- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2185 CRL.P No. 103598 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.103598 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: VENKANAGOUDA, S/O. NARASANAGOUDA, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. LINGALADINNE VILLAGE, ADONI MANDALAM, KURNOOL, DIST AP-518301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH HATCHOLLI PS), BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580008. 2. GANGADHARA, S/O. LATE NARASAPPA AGE. 55 YEARS, R/O. KOTNEKAL VILLAGE, MANVI TQ. RAICHUR DIST-584101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. M.M.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN P.C.R. NO.14/2020, ORDER DATED 04.03.2020 OF REFERRING FOR INVESTIGATION TO POLICE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C NO. 199/2021 AND ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS DATED 08.02.2021 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER /ACCUSED NO.01 IN CRIME 15/2020 REGISTERED BY HATCHOLLI P.S., FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 420, 468, 471 OF INDIAN B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.07 11:09:31 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2185 CRL.P No. 103598 of 2022 PENAL CODE PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, SIRUGUPPA , BALLARI DIST. 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.1, who is facing trial for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C. No.199/2021, pending before the Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa. 2. The prosecution’s case is that the father of the de facto complainant passed away on 28.04.2007, leaving behind his sons and daughters. Thereafter, the entire family relocated to Hirekotnakal village in 2006-07 and subsequently moved to Bangalore for their livelihood. It is alleged that taking advantage of their absence, accused No.1, who was well-acquainted with the complainant’s family, cultivated the land left behind by the deceased Narasappa and, by fabricating the signature of the complainant’s father and scanning his photograph, created a fraudulent sale deed dated 27.02.2009 in his favor through impersonation. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the prosecution has not produced any substantial evidence to establish that Narasappa died on 28.04.2007. On the contrary, the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2185 CRL.P No. 103598 of 2022 Tahasildar has issued an endorsement stating that no records are available regarding the death of Narasappa. He further contends that respondent No.2 has already instituted a civil suit in O.S. No.140/2020 seeking a declaration that the sale deed is null and void and for possession. Since the issue of whether the sale deed was obtained fraudulently is already a subject matter of the pending suit, the continuation of criminal proceedings is not legally sustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel & Others v. State of Gujarat & Another. 4. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the pendency of a civil suit does not absolve the petitioner/accused of criminal liability, particularly when he has allegedly fraudulently created the sale deed after the death of Narasappa. The learned counsel has produced the Death Certificate issued by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, confirming that Narasappa passed away on 28.04.2007. He further contends that the veracity of the allegations against the petitioner/accused can only be examined during trial and not in these proceedings. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State supports the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 6. A perusal of the charge sheet material reveals that there is no substantial evidence to establish that Narasappa died on 28.04.2007. Additionally, respondent No.2 and others have filed - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2185 CRL.P No. 103598 of 2022 O.S. No.140/2020, seeking a declaration that the sale deed executed in favor of the petitioner is null and void. One of the issues framed in the said suit is whether the plaintiffs can prove that the defendant created the sale deed dated 27.02.2009 by forging their father’s signature after his death. 7. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajeshbhai (supra) has held that when the genuineness of documents is already under scrutiny in a civil suit, allowing a parallel criminal investigation based on the same allegations would prejudice the parties’ rights and legal stance in the civil proceedings. 8. In the present case, the plaintiffs in the civil suit have produced a Death Certificate issued on 29.04.2007 by the Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths, certifying that Narasappa passed away on 28.04.2007. Conversely, the petitioner/accused has placed on record a “Non-Availability Certificate” dated 23.07.2020, issued by the same authority, stating that there are no records available regarding the death of Narasappa. In the absence of credible evidence confirming that Narasappa died on 28.04.2007, continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No.1/petitioner on the premise that the sale deed was executed after his death would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. Furthermore, the prosecution has not produced any Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report to establish that the sale deed was executed by forging the signature of the deceased Narasappa. In light of these circumstances, subjecting the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2185 CRL.P No. 103598 of 2022 petitioner/accused to criminal proceedings would be unwarranted. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings in C.C. No.199/2021 pending on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiruguppa, insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused No.1, is hereby quashed. iii) The Trial Court shall proceed with the suit strictly on the material available on record without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order and the observations made, if any, is only for the purpose of consideration of this petition. iv) All the contentions of the parties before the civil court in O.S. No.140/2020 are kept open. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49