- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42259 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6892 OF 2021 BETWEEN: 1. H.VENKATARANGAIAH S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT MEDI AGRAHARA VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI AND TALUK BANGALORE-560 057. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARASHURAM AJJAMPUR A.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY HALASURU GATE POLICE BANGALORE, REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001. 2. MARY GABRIEL AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS W/O P.V.VARGHESE R/AT NO.413, 4TH CROSS MATHIKERE LAYOUT BANGALORE-560 054. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. R.RANGANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42259 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2021 THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.24486/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST ACMM COURT AT BENGALURU ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.281/2018 OF HALASURU GATE POLICE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 465, 467, 468, 471, 417 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER The petitioner has executed a sale deed in respect of 10 guntas of land in Survey No.40/7; 12 guntas of land in Survey No.40/8 and 6 guntas of land in Survey No.40/9 situated at Medi Agrahara Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk in favour of husband of respondent no.2 herein on 21.07.2005. Thereafter, husband of respondent no.2 has died and respondent no.2 has become the owner of the property. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed an original suit alleging that the sale deed was executed under duress and coercion and that the same is a sham transaction and it - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42259 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2021 was not supported by any valuable consideration. It is submitted that the said suit is pending. Thereafter, one C.Rajanna (accused no.2) filed O.S.No.2003/2006, which is pending on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru alleging that the petitioner herein had entered into an agreement dated 26.05.2005, which is prior to executing the sale deed in favour of husband of respondent no.2 herein and that he is entitled for specific performance of the contract by having the sale deed executed in favour of husband of respondent no.2 herein cancelled. In the said suit, the petitioner herein is said to be placed ex-parte. 2. In O.S.No.2003/2006, the sale agreement dated 26.05.2005 is said to be produced. Respondent no.2 filed a complaint with respondent no.1-Police alleging that the sale agreement dated 26.05.2005 is a forged and concocted document created for defrauding respondent No.2 herein and the same is done by the petitioner and the said C.Rajanna together. As respondent no.1-Police did not act upon the complaint, respondent no.2 filed a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate. An inquiry was ordered and thereafter respondent no.1-Police have filed a charge sheet alleging offences against the petitioner herein - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42259 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2021 and the said C.Rajanna. The offences alleged are under Sections 34, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 417 of IPC. In the said charge sheet, the petitioner herein is arrayed as accused no.1 and the said C.Rajanna is arrayed as accused no.2. They are being tried in C.C.No.24486/2019 by the XLVIII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore (previously I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore) 3. The case of the petitioner is that even if the allegations are believed to be true, the document of sale agreement is produced/procured by accused no.2 and not by the petitioner. It is contented that the petitioner has merely executed the sale agreement dated 26.05.2005. It is submitted he has not involved in committing the forgery and that there is no overt-act applicable to him. It is also submitted that he has not been charged under Section 120B IPC. Under the said circumstances, it is prayed that the proceedings and C.C.No.24486/2019 may be quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner herein is concerned. 4. Per contra, the respondents pray for dismissal of the petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42259 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2021 5. The offence alleged in brief is that, the petitioner executed a sale deed in favour of husband of respondent no.2 herein in respect of his property. Thereafter, with the sole intention of defrauding respondent no.2, he not only filed a suit for cancellation of the sale deed but also conspired with accused no.2 and they created concocted stamp paper of an earlier date than the sale deed and created a document styled as an agreement of sale, wherein it is shown that the petitioner herein has agreed to sell the property in favour of accused no.2. On the strength of the said concocted sale agreement, accused no.2 has preferred O.S.No.2003/2006, which amounts to an offence punishable under Sections 34, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 417 of IPC. 6. Section 465 of IPC pertains to punishment for forgery. In the present circumstances it requires the ingredients of forgery as defined in Section 463 of IPC and making a false document as defined in Section 464 of IPC to be fulfilled. Section 467 of IPC pertains to forgery of valuable security. In this case, the forgery alleged, pertains to creation of a sale agreement in respect of the property which is the subject matter of the dispute. Section 468 of IPC pertains to forgery for purpose of cheating. In this case, the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42259 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2021 allegation is that the sale agreement is forged to cheat respondent no.2 herein. Section 471 of IPC pertains to using as genuine a forged document or electronic record, which in this case refers to the alleged sale agreement. Section 417 of IPC pertains to punishment for cheating. Section 34 of IPC pertains to acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention. In the instant case if the allegations are to be believed, it has to be concluded that the accused should have been charged with Section 120B of IPC (criminal conspiracy) rather than Section 34. 7. It is true when civil disputes are given colour of a criminal case, Courts do interfere in exercise of their power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. However, that does not mean that one single act cannot give rise to both civil and criminal dispute. When there is an alleged act of forgery or cheating which normally happens in a commercial transaction which results in a civil dispute also and when the allegations are made in respect of cheating or forgery and if the allegations do constitute the said offences, if proved, then in that event it is not appropriate to interfere by exercising the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 8. In the instant case, admittedly, there is a sale deed - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42259 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2021 executed in favour of the husband of respondent no.2 by the petitioner herein. It is contented by the petitioner that the same has been executed under duress and he has filed an original suit in respect to the same. He is at liberty to proceed with the suit and if he is able to establish his case in the trial Court, he would be entitled to a judgment and decree in accordance with law. Similarly, accused no.2 has filed an original suit against the petitioner and respondent no.2 herein by way of O.S.No.2003/2006 wherein he has sought to specifically enforce the sale agreement dated 26.05.2025 and have the sale deed cancelled which is executed in favour of husband of respondent no.2 herein. In the said proceedings, it is alleged by respondent no.2 that she noticed the sale agreement itself is a concocted and forged document created jointly by the petitioner and respondent no.2 with the sole intention of defeating the valuable rights of respondent no.2 and apart from taking the said contention in the original suit, she has also initiated criminal proceedings, as the act of concocting and forging the documents also constitutes offence under the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, the police have filed a charge sheet against the petitioner and accused no.2-C.Rajanna, which in my opinion under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42259 CRL.P No. 6892 of 2021 case has to be decided in the trial and this Court cannot quash the proceedings in C.C.No.24486/2019 against the petitioner herein. It is always open for the petitioner to take up the contention in the trial Court that he is not guilty of the offences alleged. For the aforementioned reasons, the criminal petition is hereby dismissed. The aforementioned observations made herein are only for the purposes of the instant criminal petition and will not come in the way of adjudication of dispute in C.C.No.24486/2019 and in the original suits that are pending between the parties. In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4