- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12576 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI T.Y. UDAY KUMAR S/O YEDDIYURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, AADHAAR NO: 9991 6803 7023 2. SMT. ROOPA UDAY KUMAR, W/O T.Y. UDAY KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AADHAAR NO: 2615 8658 7957 BOTH RESIDING AT: HANUMANTHAPURA LINK ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGARA, TUMAKURU, KARNATAKA – 572 103. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SADANAND G. SHASTRI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THILAK PARK POLICE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, BY LEARNED SPP, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001 Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 2. SRI G.N. NAGARAJ., S/O LATE G.P. NATARAJ, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT GANDHINAGARA EXTENSION, TUMAKURU – 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.DEEPTHI ALVA, HCGP FOR R-1; SMT. POONAM PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 528 OF BNNS PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.R NO.216/2019 NOW CONVERTED TO C.C.NO.5564/2023 FILED U/S 191, 192, 193, 406, 420, 468, 471, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT TUMAKURU AT ANNEXURE K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 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.5564 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193, 406, 420, 468, 471, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 2. Heard Sri Sadanand G Shastri, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Smt Deepthi Alva, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt Poonam Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts adumbrated are as follows: The 1st petitioner along with one Lakshminarasimhamurthy allegedly enter into an agreement of sale with the second respondent/complainant on 03-05-2016. On a dispute that arose with regard to the agreement of sale that was entered into, civil suits are filed. Two civil suits are pending before the competent civil Court, this is an admitted fact. On the same set of facts, it appears that the complainant set the criminal law into motion by registering a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. on 25-04-2019 in PCR No.216 of 2019 alleging several offences, which came to be registered in Crime No.40 of 2019. The matter was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and the concerned jurisdictional police filed a ‘B’ report, against which protest petition was preferred by the complainant. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 concerned Court takes cognizance against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 191, 192, 193, 406, 420, 468, 471, 506 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Petitioners challenges the same before the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court sets aside the order of taking cognizance dated 07-11-2023 and the matter was remitted back to the concerned Court for hearing afresh. On the said remand, the concerned Court rejects the ‘B’ report and takes cognizance of the aforesaid offences in terms of the order impugned. Therefore, the petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are at the doors of this Court calling in question the said order of taking of cognizance. 4. The learned counsel Sri Sadanand G Shastry appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the issue that is purely civil in nature is projected to become a crime by the impugned private complaint so registered in the year 2019. The learned counsel would submit that on the first occasion ‘B’ report is accepted, however subsequently, on remand, the concerned Court, rejects the ‘B’ report and takes cognizance of the offences. He would submit that the concerned Court has erred in taking cognizance again. With reference to the alleged - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 forged signatures, the learned counsel submits that the FSL report by Truth Labs is not given any credence by the concerned Court. Insofar as the accused no. 2 is concerned, the learned counsel submits there is not even a whisper about any allegation against accused no.2 and therefore proceedings against accused no. 2 also must be quashed. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent Smt Poonam Patil submits that it is a clear case of forgery by accused no.1/petitioner no.1 and Accused Nos.3 to 7. Insofar as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the 2nd petitioner, the wife of the accused no. 1, threatened the complainant to withdraw the suit and therefore the said allegation is also necessary to be tried. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts lie in a narrow compass. What drives the petitioners to this Court is the order passed by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 concerned Court taking cognizance of the offences. The first of the orders passed on rejecting the B report was tossed before the Revisional Court and the Revisional Court had remitted the matter back for a fresh consideration directing the concerned Court to follow the dictum of the co-ordinate bench in the case of DR. RAVI KUMAR v. SMT.K.M.C.VASANTHA AND ANOTHER reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725 and pass necessary orders. The second order of taking cognizance by the concerned Court reads as follows: “…. …. …. :REASONS: 8. POINT No.1:- It is the specific case of the complainant is that, the complainant states that he was born in an economically affluent family, which was into the business of running rice mill and they had high reputation in society and financial sectors, and they were known for prompt payment of taxes and maintenance of accurate records, and they established milestones in trading activities. After the demise of this father in 2014 the