- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14254 CRL.P No. 2214 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2214 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHETAN MEDA S/O. LATE ASHOK KUMAR MEDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT M-5, EAGLETON THE GOLF RESORT MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI, BIDADI RAMANAGARAM, RAMANAGAR RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. 2. SMT. PREETHI MEDA D/O. LATE KIRAN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT R-05, EAGLETON THE GOLF RESORT MANCHANAYAKANAHALLI, BIDADI RAMANAGARAM, RAMANAGAR RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562109. 3. SRI. M.L. NAVEENKUMAR S/O LAXMINARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OLD RESIDING AT NO.305, BOUGAINVILLA SANKALPA CENTRAL PARK, YADAVAGIRI, MYSORE MYSORE - 570020 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH VARUNA POLICE STATION, MYSORE Digitally signed by GEETHAKUMARI PARLATTAYA S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14254 CRL.P No. 2214 of 2025 REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE HIGH COURT COMPLEX BENGALURU-560001. 2. SRI. MARIGOWDA S/O. SRI. KEMPEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT KEMPEGOWDANAHUNDI VILLAGE VARUNA HOBLI, MYSORE KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY VARUNA POLICE STATION AS CRIME NO.17/2025 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498A, 471, 420, 120-B, 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, REGISTERED XII ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MYSURU, IN ANNEXURE-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKEN IN FURTHERANCE TO THE SAID FIR. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners-accused nos.1, 3 and 4 are before the Court calling in question the registration of a crime in Crime No.17/2025 registered by Varuna Police Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of IPC. 2. Heard Sri. Chandrashekar Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt.Sowmya R., learned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14254 CRL.P No. 2214 of 2025 HCGP appearing for respondent No.1. The complainant though served long ago remains unrepresented even as on date. 3. The facts in the case at hand travel back to the years 1946 or 1950 as the case would be. The vendor of the petitioners comes in possession of the property on 28.12.2005 from whom the petitioners purchased the property on 06.04.2009 from one Sri K. Ramanna. A transaction appears to have happened between Sri K. Ramanna and the complainant in the year 2006. After about 19 years of the said transaction, the complainant registers a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No. 17/2025, arraigning these petitioners as accused, notwithstanding the fact that few of the accused had died, they are also drawn as accused and who remain in the fray is only the present accused. