- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51416 WP No. 9274 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.9274 OF 2024 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANJU GOYAL W/O. NARESH GOYAL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. SRI NARESH GOYAL AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE SWARUP CHAND GOYAL BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.2, BLOCK 2, SAMHITHA SQUARE, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, RAMAIAH REDDY COLONY MARATHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 037. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. CHETHANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MANJUNATH B.S., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51416 WP No. 9274 of 2024 AND: 1. SMT MICHAEL RANI W/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT "THAIYA NERALU", LOURDU NAGAR MAIN ROAD, DODDA BASAVANAPURA, VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 049. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. MEGHANA MUDDURANGAPPA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.03.2023 WITH RESPECT TO TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER 420 R/W 34 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN PCR.NO.57032/2022 REGISTERED AS CC.NO.51381/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU (MAYO HALL UNIT) PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B, ETC. 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51416 WP No. 9274 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The case of the respondent/complainant is that she was in need of money and she approached the petitioners for help and the petitioners agreed to pay her certain amounts provided the respondent mortgaged an immovable property, which is the subject matter of the petition and the respondent agreed and a document came to be registered. However, to her shock and dismay, she realised that what has been registered is a sale deed rather than a deed of mortgage. Hence, the respondent has made a private complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate, as the jurisdictional Police had refused to register the case and the trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC and issued summons to accused Nos.1 and 2 (the petitioners herein). Aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed. 2. The reasons assigned by the trial Court while taking cognizance are as under:- "7. The following points arise for determination: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51416 WP No. 9274 of 2024 Point No.1: Whether the complainant has made out sufficient grounds to proceed against the Accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC? Point No.2: What Order? 8. The above points are answered in the following manner: Point No.1: In the Affirmative. Point No.2: As per final order for the following R E A S O N S 9. POINT NO.1: It is the specific case of the complainant that the accused have cheated her by getting the sale deed executed by making her to believe that the mortgage deed was being executed as a security for the hand loan. It is stated that the complainant was in urgent need of money for treatment of her husband. When she approached the accused they agreed to lend money on security and insisted her to execute mortgage deed. But they got executed sale deed by taking disadvantage of illiteracy and ignorance. 10. Based on the sworn statements of CW1 to 4, the learned counsel for the complainant urged to take the cognizance and to register Criminal Case for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC. In her sworn statement she reiterated the contents of the complaint. She has produced the documents at Ex.C.1 to 7. She also examined CW2 to 4 on her behalf. By considering the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51416 WP No. 9274 of 2024 facts and circumstances, prima-facie the complainant has made out sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. 11. POINT NO.2: For the forgoing reasons, the following order is passed; O R D E R Cognizance is taken for the offence punishable under Section 420 R/w Sec.34 of IPC. Office is directed to register case and issue summons to accused No.1 and 2 if PF paid. Call on: 17-06-2023" 3. It is contended that the respondent herein had filed the said original suit for cancellation of the sale deed and other prayers, which has been rejected by the trial Court. In the light of the same, it is submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6490/2017 has been challenged and the first appeal is pending in this regard. However, she admits that no interim order has been passed in the said first appeal and that only notice has been issued. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51416 WP No. 9274 of 2024 5. In O.S.No.6490/2017, the trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, has framed the following issues: "4. On the above said pleadings of the parties, my learned predecessor in office has framed the following issues on 03.11.2018. 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is absolute owner of the suit schedule property having right, title and interest as alleged in the plaint? 2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that she has executed mortgage deed on 11.05.2012 but not sale deed? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that the sale deed registered in the Sub-Registrar of K.R.Puram on 11.05.2012 as null and void? 4) Whether the plaintiff further proves that she lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit? 5) Whether the plaintiff further proves that defendant interfered into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff as alleged in the plaint? 6) What Decree or Order? Additional Issues are framed on 01.10.2020. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51416 WP No. 9274 of 2024 1. Whether the defendant proves that she is in possession of the suit property as on the date of the suit by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 11.05.2012? 2. Whether the defendant further proves the alleged interference by the plaintiff? An issue is framed with regard to limitation on 19.12.2020. "Whether the defendant further proves that the claim of the plaintiff is hit by limitation?" 6. It has answered the issues as mentioned herein below:- "12. The findings of this Court on the above stated issues and the additional issues are answered in; 1. Issues Nos. 1 to 5 : Negative 2. Addl. Issues Nos. 1 & 2 : Affirmative. dated 01.10.2020 3 Addl. Issue dated 19.12.2020 : Affirmative. 4. Issue No.6: As per the final order for the following reasons." 7. The trial Court has passed the following order:- ORDER "The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51416 WP No. 9274 of 2024 The counter claim of the defendant is hereby allowed with costs. Consequently, the plaintiff or anybody claiming through her is permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the defendant over the written statement schedule property. Draw a decree accordingly." 8. Thus, a competent Civil Court, after trial, has disagreed with the contention of the respondent herein that the petitioners had got a sale deed executed instead of a mortgage deed and has, in fact, restrained the respondent/complainant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property by the petitioners herein. 9. Under the circumstances, the question of continuing with the proceedings in PCR No.57032/2022 (now numbered as C.C.No.51381/2023) does not arise. If the respondent succeeds in the appeal said to have been filed by her, then in that event, she may revive the complaint. Hence, the following:- ORDER i. The petition is allowed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51416 WP No. 9274 of 2024 ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.51381/2023 pending on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed insofar as it relate to the petitioners herein are concerned. iii. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19