- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33256 CRL.P No. 12385 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12385 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: OLIVER OSWALD PINTO S/O LATE PASCAL PINTO AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS RETIRED PDO ADYAR GRAM PANCHAYAT R/AT 1-334, PADUMALE POST NEERUMARGA VILLAGE, KULSHEKAR, MANGALURU, DK-575005 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA MANGALORE RURAL POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. N G NAGARAJA S/O LATE GANGADHARA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT MANGALORE CITY, DK DIST-575001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1 & R2) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33256 CRL.P No. 12385 of 2023 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.24/2022 OF MANGALURU RURAL POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III C.J.M., MANGALURU CITY, D.K. REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 465 AND 420 OF IPC, 1860. 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 the sole accused has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.24/2022 of Mangaluru Rural PS, for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 420 of IPC. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that, he is retired PDO. The Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath filed a complaint and based on it, case in Cr.No.24/2022 is registered. In the complaint, it is alleged that, though the owner of property Sy.No.23/69P, measuring 10 cents and Sy.No.23/50 measuring 25 cents of Arkula village, has not applied for issuance of Form - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33256 CRL.P No. 12385 of 2023 No.9/11 with documents and photographs of the property, petitioner has created Form No.9/11, without there being any resolution passed by the Panchayath and thereby caused loss to the Government. 2.1 On the said complaint, departmental enquiry was held and it was opined that petitioner has not caused any loss. Based on the complaint, case is registered and investigation is taken up. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. As a matter of fact, respondent No.2 had approached the Panchayath and applied for Form No.9/11A along with conversion order and other documents. The Panchayath granted approval for single side conversion. After conducting spot inspection, GPS survey, recommendations were made for issue of Form No.9 and 11, after collecting requisite charges. Continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of the Court and hence, the petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33256 CRL.P No. 12385 of 2023 3. On the other hand learned counsel representing respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 State would submit that one John Saldana is the owner of land in Sy.No.23/69 (P) measuring 10 cents and Sy.No.23/50 measuring 25 cents of Arkula village. He has not applied for conversion of the said land, in Form No.9/11 he has not produced any of the documents of the property and photograph. No resolution was passed by the Gram Panchayat. However, petitioner who was the Panchayat Development Officer at the relevant point of time has issued Form No.9/11. 4. In this regard, the Chief Executive Officer, formed a Committee under the Presidentship of ¸ÀªÀÄ£ÀéAiÀÄ¢üPÁj, ¸ÀªÀÄUÀæ Vjd£À C©üªÀÈ¢Þ AiÉÆd£É, f¯Áè ¥ÀAZÁAiÀÄvï Dakshina Kannada. In turn the Executive Officer of Dakshina Kannada Zilla Panchayat has conducted internal enquiry and verified the records and also recorded the statements and found that John Saldana, who is the owner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33256 CRL.P No. 12385 of 2023 of the property has not given any application. Despite the same, the petitioner has issued Form No.9/11, based on irrelevant documents and without application filed by the owner and thereby committed criminal misconduct after securing permission for taking action against the petitioner and authorization to file complaint against the accused. 3.1 Based on the complaint, the concerned police have registered case in Cr.No.24/2022. It requires a detailed investigation to ascertain the part played by the petitioner in the commission of the offence. At this stage, without conducting investigation, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and pray to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record. 6. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point of time, petitioner was the Panchayat Development Officer of Adyar Gram Panchayat. It is also not in dispute that John - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33256 CRL.P No. 12385 of 2023 Saldana is the owner of land and Sy.No.23/69 (P) measuring 10 cents and 23/50 measuring 25 cents of Arkula village. He has given petition stating that he has not applied for issue of Form No.9/11 nor authorized anyone to apply. A document came to be issued based on his forged signatures. 7. However, the petitioner has collected certain documents under Right to Information Act from the said Panchayat and claimed that John Saldana had given application and produced relevant documents and on the basis on it, he has issued the document in question. However, in his application, John Saldana has alleged that his signatures in the application are forged. So also, the complainant has alleged that Panchayat has not passed any resolution for issue Form No.9/11 and the photograph of the property was also not produced. 8. It is pertinent to note that Form No.9/11, issued by the petitioner is not received by John Saldana, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33256 CRL.P No. 12385 of 2023 but on the other hand, it is received by his son Neol Michael Saldana. The petitioner has also produced a document stated to be a gift deed executed by John Saldana in favour of his son, Neol Michael Saldana and in turn he has executed a sale agreement in favour of one Sachidananda Shetty. The application allegedly given by John Saldana for issue of construction license is also signed by the said Neol Michael Saldana. Admittedly, the Panchayat has not passed any resolution. It appears this Neol Michael Saldana or someone else is instrumental in getting Form No.9/11 and at his instance, the petitioner has concocted said document. 9. All these aspects are required to be investigated and the signatures disputed by John Michael Saldana are required to be examined by the handwriting expert. 10. Matter requires detailed investigation and trial. Disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner would get - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33256 CRL.P No. 12385 of 2023 opportunity to put forth his defence at the trial in the event of filing of charge sheet. In the result, petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER i) Petition filed by petitioner/accused under Section 482 Cr.P.C is rejected. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43