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in lawful possession of the property for it having been purchased on 06.04.2009 from the hands of one Sri K. Ramanna and has been in possession of the said property since then. The complainant alleges fabrication of records of revenue documents in respect of the said land. On - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14254 CRL.P No. 2214 of 2025 the strength of a particular revenue document, which had granted him possessory rights, learned counsel submits that the complainant having lost the opportunity to file a civil suit is sought to set the criminal law into motion, that too after a delay of 19 years of the said transaction. 5. Learned HCGP would submit that the complaint alleges certain allegations of forgery. Therefore, investigation in the lis must be permitted to be continued in the case at hand. In that light would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. As observed herein above, the complainant remains unrepresented though served long ago. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. The petitioners No.1 and 2 are said to be Directors of a Company involved in the business of Real Estate Development and comes in possession of the subject property on 06.04.2009 through a registered Sale Deed and have been in possession since then. The complainant claims to have a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14254 CRL.P No. 2214 of 2025 transaction or a document in his favour of the year 2006, which grants him possessory rights and contends that he is in possession of the property and forged documents are projected by the petitioners to secure the property. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. 9. The complaint reads as follows : "ರವೆ, ಆರಕ ಉಪ ೕಕರು, ವರುಾ ಆರಕ ಾೆ , ೕಗಾಪರ, ೖಸೂರು ೆ ಇಂದ, ಮೌಡ #$ %ೆಂ&ೇೌಡ %ೆಂ&ೇೌಡನಹುಂ) ಾ*ಮ ವರುಣ ,ೋಬ. ೖಸೂರು /ಾಲೂಕು 12ೈ3 ನಂ: 95917-67498 =ಾನ>?ೆ, @ಷಯ:- ನನC DಾEFೕನ/ೆಯ ಭೂHಯನುC ಸುಳJK Lಾಖೆಯ ಸೃOPಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಪರQಾ?ೆ =ಾ) ವಂRSರುವ ಬೆT ದೂರು. Uಾನು ೕಲVಂಡ @ಾಸದ Wಾಯಂ XಾSYಾZದು[, ವ>ವDಾಯ =ಾ)%ೊಂ)ರು/ೆ\ೕUೆ. ವರಕೂಡು ಸXೆ] 68/1 ರ^ ನನೆ 1 ಎಕ?ೆ 15 ಗುಂ`ೆ ಭೂH ಇದು[, ನನC ಸEa\ನ Wಾ/ೆ ನಂ.283 ಆZದು[, ಆc.ಆc.4759 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14254 CRL.P No. 2214 of 2025 ರಂ/ೆ DಾEFೕನ/ೆಯ ಹಕುV ಇರುತ\Lೆ. ಭೂHಯು ನಮe DಾEfೕನದ^ರುವದಂದ LಾಖಾaಗಳನುC ಪgೕ^ಸುವ ೋೆ ,ೋZರ^ಲ, ಆದ?ೆ 2ೇ?ೆ %ೆಲವ ಜನರು ನಮe ಭೂHಯ ಹa\ರ ಬಂದು ಇದು =ಾ?ಾಟXಾZLೆ ಎಂದು ,ೇಳJa\ದ[ಂದ Uಾವ LಾಖೆಗಳನುC ಪgೕ^ಸಾZ ನನC DಾEfೕನ/ೆಯ ಭೂHಯು %ೆ.?ಾಮಣj #$ ೇk %ೆಂಚಪm ಎಂಬುವೆ Sದ[?ಾಮಯ>, ಅವರ ,ೆಂ)\ =ಾದಮe, ಮಗ gವ?ಾಮು ಎಂಬುವರುಗ.ಂದ FUಾಂಕ 02-06-2006 ರ ಕ*ಯಪತ*ದ ೕ?ೆೆ =ಾ?ಾಟXಾZರುವಂ/ೆ LಾಖೆಗಳJ ಸೃOPYಾZರುವದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂತು, ನನC ಭೂHಯನುC Uಾನು Yಾಗೂ =ಾ?ಾಟ =ಾ)ರುವFಲ FUಾಂಕ 02-06-2006 ರ ಕ*ಯಪತ*ದ ಮೂಲಕ ಬಡಗಲಹುಂ) ಾ*ಮದ Sದ[?ಾಮಯ> ಅವರ ,ೆಂ)\ =ಾದoಮ ಅವರ ಮಗ gವ?ಾಮು ಎಂಬುವರುಗ.ಂದ .p.ಎ. ,ೊಂFರುವ ಎಂ.ಎ3. ನ@ೕ$ ಕು=ಾc ಎಂಬುವರು ಎಂ.qರr ಎಂಬುವರ ಮೂಲಕ %ೆ. ?ಾಮಣj ಎಂಬುವೆ ಭೂHಯನುC @ಕ*sSರುವ ಕ*ಯಪತ*ದ^ ನಮe ಭೂHಯ @ವರವನುC %ಾtSರು/ಾ\?ೆ. ಕಂLಾಯ ಇಾWೆಯ Lಾಖೆಗಳ^ ಎಂ.ಆc. ನಂ 394/2005-06 ರಂ/ೆ %ೆ.?ಾಮಣj ರವರ ,ೆಸೆ Wಾ/ೆ ಸೃOPYಾZರುತ\Lೆ. ನಮe ಭೂHಯ ಸEa\ನ ಅf%ಾರ Sದ[?