- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42089 WP No. 29049 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO. 29049 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI T S NARAYANA REDDY S/O T H SUBBAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 2. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI, W/O T S NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 3. 4. SMT. KAVYA, D/O T.S. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS. SMT.SUMANA, D/O T.S. NARAYANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. ALL ARE R/A NO.64/1, 4TH CROSS, N.G.R.LAYOUT, RUPENA AGRAHARA, HONGASANDRA, MADIWALA POST, BANGALORE - 560 068. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. R HEMANTH RAJ., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42089 WP No. 29049 of 2024 AND: 1. SMT GUNAVATHI D/O T H SUBBAREDDY, W/O SATHYANARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/A NO.59, RBI COLONY, 3RD CROSS, JAYANAGAR, 3RD BLOCK EAST, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. THE STATION OFFICER KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION, KAGGALIPURA, RAMANAGARA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.C.RAVINDRA BABU, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.M.N.ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R2) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE 2ND ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (II ACJM) RURAL COURT, BENGALURU IN P.C.R.NO.169/2023 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE R-2 IN CRIME NO.0321/2024 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 423, 120B, 149, 403, 419, 415, 425 AND 426 OF IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-C DATED 24.09.24 WHICH IS REGISTERED AT THE INSTANCE OF R-1 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42089 WP No. 29049 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners are aggrieved by the order at Annexure-A and Annexure-C, passed by the learned Magistrate and consequently, they seek to quash the entire proceedings, pending before the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (II ACJM) Rural Court, Bengaluru arising out of P.C.R.No.169 of 2023. 2. The first respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 120B, 403, 405, 415, 419, 423, 425 and 426 of IPC. 3. The complainant claims to be the co-owner of a property bearing Survey No.161 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas situated at Taralu Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. It is alleged that all the accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42089 WP No. 29049 of 2024 have colluded together and sold the property to one K.U.Shankarappa vide registered Sale Deed dated 09.05.2005, without the knowledge of the complainant by impersonating her. 4. The instant petition is filed on the ground that the learned Magistrate has not followed the procedure contemplated under law while taking cognizance and referring the matter for investigation and also on the ground that the offences alleged even taken on its face value, does not fulfill the ingredients. It is also contented by the learned counsel for the petitioners that two of the petitioners namely, petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were minors, when the Sale Deed was executed and therefore, they could not have been prosecuted. 5. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 has contented that the said respondent/complainant is none other than the elder sister of petitioner No.1. Petitioner No.2 is the wife of petitioner No.1 and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are their children. The property in question - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42089 WP No. 29049 of 2024 belong to the complainant who is a co-owner, however, the petitioners have colluded with each other and by impersonation and forging the signature of the complainant, sold the property to a third party. He contended that the learned Magistrate having taken into consideration the averments in the complaint has rightly passed the order, referring the matter to the police for investigation. 6. It is alleged that the petitioners have colluded with each other and by forging the signature of the second respondent, a co-owner of the property in question, sold the said property, etc. While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this court cannot conduct a mini trial as to determine the nature of allegations in the complaint and the veracity of the averments therein. Hence, the entire proceedings cannot be quashed. However, it is to be seen that the complaint was filed on 09.03.2023. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and ordered to register the case on 31.03.2023. Firstly, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42089 WP No. 29049 of 2024 the said order dated 31.03.2023 does not indicate that there was any application of mind by the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of the offences alleged in the complaint. Be that as it may, the order-sheet dated 30.09.2023 would indicate that there was a request made by the complainant for referring the matter for investigation to the jurisdictional police. The learned Magistrate has rejected the said prayer, observing that cognizance was already taken and therefore, referring the matter for investigation does not sustain for consideration. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate has proceeded to record the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses. The sworn statement was recorded on 10.11.2023 and Exs.P1 to P26 were marked on behalf of the complainant. However, once again, the learned Magistrate vide order dated 04.07.2024 has referred the matter to the police for investigation, referring to Section 204 of Cr.P.C. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42089 WP No. 29049 of 2024 7. The learned Magistrate could not have invoked Section 204 of Cr.P.C., which is not the relevant provision to refer the matter for investigation, after taking of the cognizance of the offences alleged. This Court, finds that the procedure followed in this case is not in accordance with law and therefore, the proceeding before the Trial Court from the stage of taking cognizance requires to be set at norm. 8. It is contented by the learned counsel for petitioners that petitioner Nos.3 and 4 were minors as on the date of commission of the alleged offence and therefore, complaint could not have been filed against them. The learned Magistrate, shall take into consideration the same while proceeding with the complaint filed by the second respondent and before passing any order. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42089 WP No. 29049 of 2024 ii) The proceedings in P.C.R.No.169 of 2023 on the file of the Court of the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (II ACJM) Rural Court, Bengaluru from the stage of taking cognizance is hereby quashed. iii) The learned Magistrate shall proceed with the case, from the stage of presentation of the complaint, in accordance with law. iv) All the contentions of the parties are left open. v) Pending interlocutory applications are disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26