- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1047 OF 2019 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. PRAKASH GANDHI S/O LATE SRI. ANRAJ GANDHI AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.202, 3RD FLOOR BRINDAVAN MANSION 100, BULL TEMPLE ROAD BENGALURU-560019 PRESENTLY RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.401, 4TH FLOOR, 'PARASMANI GOLD CREST APARTMENT' NO.16, 5TH MAIN, K.G. NAGAR GAVIPURAM, GUTTAHALLI BANGALORE-560019 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHYAP N. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. T.G. VEERAPRASAD S/O T.G. MALLIKARJUNASHETTY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.97, ROAD NO.13/A BANJARA HILLS HYDERABAD-500034 2. SRI. SAMANTHAPUDI SATYANARAYANA S/O MALLIKARJUNA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, GANAPAVARAM-522619 NADENLA MANDALAM, Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. SINCE DEAD, DELETED AS PER ORDER DATED 11.03.2026 3. SRI. K.C.H. AANJANEYULU S/O GURUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.9-195-4 MOSQUE STREET GANAPAVARAM-522619 NADENLAMANDALAM GUNTUR DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.B PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. NITHIN N PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 3; VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.2026, THE PETITION IS ABATED IN SO FAR AS RESPONDENT NO.2 (ACCUSED NO.2)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.11.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM RAMANAGAR IN C.C.NO.171/2010 DISCHARGING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED PERSONS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2018 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.10/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAMANAGARAM AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.11.2016 passed in C.C.No.171/2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Ramanagara discharging the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 460, 461, 465 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short). He has also called in question, the order dated 12.12.2018 passed in Crl.R.P.No.10/2017 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagara. 2. (i) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner claimed that he and his wife were the owners of 61 acres of land situate in several survey numbers in Karikkal Doddi, Hosur Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara taluk having purchased the same under 36 sale deeds during the years 1994-1995. (ii) The petitioner and respondent No.1 were known to each other since their college days. Respondent No.1 approached the petitioner in the year 1996 and sought his assistance to establish a pilot project in floriculture. The petitioner claimed that he permitted respondent No.1 to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 establish the pilot project in five hectares of land without expecting any consideration in return. (iii) The petitioner claimed that respondent No.1 thereafter induced him and his wife to do business in floriculture and obtained 19 sale deeds and 10 unregistered general powers of attorney from them under the pretext of obtaining loan from the National Horticulture Board at a reduced rate of interest. The petitioner claimed that he received a notice from the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in O.S.No.2549/1999 from which, he learnt that respondent No.1 had purportedly offered the properties of the petitioner and his wife as security. The petitioner thereafter cancelled the general powers of attorney on 30.10.2000 and issued two notices intimating respondent No.1 about the revocation and called upon him to return 19 sale deeds. Since respondent No.1 did not reply to the notices, the petitioner and his wife sent a telegram on 14.12.2000 informing him about the revocation of the general powers of attorney. Respondent No.1 purportedly sent a reply on 15.12.2000. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 (iv) The petitioner claims that when he went to pay the land revenue in the year 2008, he came to know from the revenue authorities that the lands were already transferred to the names of accused Nos.2 to 4. The petitioner thereafter went to the office of the Sub-registrar and obtained certified copies of the sale deeds executed by respondent No.1 in favour of accused Nos.2 to 4. (v) The petitioner contends that respondent No.1 had fraudulently got the revoked powers of attorney restored before the Notary Public on 31.01.2008 and used the said fraudulently restored powers of attorney to convey the properties in favour of accused Nos.2 to 4. (vi) The petitioner therefore filed PCR No.195/2008 alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 461, 462, 465 read with Section 120B of IPC. A 'B' report was filed which was challenged by the petitioner by filing a private complaint. Thereafter, the private complaint was dismissed which was challenged before the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.No.15/2012. The said revision petition was allowed by an order dated 16.11.2012. The said order was challenged by the respondents - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 in Crl.R.P.No.1162/2012, which was disposed off directing the Trial Court to follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 244 and 245 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application in C.C.No.171/2010 under Section 245 of Cr.P.C. The Trial Court allowed the application in terms of an order dated 09.11.2016 and discharged the respondents on the ground that the dispute raised by the petitioner had to be adjudicated by the Civil Court and since the petitioner had already filed a suit, he could work out his remedy before the Civil Court. (vii) Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed Crl.R.P.No.10/2017 before the District Court, which too was dismissed in terms of an order dated 12.12.2018. