- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33803 WP No. 20180 of 2021 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 WRIT PETITION NO. 20180 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: MR.VENKATESH K S/O SHRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT KUMBENA AGRAHARA NEW EXTENSION, KADUGODI POST BANGALORE-560067 …PETITIONER (BY KUM.SONU.S, ADVOCATE FOR SMT/KUM. VANDANA P L, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KADUGODI P S WHITEFIELD SUB DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-560001 2. SHRI Y T NARENDRA BABU S/O Y THIMMAIAHA NO.3, 1ST CROSS, 1ST STATE WEST OF CORD ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE-560010 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.G.A.SRIKANTE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33803 WP No. 20180 of 2021 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.158/2021 OF RESPONDENT KADUGODI POLICE STATION UPON A COMPLIANT DTD. 22.09.2021 ARRAIGNING THE PRESENT PETITIONER AS ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC.420, 465, 468 AND 463 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDNL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BANGALORE RURAL (VIDE ANNX-A AND B). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR 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 No.1 has filed this petition, with a prayer to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.158/2021 of Kadugodi PS, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 463, 465 and 468 of IPC. 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that petitioner and others have concocted and created forged documents in respect of Sy.Nos.3, 5, 7, 64, 66 and 93 of the Dommasandra village and Kumbena Agrahara and respondent No.2 has filed complaint. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature and they are fighting since a decade. When respondent No.2 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33803 WP No. 20180 of 2021 could not get any orders on civil side, he has chosen to file a false complaint. There is inordinate delay in filing the complaint. Petitioner is the rightful owner of the disputed properties and fighting legal battle against respondent No.2. Civil dispute is being given a Colour of criminality. Continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount of abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petition. 3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions: (i) S.N.Vijayalakshmi and Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (S.N.Vijaylakshmi)1 (ii) Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (Naresh Kumar)2 (iii) Vipul Prakash Patil Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors (Vipul Prakash Patil)3 (iv) B.Durga Ram Vs. State by Bengaluru City Central PS and Anr. (Durga Ram)4 4. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 and 1 SLP(Crl)No.8626/2024 Dt:31.07.2025 2 SLP(Crl)No.1570/2021 Dt:12.03.2024 3 Crl.P.No.104152/2022 Dt:30.05.2023 4 Crl.P.No.2072/2017 Dt:02.06.2022 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33803 WP No. 20180 of 2021 learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that complainant and his family members are the Jodidar of Dommasandra, Kurudusonnenahalli, Kumbena Agrahara, Kadugodi of Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. They are having land in these villages. The family members of respondent No.2 left Dommasandra village for education and work purpose. They visit Dommasandra occasionally for agriculture and also to take care of Yele Mallappa Shetty Pond for its maintenance. 5. Taking advantage of the situation, accused No.1 who was working as a bill collector in Sigehalli Grampanchayat and presently working as ASI got created fake documents in collusion with staff of the Taluk office and trying to sell them, which are worth Crores of rupees. Therefore, respondent No.2 filed the complaint. The allegations made in the complaint are very grave in nature. It requires a thorough investigation and prosecution of the guilty. In the light of prima facie case - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33803 WP No. 20180 of 2021 made out, the proceedings cannot be quashed and pray to dismiss the petition. 6. In support of his arguments learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the decision in Kathyayini Vs. Sidharth P.S.Reddy and Ors. (Kathyayini)5. 7. Heard arguments and perused the record. 8. Thus, it is the specific case of respondent No.2 that he and his family members are having several properties in Dommasandra, Kurudusonnenahalli, Kumbena Agrahara, Kadugodi of Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk. They have left Dommasandra for education and work purpose, but occasionally used to visit to take care of the lands and also maintenance of the tank constructed by their grandfather. Taking advantage of their absence, petitioner, who was earlier bill collector in Panchayath and now working as Assistant Sub-Inspector has created several fake documents in collusion with the staff of Taluk 5 SLP(Crl)No.1105/2025 Dt:14.07.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33803 WP No. 20180 of 2021 office and trying to sell these properties, which are worth Crores of rupees. 9. In order to demonstrate that several documents have been concocted, respondent No.2 has produced endorsement issued by the Deputy Commissioner stating that verification of records maintained with the office reveal that no records regarding the grant of occupancy rights are available in the office. Similar endorsement is given by them indicating that no such orders have been passed, based on which the petitioner has secured order. On the basis of such enquiry, the Tahsildar has also directed registering of criminal case against the petitioner and other erring officials. Since the father of petitioner had secured order in WP No.57777/2014 behind the back of Khata holder, it came to be recalled in W.P.No.7829/2016. 10. Perusal of all these documents, in the light of specific allegations made in the complaint filed by - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33803 WP No. 20180 of 2021 respondent No.2, it is clear that a prima facie case is made out against the petitioner. Even though basically, the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, at the same time, there are allegations that for aiding the civil dispute, the petitioner is instrumental in creating documents in collusion with the officials of the Taluk office and other Government Officials. A thorough investigation is required. It is not a case calling for interference by this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 11. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is rejected. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13