- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28669 CRL.P No. 4449 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. 4449 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. SHANKARAGOUDA SANGANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: MANAGING DIRECTOR OF SIDDH SIRI SOUHARD PATTIN-SAHAKARI NIYAMIT, BIJAPUR, REG. OFFICE: SRI SIDDESHWAR TEMPLE-COMPLEX, BIJAPUR, BIJAPUR/VIJAYAPURA. 2. SHIVANGOUDA BHIMANGOUDA PATIL, TRANSFEREE / PURCHASER OF SHARES OF M/S. DHYANAYOGI SRI. SHIVKUMAR-SWAMIJI SUGARS LTD, HIREBEVANUR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC:CLASS I, CONTRACTOR, R/O: VENKATESHWAR VILLA, 1 GALII BADI KAMAN ROAD, BIJAPUR/VIJAAPURA. 3. VILAS G SHINDHE, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O: AGARKHED, TALUKA INDI, DISTRICT BIJAPUR, BIJAPUR/VIJAYAPURA. 4. MAHADEVAYYA VEERAYYA GACHCHINAMATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: CLASS-1 CONTRACTOR AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28669 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2026 M/S. DHYANAYOGI SRI. SHIVAKUMAR-SWAMIJI SUGARS LTD, HIREBEVANUR,, INDI TALUK, R/O:PLOT. 155, VIVEKANAGAR, BIJAPUR/ VIJAYAPURA, OPP:JAI SANTHOSHIMA TEMPLE, JALANAGAR, BIJAPUR. 5. THE CHAIRMAN, M/S. DHYANAYOGI SRI SHIVAKUMAR-SWAMIJI SUGARS LTD, HIREBEVANUR, REGD. OFFICE AT BANASHANKARI COMPLEX, AKKAMAHADEVI ROAD, BIJAPUR REPRESENTED BY SRI APPASAHEB-MALLAPPA PATTANSHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: MLA, BIJAPUR CITY PLUS-CHAIRMAN OF ABOVE SAID COMPANY, R/O "SHASTRI NAGAR", OPP:IBRAHIM ROZA, BIJAPUR/ VIJAYAPURA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINATH KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. KASTURIBAI (NOW DECEASED), W/O. BHIMAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ALOOR, INDI TALUK, BIJAPUR/VIJAYAPURA DISTRICT. 2. BALASAHEB S PATIL (NEPHEW), S/O. SANGANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. HIRE BEVANUR, INDI TALUK, BIJAPUR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (R-1 DECEASED AS PER CAUSE TITLE; R-2 SERVED) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28669 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2026 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO A) TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED: 24.06.2025 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (SPECIAL COURT FOR MP’s/ MLA’s) IN CRIMINAL REVISION ON CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.173/2025; B) TO DIRECT THE LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (SPECIAL COURT FOR MP’s/ MLA’s) TO PERMIT THE PETITIONER’S TO FURTHER PROSECUTE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.173/2025 ON MERITS OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2, 3 4 and 6 are before the Court calling in question an order of the Revisional Court dated 24.06.2025 by which the Criminal Revision Petition comes to be closed on the score that the petitioners did not bring legal representatives of the complainant on record. 2. Heard Sri.Srinath Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and have perused the material on record. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28669 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2026 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: 3.1. A private complaint comes to be filed in the year 2012 by the complainant who is now deceased, for offences punishable under Sections 109, 114, 120B, 149, 205, 207, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 489(c) of Indian Penal Code. 3.2. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners herein seek their discharge under Section 245(1) of the Cr.P.C. The concerned Court rejects the said application filed under Section 245(1) on the score that the matters were required to be tried. The reasons so rendered reads as follows: "4. Upon hearing both side and perusal of the records, it appears that the specific allegation against the accused in this case is that, the accused No.1 to 6 in collusion with each other created forged share transfer from in the name of complainant & by misrepresenting the complainant transferred the shares of complainant in the accused No.6 Bank under the share certificate at Ex.P1, as if the same is the original share transfer form to the accused No.2. It is the specific case of the complainant that, she was the share Holder of accused No.6 company having purchased about 5000 shares of Rs.100/- each on 20/01/2007 as per the share certificate Ex.P1. Further, said share certificate was pledged with the accused No.1 Bank. Though the original said share certificate was with the accused No.1 Bank, the accused No.1 to 4 in collusion with each other transferred said share certificate to accused No.2 by creating a forged share transfer form as per Ex.P4, wherein the Thumb impression of the complainant was forged and she was - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28669 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2026 misrepresented in the said process. In the alleged transfer the accused No.3 was there and signed as a witness. The accused No.4 also approved the same as the Managing Director of said Company. More so, the accused No.5 in collusion with the accused No.1 to 4 has attested said created share transfer form. Thus, the accused No.1 to 4 have facilitated the alleged transfer of share certificate of the complainant to accused No.2. 