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. (i) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the powers of attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.1 were all revoked on 30.10.2000. He contends that the revocation of the powers of attorney was within the knowledge of respondent No.1, as he had issued a reply dated 15.12.2000 to the notice of revocation of powers of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 attorney. He further contends that despite having knowledge of such revocation, respondent No.1 colluded with the Notary Public and caused an endorsement to be made on the deed of revocation of the powers of attorney, on which the Notary Public affixed the seal "Execution readmitted before me on 31.01.2008." He contends that the petitioner did not appear before the Notary Public and therefore the question of readmitting the execution before the Notary Public did not arise. He further contends that the petitioner filed a private complaint against the Notary Public who appeared and filed a statement stating that he had not witnessed the readmission of the revoked powers of attorney. He therefore, contends that respondent No.1 committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 461, 462 and 465 read with Section 120B of IPC. (ii) He contends that the Trial Court instead of considering the case from this perspective has proceeded to discharge the respondents/accused on the ground that the petitioner had already filed a civil suit for setting aside the sale deeds executed by respondent No.1 in favour of accused Nos.2 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 to 4 and that the petitioner has to work out his remedy before the Civil Court. (iii) He contends that respondent No.1 had the mens rea, at the time of fraudulently resuscitating the revoked powers of attorney in the year 2008 and thereafter acting upon the same. He therefore contends that the offence of forgery punishable under Section 463 of IPC was clearly made out. (iv) He also contends that the Trial Court committed an error in considering the defence set up by the accused while considering an application for discharge. In this regard, he relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court: (i) State of Orissa Vs. Debendra Nath Padhi - 2005(1) SCC 568; (ii) Ajay Kumar Ghose Vs. State of Jharkhand - (2009) 14 SCC 115; (iii) Sunil Mehta Vs. State of Gujarat - 2013(9) SCC 209; (iv) G.Krishnaprakash Vs. State of Karnataka - in ILR 2008 KAR 3569. (v) He contends that the question before the Courts below was not whether the powers of attorney were valid, but whether the subsequently tampered powers of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 attorney were used with an intention of cheating the petitioner by misusing the powers of attorney that were revoked. He contends that neither the Trial Court nor the Revisional Court considered this question. He submits that affixing a fake seal of the Notary Public on a document is, by itself, a serious offence that is liable to be prosecuted before the Criminal Court. He further submits that merely because the allegations also give rise to a civil dispute, criminal prosecution is not barred, if the ingredients of a criminal offence are made out. In this regard, he relied upon the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court: 1. Kathayani Vs. Sidharth P.S.Reddy - 2025 INSC 818: 2. K.Jagadish Vs. Udaya Kumar G.S. - 2020 (14) SCC 552; 3. Kamaladevi Agarwal Vs. State of West Bengal - 2002(1) SCC 555: 4. Prathibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar - 1985(2) SCC 370. (vi) He contends that both the Courts failed to appreciate the settled legal position that at the stage of discharge, the prosecution is only required to establish a prima facie case. He submits that if, on the basis of the material - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 available on record, the Court is able to form an opinion that the accused might have committed an offence, it is bound to frame charge and the question whether the offence is proved beyond reasonable doubt arises only at the stage of conviction. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Vijayan Vs. State of Kerala - (2010) 2 SCC 398. (vii) He contends that the inadvertent non-examination of the Notary Public, whose seal appeared on the powers of attorney, is not fatal to the prosecution at the stage of discharge, as the prosecution would get an opportunity to lead further evidence after the framing of charges. He submits that an application was filed before the Trial Court to summon the Notary Public as a witness, but the said application was not considered before the impugned order was passed. He therefore contends that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court is palpably wrong and deserves to be interfered with. (viii) He further submits that the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 463 to 468 and 471 of IPC are made out, as respondent No.1 fraudulently resuscitated the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 powers of attorney and acted upon them without any authority in law. He also contends that the offences punishable under Sections 405, 406 and 420 of IPC are made out, as respondent No.1 attempted to use the said powers of attorney to create valuable security in the form of sale deeds in favour of accused Nos.2 to 4. He therefore prays that the impugned order passed by the Trial Court be set aside and the case be remitted to the Trial Court to proceed in accordance with law. (ix) He also contends that the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.445/2011 for declaration and for setting aside the sale deeds is decreed. 4. (i) Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the investigating officer considered the documents produced by respondent Nos.1 to 3 and was satisfied that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 3 arose out of certain transactions between the petitioner and respondent No.1 and therefore, no criminal offence was made out. He submits that the petitioner had executed a memorandum of understanding dated 17.04.1997 in favour of T.M.T India Limited and in terms - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 thereof, the petitioner being a shareholder of the company, had undertaken to acquire/cultivate the lands for and on behalf of the company for carrying on its business. He submits that for all practical purposes, the lands in question belonged to the company, though they were purchased in the name of petitioner and his wife. He further contends that in terms of another memorandum of understanding dated 17.04.1997, the wife of petitioner, who was a shareholder of the company, had also acknowledged that the lands purchased in her name were acquired entirely with funds made available by the company. (ii) He contends that the petitioner had addressed a letter to the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India agreeing to transfer 24.35¼ acres of land in favour of the company. He submits that these documents were placed before the investigating officer, who after considering the same filed the 'B' report. He therefore contends that these documents formed part of the investigation and were not extraneous to it. Consequently, while considering the application for discharge, the Trial Court was justified in relying upon the said documents. