- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1322 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI YOGESHA S/O LATE HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT MADALAPUR VILLAGE, MALLIPATNA HOBLI, ARAKALAGUD TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PANCHAM R D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHANIVARASANTHE POLICE STATION, KODAGU DISTRICT-571236 REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 2. SRI RAM GOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O LATE H MOGANNA GOWDA, R/AT 2468, 5TH CROSS, GANDHINAGAR, MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 SRI.G.S.VENKAT SUBBA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2021 PASSED BY THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., SOMWARPET IN C.C.NO.199/2021 (P.C.R.NO.69/2020) TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420,425,468,471,200,426 OF IPC AND ISSUING THE SUMMONS AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY REGISTERING THE CASE AGAINST HIM AS C.C. IN REGISTER NO.III. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, to quash the proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.199/2021 (PCR No.69/2020) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 425, 468, 471, 200 and 426 of IPC, on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Somwarpet, Kodagu. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court. 3. In support of the petition, accused has contended that based on the private complaint filed by respondent No.2/complainant, on reference under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and after conducting investigation, concerned police have filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 425, 468, 471, 200 and 426 IPC. Petitioner is innocent of the offences alleged. He is falsely implicated. The concerned police without conducting proper investigation have filed charge sheet. The complaint is not supported by verifying affidavit, nor the remedy under Section 154(2) Cr.PC is exhausted before filing the complaint. Therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated. There is also no application of mind by the trial Court before issuing summons. The concerned police have also not made any enquiry about O.S.No.6/2012. There is also Bar under Section 195 Cr.PC - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 to take cognizance. Viewed from any angle, criminal proceedings are not maintainable and hence the petition. 4. In support of his arguments learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P (Priyanka Srivastava)1. 5. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 State and the learned counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant submit that accused and father of complainant are siblings being the son of Hanumegowda @ Hanumanthegowda. He was owning landed properties in Madalapur and Kelagale Villages, Hassan District. He also owned landed properties in Niluvagila village, Kodlipet Hobli of Somwarpet, Kodagu District. During 2008, properties belonging to Hanumegowda @ Hanumanthegowda in Sy.No.271/16/P2 measuring 17 cents out of 2 acres was acquired by the Government for the purpose of Hemavathi reservoir project. He filed LAC. No.7/2016 for enhancement 1 (2015) 6 SCC 287 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 of the compensation. Partition is not effected in the family. Complainant and his brothers have filed O.S.No.6/2012 for partition. Sy.No.271/16P2 is one of the subject matter of the said suit. 6. During the pendency of LAC.No.7/2016 Hanumegowda @ Hanumanthegowda died leaving behind his wife, Thimmamma and four sons, Krishna Gowda, Mohan Gowda, Yogesha, Keshavamurthy and two daughter Savithri and Jayamma. However, accused filed LR application falsely claiming that he and his mother Thimmamma are the only legal heirs. Accused has also fabricated and forged document in support of the application. Therefore, complainant has filed complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC. It was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police filed charge sheet against the accused. There is prima facie material to proceed against him and pray to dismiss the petition. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel representing respondent No.2 has relied upon the decision in M/s SAS Infra Tech Private Ltd Vs State of Telangana and Anr (SAS Infra Tech)2 8. Heard arguments and perused the record. 9. The relationship between complainant and accused is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the property in question belongs to the grandfather of complainant and a suit in O.S.No.6/2012 is filed for partition and it is pending. It is also an admitted fact that LAC.No.7/2016 was filed by the grandfather of complainant for enhancement of the compensation and during its pendency he died. It is also an admitted fact that accused filed application to bring the legal representatives of Hanumegowda @ Hanumanthegowda. In the said application, he has shown himself and his mother as the only legal heirs of Hanumegowda @ Hanumanthegowda. 2 Crl.A.No.2574/2024 [SLP(Crl)No.2123/2024 dt:14.05.2024] - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 Despite the complainant and other legal representatives are there, he has made the said application based on false information furnished to the revenue authorities for getting the geological tree certified. 10. In the light of these facts, the complainant choose to file private complaint. After it was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, the concerned police after conducting detailed investigation have filed charge sheet. It is true that the complaint is not supported by affidavit as per the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava referred to supra. At the outset it is relevant to note that the said directions were given to safeguard the interest of innocent persons who are being prosecuted without there being any substance in the accusation and to prevent unscrupulous, complainant utilizing the said facility to arm twist the accused persons and to agree for their illegal demands. In the event, the concerned police files 'B' report or the Court - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 coming to the conclusion that the prosecution of accused is illegal, it may hold complainant responsible for the allegations made. However, when once charge sheet is filed, it goes without saying that there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused and it was not a ploy to force the accused person to agree for the terms of the complainant. 