are strangers to the family of accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the de facto complainant. There is no material in the charge sheet to show when accused Nos. 3 and 4 conspired with accused Nos. 1 and 2 in fabricating the power of attorney. The only allegation against these accused is that they were attesting witnesses to the fabricated power of attorney. Subsequently, a relinquishment deed was executed, and the validity of this deed is under consideration in O.S. No. 315/2018. The Apex Court in the case of Sardar Ali Khan (supra) ruled that when there is no allegation of impersonation or forgery of signatures, the suit filed by respondent No. 2 for cancellation of the sale deed is pending before the competent court. Therefore, respondent No. 2 cannot pursue his complaint in criminal proceedings by altering his case. In the present case, accused - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1554 CRL.P No. 103642 of 2022 Nos. 3 and 4 are charged solely because they were attesting witnesses to the power of attorney. Thus, the continuation of criminal proceedings against accused Nos. 3 and 4 would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.7479/2021 pending on the file of I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi, insofar as it relates to the petitioner – accused Nos.3 and 4 stands quashed. iii) The trial Court to proceed against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations in this order and the observations made in this order is only for the purpose of accused Nos.3 and 4. iv) The trial Court is directed to expedite the trial. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37