- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33868 CRL.P No. 9062 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9062 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. CHANDRA N S/O NALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT MUTTENAKALLI VILLAGE, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114 2. GOVINDASWAMY S/O SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT PATHARAMGOLLA VILLAGE, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGARAJA N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANGARPET POLICE STATION, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001 2. SRI. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE MUNIVEKATA REDDY, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33868 CRL.P No. 9062 of 2021 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT CHAMBENAHALLI VILLAGE, BOODIKOTE HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563114 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.CHETHAN.A, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.256/2019 (CR.NO.190/2017) REGISTERED WITH THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE STATION, WHEREIN THE PETITIONERS ARE INDICATED FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 120(B),419,420,468 R/W 34 OF IPC WHICH IS THE FILE OF PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., BANGARPET, KOLAR DISTRICT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them, for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468, r/w Section 34 IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33868 CRL.P No. 9062 of 2021 2. In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that they are innocent of the alleged offences and have got valid and tenable defence. On the face of it, the allegations made does not constitute commission of any offence. The allegations made are vague and absurd. They are not involved in the alleged offences. There are no allegations against the petitioners. They are only the attesting witnesses to the sale agreement and have nothing to do with the transaction. The entire allegations are against accused Nos.1 and 2. In fact in Crl.P.No.2375/2019, already the criminal proceedings against accused No.2 is quashed. During the pendency of the petition, accused No.1 has died. In the above circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present petitioners would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition. 3. On the other hand, High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant submit that he is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33868 CRL.P No. 9062 of 2021 the son of Munivenkata Reddy. Father of complainant was not called by any other names. Land in Sy.No.72 (Old Sy.No.9) measuring 2 acres 9 guntas was the self acquired property of complainant's father Munivenkata Reddy. It was granted in his favour by the Government. Complainant's father purchased land in Sy.No.11, measuring 3 acres 7 guntas through registered sale dated 09.05.1974. After the death of his father, complainant got the Khata transferred to his name through MR.2/2006-07. He is in possession and enjoyment of the said lands. Except the complainant, no other person is having any right interest of possession over the said property. 3.1 Such being the case, complainant came to know that accused No.1 G.M Ramakrishna Reddy, son of Muniswamy Reddy in collusion with accused No.2 Dayananda Reddy got sale agreement concocted and got it registered on 20.12.2016, as though complainant has sold the said property in favour of accused No.2. Accused Nos.3 and 4 have acted as mediators and also attesting witnesses - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33868 CRL.P No. 9062 of 2021 to the sale agreement. After complainant came to know about this, he has filed the complaint. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet. The FSL report with regard to the sale agreement clearly establish that accused No.1 has impersonated the complainant. There is prima material to proceed against the petitioners and pray to dismiss the petition. 4. Heard arguments and produced the record. 5. During the course of the arguments learned counsel for petitioners submitted that during the pendency of the petition, accused No.1 has died and Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against accused No.2. Since the petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4 are only attesting witnesses, they cannot be proceeded against and pray to allow the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33868 CRL.P No. 9062 of 2021 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 specifically submitted that petitioners are not just attesting witnesses. They are the mediators who struck the contract between accused Nos.1 and 2 by falesly representing that the property belong to accused No.1. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court quashed the criminal proceedings against accused No.2 only on the ground that he was a purchaser without knowing that accused No.1 is impersonating the complainant and on the other hand, he has lost the money. Therefore, petitioners cannot claim the benefit of the said order. 7. In support of her arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the decision in Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. (Dharambeer Kumar Singh)1. 8. It is not in dispute that complainant is the son of Munivenkata Reddy. Father of complainant was not called 1 MANU/SC/0842/2024 [Crl.A.No.3239/2024(arising out of SLP(Crl)1500/2024] - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33868 CRL.P No. 9062 of 2021 by any other names. Land in Sy.No.72 (Old Sy.No.9) measuring 2 acres 9 guntas was the self acquired property of complainant's father Munivenkata Reddy. It was granted in his favour by the Government. Complainant's father purchased land in Sy.No.11, measuring 3 acres 7 guntas through registered sale dated 09.05.1974. After the death of complainant's father Munivenkata Reddy, he got the Khatha transferred to his name. In the sale agreement, accused No.1 claimed that the property in dispute is his ancestral property and that he got the Khata transferred to his name through MR.No.2/2006–07 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and for his legal necessity, he is selling the same in favour of accused No.2. After coming to know about the existence of the sale agreement which is registered, the complainant has filed the complaint. In fact, the FSL report state that accused No.1 has impersonated the complainant. 9. It is pertinent to note that the criminal proceedings initiated against accused No.2, who is the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33868 CRL.P No. 9062 of 2021 purchaser came to be quashed in Crl.P.No.2375/2019 on the ground that he was not the owner and that he has been cheated by accused No.1 and loss was caused to him. Now, accused No.1 has died. Though petitioners claim that they are only attesting witnesses, there are specific allegations that they are the mediator and represented to accused No.2 that accused No.1 is the owner and the son of the previous owner. They have mediated, which gave assurance to the accused No.2 to accept that accused No.1 who has executed the sale agreement is the son of the original owner. Such being the case, petitioners cannot seek quashing on the ground of parity. 10. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 4 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is rejected. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33868 CRL.P No. 9062 of 2021 (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through email. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23