- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28466 CRL.P No. 5963 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5963 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. K.R. RAJASHEKAR REDDY S/O SRI. RAMA REDDY @ RAMI REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SMT. S. BHAGYA RAJASHEKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O SRI. K.R. RAJASHEKAR REDDY, BOTH RESIDING AT NO.115, HNR LAYOUT, KAIKONDARAHALLI, SARAJPURA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 035. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHESH REDDY G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28466 CRL.P No. 5963 of 2026 BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE AT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. MANJULA W/O NANDISH GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 165/75, NALLURAHALLI ROAD, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, RAMAGONDANAHALLI POST VARTHUR HOBLI, WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560 066. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT THEREIN ARISING OUT OF FIR IN CR.NO.72/2021 REGISTERED BY WHITEFIELD P.S., AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 417, 420, 467, 468, 471, 34 OF IPC, 1860, PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE ACJM, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, AT ANNEXURE A AND B, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28466 CRL.P No. 5963 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners were before this Court in Crl.P.No.5970/2021, which comes to be allowed on the score that it was breach of an agreement. The complainant tosses the said order before the Apex Court. The Apex Court upturns the order passed by this Court, directing that an investigation in the least ought to have been permitted in the case at hand. The petitioners have again preferred the very same petition on a slightly twisted contention. The Apex Court has held as follows: Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The present appeal arises out of an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petition No.5970/2021 on 19.03.2024, in which the FIR filed by the appellant has been quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR is related to forgery of certain agreement for sale, on the basis of original deeds, which were given in good faith to the respondents no.2 and 3, who had misused the same and created various agreements for sale fraudulently. It was submitted that the parties had transaction with each other. It was also contended that only when a suit for specific performance was filed by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28466 CRL.P No. 5963 of 2026 respondents no.2 and 3 against the appellant for transfer of the property in question, then she came to know about the fraud committed and therefore lodged the FIR. It was contended that the High Court has relied on the terms in the agreement for sale, which reflects that Rs. 70,00,000/- (Rupees seventy lakhs) has been received by the appellant, which is totally false as the very document was forged and fabricated. It was further submitted that the agreement for sale has to be compulsorily registered, which was also not done indicating the intention to hide the fraud committed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are categorical findings in the order impugned, which indicate that the matter is purely civil in nature, as it basically relates to the dispute of property for which a civil suit was filed and the appellant had appeared in that matter. He submits that the conduct of the appellant itself would expose the falsity of the complaint inasmuch as, it was filed only when a civil suit was instituted by the private respondents for specific performance and in which an injunction order was passed. It was further contended that the appellant took no action to get the original title deeds, which are in the custody of the respondents no.2 and 3 for six years prior to lodging of the complaint. 6. Having considered the matter in its entirety, we find that the order impugned cannot be sustained. The High Court has totally misdirected itself by relying upon the averments made in the agreement for sale, which itself are disputed and the basis for a criminal case. Thus, a full-fledged inquiry was required and quashing of the FIR was not proper. 7. Thus, on a short point that the very basis of the order impugned, resulting in the quashing of the criminal complaint of the appellant being totally erroneous, we interfere in the order impugned. The same is set aside. The FIR is restored to its original file and number. The police is directed to proceed with the investigation expeditiously and also to conclude the same and submit a final report to the Court concerned under Section 193 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 at the earliest. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28466 CRL.P No. 5963 of 2026 8. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 9. The appeal stands allowed in the aforementioned terms." The Apex Court holds that a full-fledged enquiry ought to have been permitted to be conducted and the quashing of the FIR is not permitted. 2. Final report is yet to be filed. Therefore, investigation is yet to culminate in filing of the final report. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court as quoted supra, the petition would not become entertainable at this juncture. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed, reserving liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of this Court in the event, the final report being filed and the final report goes against the petitioners. 3. All contentions remain open. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14