ಾಮಯ> ,ಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವೆ ಇರುವFಲ ಅLಾಗೂ> ನಮe ಭೂHಯನುC Sದ[?ಾಮಯ> ಮತು\ ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಪರXಾZ @ಕ*sಸುa\ರುವ ಈಗ3 ಬಗ] ಸಂDೆvಯ ಎಂ.ಎ3. ನ@ೕ$ ಕು=ಾc ಪ.a.Uೋ ರವರು ನಮe ಸEತ\ನುC ಕಬ.ಸುವ ಸಂಚು=ಾ) Sದ[?ಾಮಯ> ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವಂದ ಎಂ.ಎ3. ನ@ೕ$ ಕು=ಾc ಎಂಬುವರು ಪwೆFರುವ .p.ಎ. ನ^ ನಮe DಾEfೕನದ ಭೂH ಸXೆ] ನಂ.68/1 ರ 1 ಎಕ?ೆ 15 ಗುಂ`ೆ ಭೂHಯ @ವರಗಳನುC ವಂಚUೆ ಮೂಲಕ ನಮೂFSರು/ಾ\?ೆ. ಈ ಸEa\ೆ Sದ[?ಾಮಯ> ಮತು\ ಅವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವರು XಾರಸುLಾರ?ಾZರುವFಲ ಈ ಭೂHಯ XಾರಸುLಾರ UಾUೇ ಆZರು/ೆ\ೕUೆ. ನHeಂದ Sದ[?ಾಮಯ> ರವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವೆ ಸEತು\ =ಾ?ಾಟXಾZಲLೆ ಇದ[ರು ಅವರ ,ೆಸನ ಕ*ಯಪತ*ದ^ ನಮe ಭೂHಯನುC ಉೇxS ಕ*ಯ ವ]ಹೆ =ಾ)ರು/ಾ\?ೆ. Uಾವ ಜHೕನು =ಾ?ಾಟ =ಾ)ಲLೆ ಇದ[ರು Sದ[?ಾಮಯ> ರವರ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14254 CRL.P No. 2214 of 2025 ಕುಟುಂಬದವಂದ ಜHೕನ DಾEfೕನ/ೆಯ ಹಕುV ಪwೆದು%ೊಂಡು ಅವರ ಮೂಲಕ ಈಗ3 ಬಗ] ಕಂಪಯ ಎಂ.ಎ3.ನ@ೕ$ ಕು=ಾc ಮತು\ qರr ಕು=ಾc ಎಂಬುವರ ಮೂಲಕ %ೆ.?ಾಮಣj ಎಂಬುವೆ =ಾ?ಾಟ =ಾ) ನಮeನುC ವಂRSರು/ಾ\?ೆ ,ಾಗೂ ನಮe ಸEತು\ ನನC ಮೂಲಕ %ೆ.?ಾಮಣj ರವೆ ವಾ]ವೆYಾZಲFದ[ರು ಹಕುV ಬದಾವೆ =ಾ)ದವರ %ಾಲಂ ನ^ ನನC ,ೆಸರು ಹಕುV ಬದಾವೆ ಪwೆದವರ %ಾಲಂ ನ^ %ೆ.?ಾಮಣj ರವರ ,ೆಸರು ನಮೂFS ಸುಳJK Lಾಖೆ ಸೃOPYಾZರುತ\Lೆ. ಈ ಹಕುV ಬದಾವೆ ವyಯು ಸಹ ಸುಳJK ಸೃOPYಾZರುವದಂದ ಈ ಹಕುVಬದಾವೆ ವyಯನುC ಾ*ಮ ೆ%ಾVf%ಾಗಳJ ,ಾಗೂ ?ೆ@ನೂ> ಇನz&ೆಕPc ರವರುಗಳJ =ಾ)ರು/ಾ\?ೆ. ಬಡಗಲಹುಂ) ಾ*ಮದ Sದ[?ಾಮಯ> ಅವರ ,ೆಂ)\ =ಾದಮe, ಅವರ ಮಗ gವ?ಾಮು ಇವರು ಮೂರು ಜನರು ,ಾ^ ಮರಣ ,ೊಂFರು/ಾ\?ೆ. Sದ[?ಾಮಯ>ನವರ ಕುಟುಂಬದವಂದ .p.ಎ ಪwೆFದ[ ಈಗ3 ಬಗ] ಸಂDೆvಯ ಎಂ.ಎ3.ನ@ೕ$ ಕು=ಾc, ಈಗ3 ಬಗ] ಕಂಪಯ ಮುಖ>ಸvರು ,ಾಗೂ ಅ^ನ ಪLಾf%ಾಗಳJ ಸಂDೆvೆ ಾಭ=ಾ)%ೊಳJKವ ಉLೆ[ೕಶFಂದ ಸಂಚು ರೂpS qರr ಕು=ಾc ರವರ ಸ,ಾಯFಂದ %ೆ.?ಾಮಣj, ರವೆ ಕ*ಯ=ಾ) ನಮೆ ವಂRSರು/ಾ\?ೆ. qರr ಕು=ಾc ರವರು ,ಾ^ ಮೃತಪ|PರುವLಾZ a.Fದು[ ಅವರ ಪaC g*ೕಮa p*ೕaೕದ ರವರು ಸಂDೆvಯ ಮುಖ>ಸv?ಾZದು[, ನಮe ಸEತು\ ಅಕ*ಮ ಮತು\ ವಂಚUೆಯ ಮೂಲಕ ಅವರ ವಶದ^ರುವದುವ ಅವೆ a.Fರುತ\Lೆ. ಸದ>ದ^ }ೇತ$ ಎಂಬುವರು ಸಂDೆvಯ ಮುಖ>ಸv?ಾZದು[ ಅವರ ಮೂಲಕ ನಮe ಸಮDೆ>ಯನುC ಬೆಹS%ೊಳKಲು ಪ*ಯತCಪ|PLೆ[ವ. p*ೕaೕದ ರವ?ಾಗ^ೕ, }ೇತ$ ರವ?ಾಗ^ೕ ನಮeನುC ಸಂಪq]ಸಲು ?ಾಕSರು/ಾ\?ೆ. ಸಂಚು ರೂpS ನಮe ಸEa\ನ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಸುಳJK LಾಖೆಗಳನುC ಸೃOPS ವಂRSರುವ ಈಗ3 ಬಗ] ಕಂಪಯ ಎಂ.ಎ3. ನ@ೕ$ ಕು=ಾc, ಈಗ3 ಬಗ] ಕಂಪಯ ಮುಖ>ಸv?ಾದ qರr ಕು=ಾc ಅವರ ಪaC g*ೕಮa p*ೕaೕದ ,ಾಗೂ }ೇತ$, %ೆ.?ಾಮಣj, Sದ[?ಾಮಯ>, =ಾದಮe, gವ?ಾಮು ,ಾಗೂ ಅಂFನ ಾ*ಮೆ%ಾVf%ಾ ,ಾಗೂ ?ೆ@ನೂ> ಇನz&ೆಕPc ರವರುಗಳ ೕೆ ಅಕ*ಮದ ಬೆT %ಾನೂನು ಕ*ಮ ಜರುZಸ2ೇ%ೆಂದು %ೋ%ೊಳJK/ೆ\ೕUೆ. ತಮe @•ಾES, FUಾಂಕ:19-01-2025" - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14254 CRL.P No. 2214 of 2025 10. The narration in the complaint though alleges forgery rests on a particular date i.e. 02.06.2006, the allegation is that the document dated 02.06.2006, depicts that a sale has taken place appears to have been forged. Except saying this, what is the answer for the delay in registering the complaint. The delay is not 1 or 2 years, but 19 years is not explained in the complaint. In the light of the unexplained delay of a transaction dated 02.06.2006, the complaint could not have been registered on 19.01.2025, without a speck of document in favour of the complainant to claim ownership. The petitioners having been in possession pursuant to the registered Sale Deed dated 06.04.2009 from his vendor, the then owner of the property, cannot be permitted to be investigated into, if permitted, it would become an abuse of the process of the law for the reason that a matter that ought to have been before a civil Court, would be permitted to investigate by the Police. 