- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7958 CRL.P No. 383 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 383 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K. G. NAGARAJ S/O GIDDANAIK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS C/O NAVARATHNA WINES 48/42, PATTEGARAPALYA MAIN ROAD 60 FEET ROAD KANAKANAGARA BENGALURU-560 072 AND ALSO AT RACHIKOPPA VILLAGE KUMSHI HOBLI SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT BENGALURU CITY-562 149 2. H MANJAPPA S/O HIRIYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/A NO.59/2, III CROSS SATHYANARAYANA LAYOUT KIRLOSKAR COLONY IV BLOCK III STAGE BASAVESWARANAGAR BENGALURU-560 079 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7958 CRL.P No. 383 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU DISTRICT CITY REP: SPP HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI. K.G NAGARAJ S/O LATE VEERAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/A KODAKANI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, SORABA TALUK SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 429 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, LEARNED ADDL. SPP FOR R1, SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2023 PASSED BY THE XXIV ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.25774/2015 REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S 239 OF CR.P.C. FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR THE DISCHARGED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 109 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION IN THE ABOVE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7958 CRL.P No. 383 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 are at the doors of this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.25774/2015 on the file of the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate registered for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 109 read with Section 34 of the IPC and have also called in question the order of the concerned Court rejecting the application seeking their discharge from the array of accused. 2. Heard Sri. Leeladhar H.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP. representing the State and Sri. S.Balakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record. 3. The petitioners get embroiled in a crime in Crime No.25774/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet now bringing in several other offences, that are the ones punishable under Sections - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7958 CRL.P No. 383 of 2024 465, 468, 471, 109 of the IPC. After the charge sheet being filed before the concerned Court, the petitioners approach this Court in W.P.Nos.8295-96/2016 which comes to be rejected by a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench on 14.11.2016, after which, it transpires that in a civil suit that was pending between the parties, certain issues are held in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, springs the second petition on the same cause of action i.e., the present petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the Civil Court had framed an issue as to whether the 1st petitioner has forged the initial by putting 'K' before 'G' to become 'KG Nagaraj' while he was only 'G Nagaraj'. The learned counsel submits that the issue has been held to be negative by the Civil Court and therefore, the very act of forgery is taken away. The learned counsel submits that on this score the petition must be entertained as it amounts to a changed circumstance for a second petition to be held maintainable under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri. S.Balakrishnan appearing for the respondent No.2 would reiterate that all the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7958 CRL.P No. 383 of 2024 issues had been gone into by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at the time when the first petition comes to be rejected. As such, a second petition on the same cause of action cannot be entertained. Therefore, he would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. On the merit of the matter, the learned counsel would further contend that forgery is clearly established by the FSL by contemporaneous documents and on all these scores, the learned counsel submits that the petition be dismissed. 7. The learned Addl. SPP would also toe the lines of the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contending that the petition must be dismissed and this is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean. 8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 9. The petitioners call in question C.C.No.25774/2015. These very petitioners calling the very C.C.No.25774/2015 were before this Court in W.P.Nos.8295-96/2016. The - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7958 CRL.P No. 383 of 2024 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the following order rejects the petition: "7. I have perused the grounds urged in the petitions, the documents produced by the petitioners along with the petitions, so also, the objection statement filed by respondent No.2-complainant and also the documents produced in support of the said objection statement. I have also perused the principles enunciated in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, referred to above. 8. The investigation material prima facie show that name of petitioner No.1 as per the school records was G.Nagaraj and the same continued till the year 2014 and in the year 2014 there is change of name of petitioner No.1 as K.G.Nagaraj. The investigation officer has collected the material in this regard during the course of investigation. It is the contention of the second respondent-complainant that CL-2 licence, which was originally granted to him has been deliberately changed by the petitioners herein by impersonation before the authorities representing petitioner No.1 herein as K.G.Nagaraj. Even the photographs have been affixed on the application for getting the licence into his name. But the contention of the petitioners that it was not done with an intention to impersonate, is a matter for the concerned trial Court to thrash out during the course of trial. Looking to the material on record and the documents produced on both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the investigation material collected during investigation prima facie show the commission of alleged offences by the petitioners and at this stage, this Court cannot go into detail regarding each and every aspect of the matter to ascertain as to whether the documents produced are right or wrong. It is only for the trial Court, after the parties are put into test of cross-examination, to establish the same. Even endorsement is said to have been collected from the department regarding issuance of CL-2 licence, which prima facie show about the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners. When such - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7958 CRL.P No. 383 of 2024 material is available and when serious allegations of impersonation of respondent No.2-complainant is made by petitioner No.1 in collusion with the department as well as petitioner No.2, I am of the clear opinion that it is not a case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire charge sheet material and it cannot be said that the case of complainant is totally groundless, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. Further, the factual aspects of the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions and the facts and circumstances in the case on hand, are not exactly one and the same. Therefore, the said decisions will not come to the aid and assistance of the petitioners' counsel, at this stage, for quashing of the proceedings. 10. I do not see any merit in the petitions. Hence, both the petitions are hereby rejected." (Emphasis supplied) 10. While rejecting the petition, the Co-ordinate Bench clearly observes that even the photographs have been affixed on the application of getting the licence into his name, but the contention of the petitioners that it was not done with an intention to impersonate is a matter for the concerned Trial Court to thrash out during the course of trial. This judgment is said to have become final. If this judgment has become final, merely an issue before the Civil Court being answered in favour of the petitioners, would not clothe the petitioners with a right to prefer a second petition on the same cause of action. If it - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7958 CRL.P No. 383 of 2024 were to be a petition that was preferred at the stage of investigation, it would have been an altogether different circumstance. The petition was preferred challenging the very charge sheet that is now challenged in the subject petition. In that light, there is no warrant of interference in the case at hand. The only order that can be passed now is that the concerned Court, which is hearing C.C.No.25774/2015, shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings, which have now been pending on this trivial issue for over 12 years, within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, if not earlier, in accordance with law. 11. The observations made in the course of this order are only for the purpose of consideration of the present case. It will not influence or bind the Trial Court in the pending case. 12. The petition stands disposed accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5