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 (iii) He further contends that since the petitioner had already instituted a civil suit, he may work out his remedy therein. As regards the allegation that respondent No.1 had fraudulently revived the revoked General Power of Attorney by colluding with the Notary Public, he contends that no material in support of the said allegation was placed before the Trial Court. He further contends that the private complaint was not based on the allegation that the respondent No.1 had fraudulently revived the general power of attorney, but only on the allegation that respondent No.1 had executed conveyances on the strength of the said general powers of attorney. He therefore, contends that the assertions now made by the petitioner in the present criminal petition constitute a new set of allegations, which neither the Trial Court nor the Revisional Court had any occasion to consider. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 6. The petitioner has admitted the execution of the powers of attorney and handing over of sale deeds to the respondent No.1. The petitioner has pleaded that he has issued a notice terminating the powers of attorney on 30.10.2000 and the respondent No.1 had replied to the same on 15.12.2000. The reply of the respondent No.1 reads as follows: "We were surprised to note the contents of your telegram referred above. You have asked us to send back the GPA's and sale deeds of the company lands as if your are the owner of the same. We would like to remind you that you have purchased those lands with the funds provided by our company and executed GPA's in our favour. We would like to draw your kind attention towards the legal document signed on STAMP PAPER on 17.04.1997 which you have executed in our favour and undertakings given to us as well as to the financial institutions and legal bodies in this regard. the lands you have referred to in your telegram belongs to the company and you have no right at all to sell or mortgage or transfer or enter into any kind of agreement with any other party. Any of your such acts you take or intend to take are solely at your risk, cost and consequences. You will also be liable for both civil and/or criminal prosecution, if you have done or going to do any thing contrary to the documents you have executed in our favour." - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 7. It is therefore, evident that the respondent No.1 was informed about the termination of the powers of attorney. By virtue of Section 201 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the tenancy stood terminated. Though, the petitioner claims that he was induced by respondent No.1 to pool his properties for a proposed floriculture project, the petitioner had admitted the execution of powers of attorney and the consequent transactions. Therefore, no offence punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of IPC is made out. However, the petitioner specifically claims that after the powers of attorney were terminated, the respondent No.1 conspired with a Notary Public, who affixed a seal stating "execution readmitted before me" and on the strength of the said purportedly readmitted powers of attorney, respondent No.1 brought about transactions in favour of respondent No.2. 8. The petitioner has placed on record, a statement made by the Notary in PCR No.195/2008 where he stated that he had not authenticated the powers of attorney on 31.01.2008. Therefore, when respondent No.1 utilised the readmitted powers of attorney dated 31.01.2008 and brought - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 about the transactions, he is bound to explain the circumstances, under which he acted upon the said powers of attorney. As a matter of fact, respondent No.1 had a fair opportunity to explain his position in O.S.No.445/2011. However, respondent No.1 failed to participate in the said suit by adducing evidence and producing documents. The suit in O.S.No.445/2011 has now been decreed and the sale deeds executed by respondent No.1 in favour of the purchasers are set at nought. 9. Consequently, it was incumbent upon the Trial Court to have gone into this question. Contrarily, the Trial Court merely held that "it had not even adverted to this allegation". The Revisional Court after noticing that respondent No.1 had revived the powers of attorney by making an endorsement that its execution was readmitted on 31.01.2008, failed to record a finding as to whether such readmission of the powers of attorney amounted to an offence. 10. An offence under section 463 of IPC, is attracted when a part of a document is tampered to bring about valuable - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 security. Section 464 of IPC defines what is the meaning of making a false document which reads as follows: " 464. Making a false document. —A person is said to make a false document or false electronic record— First — Who dishonestly or fraudulently— (a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document; (b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record; (c) affixes any electronic signature on any electronic record;(d)makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or Secondly — Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly — Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration." 11. If this Court considers the conduct of respondent No.1 in reviving a revoked power of attorney, that too without the consent of the petitioner, it certainly would amount to making a false document with the intent of conferring title on a third party. Therefore, the Trial Court and the Revisional Court instead of considering the case from this perspective, relied upon the prior transactions between respondent No.1 and the petitioner to hold that the dispute between the parties was civil in nature. 12. In view of the above discussions, this criminal petition is allowed in part. The case is remitted before the Trial Court to reconsider whether the words 'execution - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29955 CRL.P No. 1047 of 2019 readmitted before me' on 31.01.2008 found in the powers of attorney dated 12.07.1997 and 06.01.1997 amounted to forgery as defined under Section 463 of IPC and if yes, the Trial Court shall proceed to try the respondent No.1 in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49