11. As observed herein above, a complaint comes to be registered after 19 years of the incident i.e. 02.06.2006, without any explanation. Therefore, if further investigation is permitted to continue on this score, it would run foul of the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14254 CRL.P No. 2214 of 2025 judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CHANCHALPATI DAS vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 650, at paras 15 to 17, has held as follows: "…. …. …. 15. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by Iskcon, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court. 16. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint filed before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered at Ballygunge Police Station on 20-2- 2009, it is discernible that except bald allegations made in the complaint with regard to the theft of bus in question there was no material or document produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations against the appellants. Even after the investigation of the said complaint, there was no evidence collected by the investigating officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients constituting the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-BIPC. Even if the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value none of the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are culled out. The learned Senior Counsel Mr Shyam Divan for the appellants had strenuously urged relying upon the documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership and registration of the said bus, that the said documents were executed by the then authorised persons of Iskcon, Kolkata, in our opinion, the said documents could not be considered in these proceedings, the same being not the part of the charge-sheet papers. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14254 CRL.P No. 2214 of 2025 17. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the other documents on record of the instant appeals that the investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence collected on the documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were committed. Under the circumstances, allowing such prosecution to continue would not only be an empty formality but would be gross wastage of court's precious time.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. On all the aforesaid scores, the petition deserves to succeed. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed; (ii) FIR in Crime No.17/2025 registered by Varuna Police Station, Mysuru, is quashed qua the petitioners. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33