- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26033 CRL.P No. 1336 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9501 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1336 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 9501 OF 2023 (GM-RES) IN CRL.P No. 1336/2024 BETWEEN: DR. REVANASIDDESHWARA M. KUNTIMATH S/O SRI. K.M. MAHANTHASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 51/102, 1ST FLOOR DODDABETTAHALLI LAYOUT, DODDABETTAHALLI, BENGALURU NORTH POST: VIDHYARANYAPURA, DISTICT: BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANKITA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY HALASURU GATE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 560 001. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26033 CRL.P No. 1336 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9501 of 2023 2. SMT. SHYLAJA W/O DR. REVANASIDDESHWARA M. KUNTIMATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.C-22, 3RD MAIN, 6TH CROSS GOVERNMENT QUARTERS,JAYAMAHAL BENGALURU - 560 006, KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. GANGADHAR GURUMATH R.S, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. J.M. UMESHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.340/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 217, 197, 198, 200, 205, 149, 420, 471, 416, 463 OF IPC REGISTERED BY HALASURU GATE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.C.M.M., NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU. IN WP NO. 9501/2023 BETWEEN: SRI. K.M. REVANASIDDESHWARA S/O SRI. K.M. MAHANTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, LECTURER IN ECONOMICS, GOVERNMENT ARTS COLLEGE, OPP. BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, CENTRAL COLLEGE CAMPUS BENGALURU - 560 001. ...PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANKITA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R. KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. K.M. SHAILAJA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26033 CRL.P No. 1336 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9501 of 2023 W/O SRI. K.M. REVANASIDDESHWARA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT NO.87/A, 1ST FLOOR, 5TH CROSS, VASANTHNAGAR BENGALURU - 560 052. 2. SRI. H.M. KOTRAIAH S/O NOT KNOWN AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 3. SMT. AMBUJA W/O H.M. KOTRAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 4. SMT. H.M. NAGALINGAMMA @ NAGARATHNA D/O H.M. KOTRAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT KOTTUR ROAD MEGALAPET, HARAPANAHALLI DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 001. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GANGADHAR GURUMATH R.S, SR. ADVOCATE A/W SRI. J.M. UMESHA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1; NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 DISPENSED WITH, VIDE ORDER DATED 06.07.2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 22/06/2010 IN CRL. MISC. NO. 1915/2009 ON THE FILE OF IV MMTC MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E AND ETC., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26033 CRL.P No. 1336 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9501 of 2023 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER IN CRL.P.No.1336/2024 The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in crime No.340/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 217, 197, 198, 200, 205, 149, 420, 471, 416, 463 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short). 2. Heard Smt. Ankita Patil, learned counsel for Sri. R. Kothwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Gangadhar Gurumath R.S., learned Senior counsel for Sri. J.M. Umesha Murthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner is the husband, the second respondent is the wife. Proceedings between the two galore. The wife was before the co-ordinate Bench in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26033 CRL.P No. 1336 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9501 of 2023 WP.No.12137/2021 disposed on 25.09.2023. The co-ordinate Bench disposed the said writ petition by the following order: "Though this matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned Advocates on both sides, it is taken up for final disposal. 2. Heard Shri Gangadhar R.Gurumath, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA for respondent No.3. 3. Shri Gurumath submitted that petitioner has initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against her husband and others in Crl.Misc No.1915/2009 and Crl.Misc.No.1055/2014 (new No.187/2014). According to her, signatures of accused namely, Kotraiah, Ambuja, H.M.Nagalingamma @ Nagaratna, K.M.Mahantaswamy and K.M.Veerendra have been forged by petitioner’s husband in the vakalathnama filed before the Court of II Addl. CMM, Bangalore, in C.Misc.No.1915/2009, as per Annexure-B. The correct signature of Shri K.M.Veerendra Kumar is as found in the vakalathnama filed by him in Crime No.268/2009 on the file of VIII Additional CMM, Bangalore, as per Annexure-A. He contended that perusal of Annexures A & B clearly demonstrates that signature of Veerendra Kumar contained in Annexure-B is not genuine. 4. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that petitioner has filed a complaint before the Registrar, Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore (Annexure-C) seeking a direction to the police to register a complaint. The office of the CMM Court, Bangalore, has replied1 directing the petitioner to approach the concerned court. Thereafter, on the same day, petitioner approached the Registrar of City Civil Court. The Registrar of City Civil Court has also replied stating that it is not the forum to refer petitioner’s grievance to the police. On 30.08.2019, petitioner has submitted a complaint to the jurisdictional police as per Annexure-G. The police have issued an endorsement on the same day, stating that in view of Section 195(b)(i)(ii)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26033 CRL.P No. 1336 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9501 of 2023 petitioner may seek redressal before the court. He urged that there is no embargo for the police to register the complaint and investigate into the matter. Therefore, the endorsement issued by police is unsustainable in law. 5. In support of his contention, Shri Gurumath has placed reliance on M.Narayandas Vs. State of Karnataka and others. 6. Learned AGA, in his usual fairness, submitted that law is settled by the said authority. 7. I have carefully considered rival submissions and perused records. 8. In the case of Narayandas, the Apex Court has held as follows; “8. ………..Not only are we found by this judgment but we are also in complete agreement with the same. Sections 195 and 340 do not control or circumscribe the power of the police to investigate, under the Criminal Procedure Code. Once investigation is completed then the embargo in Section 195 would come into play and the Court would not be competent to take cognizance. However that Court could then file a complaint for the offence on the basis of the FIR and the material collected during investigation provided the procedure laid down in Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code is followed. Thus, no right of the Respondents, much less the right to file an appeal under Section 341, is affected.” 