- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44898 CRL.P No. 10178 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10178 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI C K RAJANNA S/O LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.31 KEMPU DWARAKA NAGAR WEST NEAR NICE ROAD CHANNASANDRA RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU-560 098 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAKASHA M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA STATION HOUSE OFFICER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560 098 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44898 CRL.P No. 10178 of 2025 2. SRI. SHANTHA P RAO S/O LATE PANDURANGA RAO AGED ABOUT 91 YEARS R/AT PLOT NO.F-402 MANTRI ESPON, BELLANDRU BENGALURU-560 103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JAGADEESHA B.N. ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI.N.K.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) --- THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.272/2024 BY THE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE 46TH ADDL.C.J.M COURT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44898 CRL.P No. 10178 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1 – State, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner, arraigned as accused No.5 in the FIR, in Crime No.272/2024 of Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, has preferred this petition to quash the FIR and the complaint. 3. The respondent No.2 has alleged that the accused have colluded with each other and by impersonation and forging the documents, sold two sites bearing Nos.71 and 72 and got registered the said sites and thereafter, sold the sites to different persons. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that, even accepting the entire allegations in the complaint, the ingredients of the offence alleged are not made out against the petitioner, as he is only a witness to the sale deed, which was executed on 07.05.2011. He, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44898 CRL.P No. 10178 of 2025 therefore, contended that a witness in the sale deed cannot be imputed with any fraud or impersonation as the petitioner has only signed as a witness. He further contended that, after an inordinate delay of 13 years, the respondent No.2 has come up with a false case, arraigning the petitioner as an accused in the case and therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner is an abuse of process of law. 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would contend that the second respondent is an old lady and the accused taking advantage of her age, have colluded with each other and created false documents in respect of two sites belonging to her and by impersonating her, got the sites registered in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3 and thereafter, sold the sites within two years from the date of registration of the sale deed. It is contended that there are specific allegations in the complaint against the petitioner that he too has colluded with other accused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44898 CRL.P No. 10178 of 2025 persons and therefore, submits that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. 6. Learned Additional SPP has contended that the statements of the witnesses would disclose that the petitioner has received Rs.15,00,000/- in connection with the transaction and he is involved in two more offences of similar nature. He therefore, contended that the complaint requires a thorough investigation and FIR cannot be quashed. 7. Having carefully perused the complaint averments, this Court finds that there are specific allegations against the petitioner, having colluded with other accused persons, wherein by impersonation, the accused have executed the sale deed with regard to two sites belonging to the complainant. 8. In M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44898 CRL.P No. 10178 of 2025 that, the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made therein, though the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide. It is further held that the Court is required to strike between the rights of the genuine complainants and the FIRs disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and the statutory obligation/duty of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences on the one hand and on the other hand those innocent persons against whom the criminal proceedings are initiated which may be in a given case, the abuse of process of law. 9. The investigation is at the inception. When forgery and impersonation are alleged, this Court cannot simply brush aside the allegations as false. The investigation cannot be interfered with in such matters. It is the prerogative of the police to conduct a fair and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44898 CRL.P No. 10178 of 2025 thorough investigation into the allegations made in the complaint and file an appropriate report. No grounds are made out to quash the FIR and the complaint. Hence, the following: ORDER Criminal Petition is dismissed. I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration. The same is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE BSS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13