11. In Crl.A.No.2574/2024, in the matter of SAS Infra Tech, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that the observations made in Priyanka Srivastava, requiring filing of affidavit is by way of abundant caution to see that frivolous complaints are avoided. In other words on facts and circumstances, the Court may decide that whether the complaint filed is frivolous or in the light of the material, the non-filing of affidavit would not go to the root of the case. Having regard to the fact that charge sheet is filed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the non-filing - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 of supporting affidavit would not go to the root of the case. 12. It is submitted by the learned counsel for accused that there is prohibition under Section 195 Cr.P.C to take cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 471 Cr.PC, except by way of a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C by the public servant. Section 463 IPC defines the term forgery as "Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery". 13. Section 471 punishes any person who uses as genuine a forged document or electronic record. When such forged document is used as genuine by producing it before a public servant or Court. It empowers such public servant or the Court as the case may be to file complaint. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 Section 195 Cr.P.C prohibits taking of cognizance for such offence, except by a complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C by the such public servant or the Court as the case maybe. In the present case, Section 471 is one such offence. 14. However, the question of the Court or the public servant filing complaint alleging forgery or concoction would arise, if the forgery or concoction are subsequent to the production of documents before the said public servant or the Court as the case may be. Therefore, question of the public servant or the Court filing complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C as required under Section 195 Cr.P.C. would not arise. This aspect is clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following decisions: (i) Sachidanand Singh & Anr Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.(Sachidanand Singh)3 (ii) Surjit Singh & Ors Vs. Balbir Singh (Surjit Singh)4 3 (1998) 2 SCC 493 4 (1996) 3 SCC 533 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 (iii) Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr.(Iqbal Singh)5 15. In fact in the matter of Patel Laljibhai Somabhai Vs. State of Gujarat (Patel Laljibhai Somabhai)6, considering the purpose of enacting Section 195(1)(b) and (c) and Section 476 Cr.P.C, 1898, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: "(i) The underlying purpose of enacting Section 195(1)(b) and (c) Section 476 seems to be to control the temptation on the part of the private parties to start criminal prosecution on frivolous vexations or unsufficient grounds inspired by a revengeful desire to harass or spite their opponents. These offences have been selected for the court's control because of their direct impact on the judicial process. It is the judicial process or the administration of public justice which is the direct and immediate object or the victim of these offences. As the purity of the proceedings of the court is directly sullied by the crime, the court is considered to be the only party entitled to consider the desirability of complaining against the guilty party. The private party who might ultimately suffer can persuade the Civil Court to file complaint. 5 (2005) 4 SCC 370 6 1971(2) SCC 376 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 (Para 6) (ii) The offences about which the court alone is clothed with the right to complain may, therefore, be appropriately considered to be only those offences committed by a party to a proceeding in that court, the commission of which has a reasonably close nexus with the proceeding in that court so that it can without embarking upon a completely independent and fresh inquiry, satisfactorily consider by reference principally to its records the expediency of prosecuting the delinquent party. It, therefore, appears to be more appropriate to adopt the strict construction of confirming the prohibition contained in Section 195(1)(c) only to those cases in which the offences specified therein were committed by a party to the proceeding in character as such party. The Legislature could not have intended to extend the prohibition contained in Section 195(1)(e) to the offences mentioned therein, when committed by a party to a proceeding in that court prior to his becoming such party. (Para 6)" 16. In the above decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. would attract only when the offences alleged are committed after the documents were produced before the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 Court or the public servant as the case may be. In the present case, the specific allegations made by respondent No.2/complainant is that accused concocted the document by falsely stating that he and his mother are the only legal heirs of Hanumegowda @ Hanumanthegowda, despite knowing that his other LRs are there. The said documents were forged and concocted and thereafter produced before the Court, as if they are genuine documents. Therefore, the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C to take cognizance is not attracted. 17. In the light of the prima facie material placed in the charge sheet, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to quash the criminal proceedings and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35890 CRL.P No. 1322 of 2022 (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through email. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41