9. Thus, there is no impediment for the police to register an FIR and conduct an investigation. 10. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, endorsement as per Annexure-J is unsustainable. Hence, the following: ORDER i) Writ petition is allowed; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26033 CRL.P No. 1336 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9501 of 2023 ii) The endorsement dated 30.08.2019 as per Annexure-J is quashed; iii) Third respondent shall register an FIR and take up the investigation in accordance with law. No costs." The co-ordinate Bench unequivocally directed the crime to be registered against the petitioner for having allegedly secured the signatures of several persons, which were allegedly forged. 4. Pursuant to the said direction by the co-ordinate Bench, the impugned complaint comes to be registered which becomes a crime in crime No.340/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 217, 197, 198, 200, 205, 149, 420, 471, 416, 463 of the IPC. The said order of the co-ordinate Bench has become final. In the light of the attaining of the finality of the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench, interference in the crime so registered would not be an available remedy to the hands of petitioner. Notwithstanding the same, there is an interim order of stay operating in the case at hand. Therefore, the petitioner will have to come out clean in the investigation as directed by the co-ordinate Bench. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26033 CRL.P No. 1336 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9501 of 2023 Therefore, permitting further investigation, the subject petition stands disposed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of this Court in the event the final report is filed and the final report would go against the petitioner. IN WP NO. 9501/2023 The companion petition is again between the same parties. What is under challenge in the subject petition is the order dated 22.06.2010 passed in Crl.Misc.No.1915/2009. It transpires that the very same order was called in question in Crl.RP.No.248/2023 and the co-ordinate Bench has now disposed the petition in terms of its order dated 30.04.2026 by the following order: "Heard Smt. Ankitha Patil, for Sri. R. Kothwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Bhavana S. Rao for Smt. Sadhana S. Desai, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Petitioner is the husband, who suffered an order in Crl.Misc.No.1915/2009, which was confirmed in Criminal Appeal No.574/2010 under the provision of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. 3. Operative portion of the order of the trial Magistrate reads as under: "ORDER 1. The respondent 1 is hereby directed to provide residence to the petitioner in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26033 CRL.P No. 1336 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9501 of 2023 Government Quarters No.87A, 5th Cross, Vasanthnagar. Bangalore. If the respondent renounces his rights in the said quarters in favour of the alternative Government, he is liable to provide an accommodation. to the petitioner with the same status of residence. 2. The respondent-1 is hereby directed to settle the home loan to the extent of is liable for which the petitioner shall not to concerned be made authority liable and the is o recover the amount from the respondent-1. 3. If the respondent-1 resigned from the job, then all the benefits which accrued to shall be given to the petitioner. 4. The respondents-2 to 6 are hereby directed not to aid or abate the Commissioner of the Domestic Violence by the respondent-1. 5. Issue free copy of this orders to the petitioner as well as to the respondent. 6. The office is directed to send a free copy of this order to the Jurisdiction police i.e., Highgrounds P.S. 7. The office is further directed to issue copy of this order to the Principal, Government Arts College, Central College Campus, Bangalore- 1. 8. Further office is directed to send copy of order to Creditor the petitioner and the respondent-1." 4. Operative portion of the order of the Appellate Court reads as under: "ORDER The appeal filed by the appellant u/sec. 29 of Prevention of Women from - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26033 CRL.P No. 1336 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9501 of 2023 Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is hereby partly allowed. The order passed by the VIII ACMM, Bengaluru in Crl.Misc. No.1915/2009 dated 19.6.2010 is herby partly set aside in respect of relief No.3 only i.e. "If the respondent -1 resigned from the job, then all the benefits which accrued to shall be given to the petitioner." The rest of the reliefs granted by the lower court are herby confirmed. Parties shall bear their costs send the lower court records along with copy of this order to the lower court." 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that there was no fair opportunity granted to the respondent for placing the defence evidence on record. Therefore, the petition needs to be allowed and the matter is to be remitted back to the Trial Magistrate for placing the defence evidence. 6. Said submissions are opposed by the counsel for respondent with vehemence. 7. In the light of the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 8. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that not only fair opportunity but also sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner, who is the husband, to contest the case. But the petitioner has failed to utilize that opportunity. 9. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner that there was no fair opportunity granted to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits cannot be countenanced in law. It is settled principles of law that a litigant take advantage of his own wrong. 10. Having said so, in view of the modified order passed by the First Appellate Court, especially since the petitioner has retired from government service, the respondent/wife cannot occupy government quarters for - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26033 CRL.P No. 1336 of 2024 C/W WP No. 9501 of 2023 which the emoluments of the petitioner are said to have been withheld by the government. 11. Necessary steps are to be taken to evict the respondent/wife from the government quarters if she does not vacate on or before 20.05.2026 on her own. If she overstays, the damages that are payable by the petitioner for having overstayed on the premises on account of the respondent occupying the premises shall be recoverable by the respondent/wife. 12. Further, it is the duty of the petitioner to make alternate arrangements for the wife. Therefore, if the petitioner/husband does not obey the order, necessary execution proceedings shall be initiated by the respondent/wife in accordance with law. 13. With the above observation and direction, petition stands dismissed." In the light of the said challenge being already answered by the co-ordinate Bench in the said order, no further answer need be done in the case at hand. It would suffice if the order that is paraphrased hereinabove would become applicable to the case at hand, as well. 2. With the aforesaid observation, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14