- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11236 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI S. R. PRABHU AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O LATE A R SHIVANNA, RESIDING AT, NO. 866, 13TH MAIN ROAD, VINAYKA LAYOUT, NAGARABHAVI 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 072. 2. SMT. RENUKA PRABHA S., W/O. CHANDRADHARA, D/O. LATE A. R. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT, NO. 17/51, 11TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, SANJEEVINI NAGAR, MOODALAPALYA, BENGALURU- 560 072. BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: FLAT NO. 417, 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, HAMPI NAGAR, (RPC LAYOUT) VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 040. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SUNIL PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. S.R. VIJAYA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE A. R. SHIVANNA, RESIDING AT, FLAT NO. 417, 5TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN ROAD, HAMPINAGAR, (RPC LAYOUT) VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP, FOR R1, SRI. G.A.K. GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE R1 POLICE IN CC NO.29830/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 468, 471, 420 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The charge sheet filed against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 r/w 34 of IPC and the consequent proceedings in C.C.No.29830/2023, pending on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are sought to be quashed in this petition. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioners have colluded with each other in order to grab the house property bearing No.417, situated at 7th Main Road, 5th cross, Hampinagar, Vijayanagar II Stage, Bengaluru, measuring about 44x30 square feet and created fake affidavit and submitted to the office of the Tahsildar stating that they are the only children to their deceased father and obtained the family tree and thereafter, on 02.07.2022 accused No.1 got the Release Deed from accused No.2 and registered the property in his name. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that even accepting the allegations, the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out, the dispute is purely civil in nature and therefore contended that the charge sheet and all the consequent proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed. 4. It is the contention of the learned for petitioners that father of the petitioners constructed a dwelling house in the property in question and the petitioners are residing in the said house. Initially, their father executed a registered Will bequeathing the immovable property in favour of the respondent No.2. However, the said Will was cancelled by Deed of Cancellation. Petitioner's father died intestate on 10.02.2022 leaving behind his legal representatives to succeed to his estate. After the death of their father, petitioners continued to reside in the immovable property and petitioner No.2 as such, relinquished her right in respect of the property in favour of the petitioner No.1 under the registered Deed of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 Release dated 02.07.2022. He therefore contended that the allegations that petitioners have forged the document or petitioner No.1 has registered the property in his name and has changed the khatha of the property in his name are false, as it is the petitioner No.2 herself who has relinquished her right in respect of the property in favour of petitioner No.1. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2/defacto complainant that second respondent's father A.R.Shivanna had six children and second respondent is one of his sons. That being so, the petitioners have colluded with each other and obtained the family tree by making false statement and submitting false affidavit before the office of Tahsildar on the strength of which, the petitioner No.2 has relinquished her share in favour of the petitioner No.1 and thereafter the khatha was changed in the name of the petitioner No.1. He further contended that a complaint was given to the Assistant Commissioner and there is an order passed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 cancelling the family tree obtained by the petitioners. Thereafter the second respondent has obtained the family tree which reflects the names of all the children of A.R.Shivanna. He therefore, contended that petitioners have committed the offence and charge sheet is also filed against them and no grounds are made out to quash the proceedings. 6. Learned Additional SPP contended that after thorough investigation, the police have found that the affidavit submitted before the office of the Tahsildar was under misrepresentation and the accused have obtained the family tree on that basis and then petitioner No.2 has relinquished her share in favour of petitioner No.1. He contended that the police have collected sufficient materials and filed charge sheet against the accused and there is a prima facie case against them and therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 7. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others Vs State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 to contend that in the given scenario, the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. 8. In the above judgment, it is a case where the accused, who had no title, had executed two registered sale deeds in favour of another accused in respect of portion of the land and other witnesses being the scribe and stamp vendor to the sale deeds were alleged to have conspired with accused Nos.1 and 2 to forge the documents. The further allegations are that when the complainant confronted accused Nos.1 and 2 about the said forgery, they abused and assaulted him etc. 9. The Apex Court has held in the facts of the said case, when a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorized by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. Further if what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted. The Apex Court has clarified at paragraph 23 as under: "23. When we say that execution of a sale deed by a person, purporting to convey a property which is not his, as his property, is not making a false document and therefore not forgery, we should not be understood as holding that such an act can never be a criminal offence. If a person sells a property knowing that it does not belong to him, and thereby defrauds the person who purchased the property, the person defrauded, that is, the purchaser, may complain that the vendor committed the fraudulent act of cheating. But a third party who is not the purchaser under the deed may not be able to make such complaint." 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kathyayini Vs Sidharth P.S. Reddy and others - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 reported in 2025 INSC 818. Paragraphs 14, 18 and 19 are of relevance and are extracted hereunder: "14. The High Court noted that the statement of the Sub-Registrar makes it certain that the thumb impression found on the partition deed dated 24.03.2005 was the thumb impression of Yellappa Reddy. Therefore, an offence as alleged either under Sections 468 or 471 IPC is not made out. Further, the partition deed referred above was drawn up on 24.03.2005 and the respondents, in an effort to get their names entered in the revenue records, have brought up a family tree dated 18.01.2011 in line with the partition deed dated 24.03.2005. The High Court noted that, no doubt when respondents had obtained the family tree, they were bound to disclose the names of daughters of late Yellappa Reddy. But since the attempt by the respondents was to get their names entered in the revenue records based on the partition deed dated 24.03.2005, it cannot be held that the respondents had committed an offence under Section 420 IPC. It may be that they had misrepresented about the family of Yellappa Reddy but that in itself was not an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. The High Court thus concluded that, considering the suit for partition is already pending where the compensation determined by the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited, is secured, it is appropriate that criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents is put to an end. 18. Further, the High Court could not find any justification to deny that respondents misrepresented the family tree. The Court itself has acknowledged that respondents were bound to disclose the names of daughters of K.G.Yellappa Reddy and Jayalakshmi in the family tree. Considering the fact that both the partition deed and the family tree were used in gaining the monetary compensation awarded for the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 land, it is necessary that genuineness of both the documents is put to trial. 19. We now come to the issue of bar against prosecution during the pendency of a civil suit. We hereby hold that no such bar exists against prosecution if the offences punishable under criminal law are made out against the parties to the civil suit. Learned senior counsel Dr. Menaka Guruswamy has rightly placed the relevant judicial precedents to support the above submission. In the case of K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. and another, this Court has reviewed its precedents which clarify the position. The relevant paragraph from the above judgment is extracted below: “8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law.” 11. It is not disputed by the petitioners that even respondent No.2 is one of the sons of late A.R. Shivanna. The allegations are that the petitioners have obtained a family tree stating that they are the only children of late A.R.Shivanna and on the strength of the same accused/petitioner No.2 relinquished her right in favour of petitioner No.1. Based on the said relinquishment deed, petitioner No.1 got his name entered in the khatha. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 12. It is stated that false affidavit was filed in the office of the Tahsildar and on that basis, accused obtained the family tree. It is also not disputed that the said family tree has been now cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner. 13. It is well settled that while exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the High Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial. The Court has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to consider, whether any sufficient material is available to proceed further. In Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs The State of Jharkhand and another reported in 2024 INSC 583, it is held that the aspect of complicity of a person who was involved in the forgery is a disputed question of fact and the same will have to be addressed after proper appreciation of evidence. This Court finds that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners and after collecting the materials, the police have filed charge sheet against them. No - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43089 CRL.P No. 11236 of 2024 grounds are made to quash the charge sheet or the criminal proceedings. Petition is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.1/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23