complainant intended to diversify his business and got interested in procurement and development of land, and with such intent was in search of suitable lands to suit his financial capacity and business funds allocation. At that juncture the complainant met the first accused through common contacts, who was into real estate development and land brokering business. The complainant further stated that, the first accused introduced the accused No.3, 5 to 7 claiming that they are his close associates and that the 3rd accused is a deed writer and expert in documentation and assured that they would get good lands for development against the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 complainant paying them professional brokerage which was also agreed by the complainant. The accused introduced on Dhan Singh and his family members who owned 1 acre 2 guntas land in Sy. No 11/2/F1, A2 of Belagumba Village and accordingly. The land transaction was finalized and terms were reduced into registered agreement for sale. As per the terms of the said agreement the sale price was exclusively parted by the complainant. The above accused got introduced one Mohan Singh and his family members who owned another extent of 1 acre 2 guntas land in same survey number and registered agreement for sale was entered into with them. Both the above registered agreements for sale were entered into on 29-04-2015 and the advance sale consideration amount was paid by complainant alone. The complainant further submits that, accused No.1, 3, 5 to 6 did not have any personal interest in the entire transaction between the complainant and his vendors and they only facilitated the entire process of the transaction against receipt of professional brokerage charges. The accused No.1, 3, 5 to 7 performed their role as brokers effectively and the entire transaction was culminated by executing registered sale deed by the both the families of Dhan sing and Mohan sing joining together on 02-05-2016 and the entire sale consideration amount was paid by the complainant. The complainant further submits that, thereafter complainant approached jurisdictional development authority for the purpose of forming residential layout by submitting all requisite fees and development charges and obtained sanction plan and also carried out physical development activities in the properties. The entire act of development was exclusively done by the complainant with the assistance of engineers and experts. The complainant further submits that, the real estate proficiency on the part of the accused No.1, 3, 5 to 7 inclined the complainant to deal with them for other projects even though there were certain differences of at the time of settlement of their brokerage fees on the date of registration of the sale deed with In the process the accused respect of Belagumba property. In the process the accused produced documents in which they were - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 involved in real estate development and they requested the complainant to support them financially or take over the entire project. Due to the rapport that developed between the complainant and the accused No.1, 3, 5 to 7 the complainant was inclined to render financial assistance to their project and the accused requested the complainant to pay an amount of Rs. 1.44 crore which he paid to the said accused The complainant further submits that, the accused realised the above amount, which was tendered by this complainant as financial support with an intention of joining with them for the purpose of real estate development with respect to the properties at Honnenahalli which were subjected to agreement by the owners in favour of the accused No.1, 3 and 6. During the second week of August 2017 there arose some differences of opinion regarding the project at Honnenahalli and the accused started avoiding the complainant for the reasons best known to them and when questioned they expressed that they are unable to accomplish the project and that they are desirous of withdrawing from the said project. The complainant further submits that, at that juncture the complainant sought for settlement of his accounts but the same was refused by the accused under the pretext that they would return the amount received from the complainant only after their the realising funds from their other projects. Upon resistance for such proposal by the complainant the accused developed ill-will and inimical attitude towards the complainant. Further, the complainant stated that the accused who are into full-fledged real estate business, knowing in and out of the modalities of the business, indulged in cooking up a document under the name and style agreement for sale dated 03-05-2016 and forged the signature of the complainant and used the same as a genuine document and filed suit in O.S. 477/2017 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) and CJM, Tumakuru. Upon receipt to notice and summons from the Hon'ble Court in O.S. 477/2017 for the first time the complainant came to know about the illegal acts on the part of the accused. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 The complainant further submits that, the complainant immediately, through his counsel, obtained certified copy of the purported agreement for sale dated 03-05-2016 and was shocked to know that the accused in connivance with each other with a common intention of cheating the complainant and also to wither away from their legal liability to the tune of Rs. 1.44 Crore have stopped to the extent of creating document and forging the signatures of the complainant and further have used the same as genuine before the Hon'ble Court. To the bare eyes itself the fabrication and forgery on the part of the accused is apparent. The complainant states that he approached jurisdictional police to lodge a complaint at different intervals. However, they postponed the same on the pretext that the matter was before the Civil Court of Law. Merely because the accused have abused the due process of law and also filed false suit before the Civil Court by using the created and forged document as genuine document, they are not absolved from criminal prosecution. Upon realising this aspect, the complainant is before this Hon'ble Court by way of this complaint. Further the complainant states that the accused have formed a cartel to cheat innocent persons such as the complainant and he has also learnt from reliable sources that the accused No.1, 3, 5 to 7 are court birds and know the intricacies of law, and that they create facts and circumstances to suit their convenience and precipitate the matter before the Courts of law. In this case, the accused No.2 and 4 who are none other than the wives of the accused No. 1 and 3 respectively have joined hands with the other accused in order to make unlawful enrichment and get rid of their liability to return the amounts received by them from the complainant by falsely representing that the complainant would be part of their real estate development in Honnenahalli project. The complainant further submits that, as such all the accused with a common intention of cheating the complainant and also to pressurize him from claiming the amounts received by the accused from him, have - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 indulged in the acts of fraudulent concoction, creation, fabrication, forgery, impersonification and also using the said purported document for the purpose of committed illegal acts punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code. The complainant produce Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P.37 documents before this Court. The complainant submits that the Thilak Police Station refuse to lodge the complainant against the accused persons U/Sec. 191, 192, 193, 406, 420, 468, 471 and 506 R/W 34 of IPC. Hence complainant approached this Court. 9. On due perusal of the entire available material on record. It appears to the court that there is a allegation against the accused persons. The allegation made by the complainant against the accused that, accused persons created the document to make unlawful enrichment and get rid of their liability to return the amount received by the complainant. Further the complainant alleged that, accused persons with a common intention of cheating have indulged in creation and fabrication of document for the purpose of committing illegal act. 10. The complainant in support of his stand produced Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-37 documents. Ex.P-5 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No.477/2017, Ex.P-6 is the certified copy of registered sale agreement, Ex.P-8 is the certified copy of the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble court in O.S No.477/2017. The complainant submits that, the accused are doing real estate business and they forged the sale agreement and also signature of the complainant in the sale agreement. The said facts came to the knowledge of the complainant after he received the notice from the court. So considering the averments made by the complainant and the allegations against the accused to be proved after full-fledged trial. Hence, considering the above made discussion and on perusal of the complaint and documents produced by the complainant, this Court proceed to take cognizance for the offence punishable U/Sec. 191, 192, 193, 406, 420, 468, 471, 506 R/W 34 of IPC against the accused persons. Hence, the above point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 11 POINT No.2: In the result, for the foregoing reasons and Findings on Point No.1, this court proceed to pass the following; :ORDER: Acting U/Sec. 204 of Cr.P.C. cognizance against the alleged offence is taken and Office is hereby directed to register the case against the accused No.1 to 7 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 191, 192, 193, 406, 420, 468, 471, 506 R/W 34 of IPC.” The concerned Court has now taken cognizance under Section 204 of Cr.P.C., and issued summons to accused nos.1 to 7. 8. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of rejection of ‘B’ report and taking of cognizance does not bear any application of mind is noted only to be rejected, as the order is in great detail and reasons out as to why the ‘B’ report is rejected and the order of cognizance is taken. That would be insofar as petitioner no. 1 is concerned. Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the 2nd petitioner is no way involved in any transaction with the complainant. She was neither the signatory nor a party to the agreement to sell with the complainant. This - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 is an admitted fact. Without there being any rhyme or reason, the 2nd petitioner is drawn into the web of proceedings, only on a plea of the complainant that she along with the other accused came to the house of the complainant and threatened the complainant to withdraw the suit. It is submitted that the complaint itself suffers from inherent improbability insofar as threatening is concerned by the wife of accused no. 1, the 2nd petitioner. 9. Therefore finding no warrant to permit continuance of the trial qua 2nd petitioner/accused no. 2, the wife of accused no. 1, I deem it appropriate to obliterate the proceedings qua accused no. 2 only. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part. (ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.5564 of 2023 pending before the III Additional Civil Judge & JMFC, - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:34050 CRL.P No. 12576 of 2024 Tumkur, insofar as accused no. 1/petitioner No.1 is concerned stands sustained and insofar as accused no. 2/petitioner No.2 is concerned stands obliterated. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 67