- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7717 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. PUTTATHAYAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS [PETITION IS ABATED AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 V/O DT.01.10.2026] 2. SMT. LEELAVATHI D/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 3. SRI KARTHIK S/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT NO.638 1ST CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD RANGHANATHPURA SYNDICATE BANK COLONY MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-79 4. SMT. DEEPIKA D/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.8 MANJUNATHA SERVICE STATION ROAD Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 DODDAGOLLARAHATTI MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560091 …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. THANUJA M V, ADVOCATE FOR P2, P2, P4; PETITION IS ABATED AGAINST P1 V/O DT.01.10.2026) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUMBALAGODU POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU 2. SMT. NAGARATNAMMA W/O LATE GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT BABASABHPALYA MYSORE ROAD KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560060 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI SHEIKH SAOUD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.81/2018 (PCR NO.181/18) ANNEXURE-C, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND A.C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 416, 418, 420, 463, 466, 468, 470, 471 OF IPC AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the proceedings against the petitioners in Cr.No.81/2018 (PCR No.181/2018) pending on the file of 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 418, 420, 463, 466, 468, 470, 471 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and so also learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State. 3. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution that based on the matter was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C in view of filing of the PCR No.181/2018, FIR was registered in Crime No.81/2018 wherein an allegation is made - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 that the property originally belongs to Smt. Venkata Laxmamma i.e., Sy.No.26/1 to the extent of 1 acre 34 guntas and Sy.No.23/1 to the extent of 1 acre 37 guntas and the same came to the mother-in-law of the complainant as per the gift deed. Both the Venkata Laxmamma and her husband Thimmaiah are passed away. The said Venkata Laxmamma and Thimmaiah had children viz., Gangamma, late Venkatesh, husband of the complainant –Govindappa and late Srinivas. This property came to the complainant and accused Nos.1 to 11 joined together and forged the signature of the complainant and obtained the amount from the BDA and thereby they have cheated the complainant. Hence, invoked the aforesaid offences against the petitioners. 4. The counsel appearing for the petitioners while praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against these petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 would contend that very registration of the FIR is bad in law. The counsel would contend that the very referring of the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C by the learned Magistrate is also bad in law since not followed the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 of Priyanka Srivastava and others vs State of UP reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. The counsel would contend that the Apex Court has specifically observed that there should be an affidavit along with supporting documents filed by the complainant narrating that he has exhausted the remedy under Section 154(3) and (4) of Cr.P.C. The counsel also would contend that while referring a private complaint to police for investigation, the Court should see that the complainant has filed an affidavit on both aspects that he has exhausted the remedy under the said provision and he has clearly spelt out the same in the affidavit with necessary documents. The same has not been done in the case on hand. Thus, the Magistrate has not applied his judicious mind while referring the matter to the police for investigation. 5. The counsel also contended that in a similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court also in Crl.P.No.3592/2017 in Tarun Varma and others vs State of Karnataka dated 13.12.2017 has quashed the order referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 6. The counsel also contend that recently, the Apex Court in the judgment of Om Prakash Ambadkar vs The State of Maharashtra and others in Crl.A.No.352/2020 dated 16.01.2025 also relied upon the earlier judgment of Priyanka Srivastava’s case and also the judgment of Babu Venkatesh vs The State of Karnataka reported in (2022) 5 SCC 639, wherein also Priyanka Srivastava’s case was also referred and discussed the changes introduced by Section 175(3) of BNSS to the existing scheme of Section 156(3), merely codify the procedural practices and safeguards which have been introduced by judicial decisions and the order passed by the Magistrate directing police investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C is also set aside. 7. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that there was a gift deed. Inspite of the gift deed in favour of the beneficiary, the persons who got the gift also no more and having the children and died intestate leaving behind the children. The complainant husband is also one of the son of original beneficiary of the gift who forged the signature of the complainant and taken the money from BDA. The - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 counsel would submit that when the cognizable offence was taken place, the matter was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and hence, the Trial Court not committed any error and the matter requires to be investigated. 