- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45976 CRL.A No. 1781 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1781 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT SAKAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKONU, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT THALEMALEDODDI VILLAGE, KEELAGHATTA DAKLE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 419 2. SRI. B. MUNIRAMA RAO S/O LATE B. VENKATACHALAM NAIDU, AGED 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.58, WEST ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. RAMYA S.L., ADV. FOR SRI. JAYARAMU N. N., ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TUMAKURU RURAL POLICE TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101. 2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMKUR, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101 BOTH ARE REP. BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE, Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45976 CRL.A No. 1781 of 2019 HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BENGLAURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP.) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.449 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2017 AND 04.11.2017 IN CRL.MISC.NO.205/2016 PASSED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellants have preferred this appeal challenging the order passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Crl.Misc.No.205/2016 dated 22.04.2017 and 04.11.2017. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellants are the absolute owners of Property bearing Survey No.103/2A measuring 0.12.08 guntas of Keelaghatta village, Madduru taluk and Survey No.724/3 measuring 2 acres 30 guntas of Harohalli village, Kanakpura taluk respectively. The FIR was registered by the police in Crime No.304/2013 for the offence under - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45976 CRL.A No. 1781 of 2019 Section 397 of Indian Penal Code. Later charge-sheet came to be filed against six persons. Case is pending for adjudication in S.C No.27/2015. It seems that some persons, in the name of the appellants, themselves offered surety to one of the accused therein i.e. Beemesh @ Bheema (accused No.3) and offered property of the appellants as mentioned above as security. In the affidavit, they have affixed photos, which are not that of the appellants. The residential addresses mentioned in the surety affidavits are also different from the appellants. It is a clear case of impersonation, for which also order is passed to trace the persons who offered surety to the said accused and impersonated the appellants. The appellants have appeared before the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge at Tumkur and filed affidavit about they being the absolute owners of the property that is wrongfully offered as security in the above criminal case by some third parties by impersonating them. The appellants have also produced Aadhar cards in support of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45976 CRL.A No. 1781 of 2019 authenticity. The appellants have never offered any surety to any of the accused. But in the meanwhile, the Learned P.D.J has directed to register a separate case against the sureties and the rural police, Tumkur through the Dy.S.P. The Dy.S.P is directed to trace out the persons who are seen in the photos of the affidavits. The suo-motu case was registered in Crl. Misc. No.205/2016, as per the Court order dated 25.02.2016, passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in SC No. 27/2015. The Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur has ordered to attach the property to recover the surety amount and further to issue FLW to the Tahashidar for not attaching the property. Hence, he sought for allowing this appeal. 3. The appellants have produced the Pahani extracts (RTC) pertaining to land bearing Survey No.103/2A of Keelaghatta village for the year 2017-2018 which is standing in the name of Sakamma W/o Chikkonu. The another RTC extract pertaining to land bearing Survey No. 724/3 of Harohalli village for the year 2018-19, which - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45976 CRL.A No. 1781 of 2019 is standing in the name of Venkatalakshmamma, Galiswamy, B.Muniram Rao, B.Venkatachalam, G.Shakuntala and N.Ramakrishna. The mutation extract is also produced. The copy of the FIR pertaining to Crime No.304/2013 and charge-sheet is also filed. The copies of affidavits of Sakamma and Muniram Rao is produced. 4. The order sheet dated 22.04.2017 passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Crl.Misc. No. 205/2016 reads as under: "Respondent absent. Notice to accused. Issue notice against surety and the direction to attach the property of sureties offered as security by 30/6". 5. The order sheet dated 04.11.2017 reads as under: "Re-issue FLW against respondents. Issue notice to Tahsildar. Kanakapura for not attaching property of sureties. I reporting to court by 29/12". 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader Sri.R.Rangaswamy has produced memo with report - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45976 CRL.A No. 1781 of 2019 submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tumkur Sub-Division, Tumkur, which reveals that the Tumkur Town police have registered the case in Crime No. 152/2022, on the basis of the order passed by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Crl. Misc. No. 205/2016. Further it is submitted that the police have arrested the accused and they are in judicial custody in UTP No. 685/2022 and UTP No.7032/2022. 7. On examination of the materials placed before this Court, it is crystal clear that fake B.Muniram Rao and fake Sakamma have impersonated themselves as Sakamma and Muniram Rao and furnished the fake surety. In this regard, FIR is also registered in Crime No. 152/2022 on the file of Tumkur Town Police. The case is registered for the offences punishable under Section 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. \ 8. When the trial Court has passed an order for initiating separate proceedings as to the fake surety and fabricating of documents, it ought not to have passed this - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45976 CRL.A No. 1781 of 2019 order for attaching the property of the present appellants. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER. i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned order passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Crl.Misc No.205/2016 dated 22.04.2017 and 04.11.2017 are set aside. iii） Registry is directed to send the copy of this order to the trial Court for taking necessary action. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 62