5. In the course of her evidence U/Sec. 244 of Cr.P.C., the complainant / PW1 has clearly stated about the said facts and also produced the original share certificate of the complainant as per Ex.P1. She also produced the share transfer form as per Ex.P4 alleged to have been submitted by the accused No.1 to transfer the shares to accused No.2. Further, she also produced the endorsement as to pledging of said share certificate of the complainant with the accused No.1 Bank as on 18/05/2009 as per Ex.P3 and also the statement of said accused No.1 Bank showing alleged pledge of share of complainant. On considering the contents of all the said documents and the oral testimony of PW1, it appears that there is such transfer of shares certificate under Ex.P4, which also reflects that the same was signed by the accused No.2 as transferor and the LTM of complainant the transferee. But, the complainant has categorically denied and disputed said LTM. Similarly, the accused No.3 has signed as the witness to said share transfer form and the same is shown to have been attested by accused No.5. Further, the endorsement given by accused No.1 Bank at Ex.P3 shows that as on 18/05/2009 several shares of accused No.6 company including the shares of the complainant were pledged with them. But, the transfer form at Ex.P4 shows that said transfer was done during October 2010 itself. This would create doubt as to the genuineness of said Share transfer form Ex.P4 and the transfer of shares under it. As the accused did not chose to cross examine PW1 at the stage of 244 of Cr.P.C., there appear no grounds to disbelieve or discredit those documents and their contents till they have been subjected to test of cross-examination. As provided U/Sec. 245 (1) of Cr.P.C., only if the complainant by evidence produced U/Sec. 244 of Cr.P.C., would not make out such a case against the accused, which if unrebutted would warrant - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28669 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2026 conviction of the accused, the court discharge the accused. Therefore, at this stage it is the evidence led by the complainant U/Sec. 244 of Cr.P.C., has to be scrutinized as to whether it is so substantive that if it remains unrebutted in the course of cross-examination or defence evidence, this court can base conviction of the accused only on such evidence. As already discussed herein above, the documentary evidences produced by the complainant at Ex.P1 to 4 without the test of cross- examination appear to be so substantive that this court could base conviction of the accused on the said documents, if they remain unrebutted. Therefore, it can be concluded that the evidence led by the complainant U/Sec. 244 of Cr.P.C., would make out such a case, which if unrebutted would warrant conviction of the accused. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the following: O R D E R No grounds are made out for discharge of accused U/sec. 245(1) of Cr.P.C., For charge. Call on: 15/02/2025." 4. The accused then preferred a Criminal Revision Petition in Crl.R.P.No.173/2025 before the Court of Session against the said order. During the pendency of the said Criminal Revision Petition, the complainant dies. The petitioners were granted opportunity to bring the legal representatives of the complainant on record owing to the death and no steps were taken. Therefore, the Criminal Revision Petition comes to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28669 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2026 be rejected on 24.06.2025. It is this order that is called in question. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that dismissal of the Criminal Revision Petition would cause grave prejudice to the petitioners, particularly or solely on the fact that the legal representatives of the complainant were not made parties. Learned counsel would submit that an opportunity be given to do the needful before the concerned Court. 6. I have perused the order sheet appended to the petition. There is gross negligence on the part of these petitioners in not bringing the legal representatives of the complainant on record but would not mean that the Criminal Revision Petition should be rejected without answering it on merits on the said ground. 7. I, therefore, deem it appropriate to grant the petitioners one opportunity with imposition of certain costs to do the needful. In that light, the order passed in the Criminal Revision Petition is set aside, the Criminal Revision Petition is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28669 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2026 restored to file. The matter be listed before the Revisional Court on 14.07.2026. The petitioners be given four weeks time from the date of the said listing. In the event, petitioners would again falter in not doing the needful, it would be open to the concerned Court to pass necessary orders, in accordance with law. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R [I] Criminal Petition is allowed. [II] Order dated 24.06.2025 passed by the Court of LXXXI Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (Special Court for MP's/MLA's) in Criminal Revision on Criminal Revision Petition No.173/2025, is set-aside. [III] Criminal Revision Petition No.173/2025 is restored to file with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited by these petitioners to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Bengaluru. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28669 CRL.P No. 4449 of 2026 [IV] The concerned Court shall regulate its procedure bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 29