8. The counsel appearing for State also would submit that based on the complaint, a reference was made under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and case was registered consequent upon referring the matter. 9. Having considered the order sheet dated 14.03.2018 of the Trial Court, it discloses that complainant is present and complaint is filed in open court and the same is registered as PCR. Having perused the contents of the complaint, the Trial Court observed that the learned counsel for the complainant has produced in all 6 documents and on perusal of all the documents filed by the complainant, the Trial Court passed the order of taking cognizance and directed the office to register PCR and acting under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C complaint is referred to the SHO, Kumbalagodu Police Station for investigation and directed to report on 16.07.2018. - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 10. Having considered the order passed by the Trial Court, question of taking of cognizance does not arise and Magistrate has committed an error in taking of cognizance since referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C is only a pre-cognizance order hence, question of taking of cognizance does not arise. If private complaint is filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, if proceed to record sworn statement, the same amounts to taking of cognizance. thus, the Magistrate has committed an error. 11. The other contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners that in support of the application, an affidavit is not filed as held in the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava referred supra. The counsel in support of the same also produced the said judgment and brought to notice of this Court the principles laid down in the judgment and so also the recent judgment of Om Prakash Ambadkar referred supra wherein also the Apex Court relied upon the judgment of Priyanka Srivastava case. 12. Having perused the paragraph No.5 of the complaint, it discloses that an averment is made that during - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 the pendency of the suit in O.S.No.720/2000 wherein declaration and permanent injunction was sought during the lifetime of the Venkatesh and suit was filed against accused Nos.6 to 9 and also against their father late Ramakrishnaiah and the copy of the said plaint also produced as Document No.1. It is stated that during the pendency of the above suit, the legal heirs of Venkata Laxmamma filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.6311-6344/2010 before the High Court of Karnataka praying to quash the order passed by the Land Tribunal dated 25.10.1979. During the pendency of the above Writ Petition, the above said lands were notified by the BDA for the formation of Kempegowda layout, such being the facts of the case, accused Nos.1 to 9 have colluded among themselves and filed a compromise petition before the High Court by impersonating the complainant and Smt. Gangamma, daughter of Venkata Laxmamma. The complainant and Smt. Gangamma were made parties to the alleged compromise petition and their signatures were forged by the accused for the purpose of unlawful gain. Infact, the complainant and Smt. Gangamma never appeared before the High Court as on the day of alleged compromise - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 petition filed by the accused on 31.07.2012. On the basis of the alleged compromise petition filed by the accused, before the High Court, an order has been passed and the copy of the compromise petition also produced as Document Nos.2 and 3. The specific allegations were made that all of them collusively obtained the said order and obtained a consent award dated 18.01.2012 and 31.05.2012 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer, BDA and the same are produced for kind perusal as Document Nos.4 and 5 which was produced along with the complaint. 13. Having perused this complaint, it discloses that nothing is stated in the complaint that before filing the private complaint, they have approached the police with regard to the accusation made in the complainant and there is no any compliance of Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C as observed by the Apex Court and so also under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C and there must be a said compliance even for referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. These aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and necessary documents to that effect have to be filed. But such - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 documents are also not filed for having approached the concerned authority and for compliance. Under such circumstances, the learned Magistrate has not applied his mind even while referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the very approach of the Magistrate is erroneous and no affidavit is filed. Hence, the petitioners have made out the grounds to quash the proceedings initiated against them in PCR No.181/2018 and Crime No.81/2018. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed The proceedings against the petitioners in Cr.No.81/2018 (PCR No.181/2018) pending on the file of 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 416, 418, 420, 463, 466, 468, 470, 471 of IPC is hereby quashed. However, liberty is given to the complainant to proceed against - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010476262019 NC: 2026:KHC:54769 CRL.P No. 7717 of 2019 the petitioners in accordance with law in view of the observations made by this court. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN