- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8037 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8037 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. D. VENKATESH S/O A. DORAI SWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.29, 17TH CROSS, R.T.STREET, BALEPETE CROSS, BENGALURU - 560 053. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESWARA P.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. S. PRAKASH S/O. LATE R. SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A. 195, 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN, MANJUNATH NAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. ALSO AT R/AT NO.9, ESHWAR TEMPLE BEHIND ROAD, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037. NO.9, RAMANJINEYA LAYOUT, 2ND CROSS, MARATHAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 037. 2. SRI.P.RAVI S/O PAPAIAH Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8037 of 2025 AGED ABOUT MAJOR 3. SMT.S.JAYABHARATHI W/O P.RAVI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ACCUSED NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT 195, 2ND MAIN, 4TH CROSS, MANJUNATH NAGAR, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010. 4. SRI. Y.M BALAPPA S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT MAJOR HEGGANAHALLI, YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHWETHA M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. D.N. RAMACHANDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 VIDE ORDER DATED 02.07.2011 NOTICE TO R2 AND R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO A. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2025 IN CC.NO.30908/2009 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. CMM COURT, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8037 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the complainant, who is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Magistrate on an application filed under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. In the said application, the complainant sought direction for the production of Ex.P.10, marked in C.C.No.2749/2001, on the ground that the complainant in that case, who had alleged forgery, is no longer alive. The application sought to rely on the thumb impression of the deceased, which had been secured in connection with allegations of forgery and impersonation in another transaction, and for which an expert opinion had already been obtained in C.C.No.2749/2001. The accused contested the application. The learned Magistrate rejected the application, holding that no sufficient reasons were stated for seeking the production of documents marked in C.C.No.2749/2001. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for accused No.4 were heard. The impugned order has been perused. 3. The complainant, Savithramma, had filed a private complaint alleging that her son, accused/respondent No.1, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8037 of 2025 committed forgery and attempted impersonation. According to the complainant, her son fraudulently executed an agreement to sell in favour of respondent No.4, without her knowledge or consent. Following the filing of the complaint and the recording of her sworn statement, the petitioner immediately sought to secure the original title documents relating to the disputed property from the custody of accused No.4. Although the application for retrieval of the documents was allowed, the police were unable to recover the original title documents covered under the agreement to sell during the search. 4. Since the complainant has now passed away, the petitioner seeks to obtain the LTM (known thumb impression) specimen of the deceased complainant, which was secured in the connected matter, C.C.No.2749/2001. The objective is to demonstrate that the agreement to sell, allegedly obtained by accused No.4 through the complainant’s son/accused No.1, is forged and was executed by impersonation. The learned Magistrate rejected the application on the ground that no valid reasons had been provided. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8037 of 2025 5. However, a careful reading of the application under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. reveals that the petitioner had comprehensively narrated the investigation in C.C.No.2749/2001, wherein the signatures and thumb impression of the complainant were obtained and sent for expert examination. Given that the complainant is no longer alive and her admitted specimens are unavailable, the petitioner appropriately invoked Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. to secure the relevant records, enabling a comparison between the deceased complainant’s thumb impression and that found on the disputed agreement to sell allegedly obtained by accused No.4. 6. It is well-settled that the burden lies on the complainant to establish that the agreement to sell is a forged document, executed by impersonation, and that the complainant never appeared before the sub-registrar’s office to execute the agreement. The LTM specimen is, therefore, a crucial piece of evidence for comparing the complainant’s thumb impression with that appearing on the disputed agreement to sell, which is currently seized in the present - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8037 of 2025 criminal proceedings. The petitioner had, in the detailed application, also clearly indicated the relevance of this evidence for the purposes of the investigation. 7. It is significant that accused No.1, the son of the complainant, has already been convicted in C.C.No.2749/2001 in forgery case. In these circumstances, the specimen signatures and thumb impressions obtained in the connected criminal case assume paramount importance, as they are critical for establishing whether the agreement to sell, now under challenge, was forged and executed by impersonation. By disregarding this crucial fact and the relevance of the records sought under Section 91 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate committed a clear error in law, rendering the impugned order untenable. 8. The learned Magistrate, however, dismissed the application through a brief and cryptic order, without properly considering the materials on record or taking into account the fact that the complainant is deceased. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36562 CRL.P No. 8037 of 2025 aside, without the Court expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. 9. For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following order: ORDER i. The criminal petition is hereby allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 07.04.2025 in C.C.No.30908/2009, passed by the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, is quashed, and consequently, the relief sought in the application is allowed; iii. The learned Magistrate is directed to secure the concerned records to enable comparison of the signatures and thumb impression of the complainant as found in Ex.P.10 in C.C.No.2749/2001. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11 CT: BHK