- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5633 CRL.P No. 2094 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2094 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SMT. S. MALARVEZHI W/O. K. RAVIKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO.49, 9TH MAIN BANDAPPA GARDEN, MUTHYAL NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 054 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JITHENDRA M.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SANJAY NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001 2. G.V. RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE G.V. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.54/2, VIJAYA FARM, GEDDALAHALLI, RMV II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 094 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP. FOR R1 SRI. RAJESH A., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.177/2017 OF SANJANAGAR POLICE STATION, PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE IN THE COURT OF THE VIII Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5633 CRL.P No. 2094 of 2020 ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.120-B, 471, 465, 468, 420 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being accused No.2 (Crime No.177/2017 of Sanjay Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru) in CC.No.15599/2020 on the file of the learned VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her for the offences punishable under Sections 471, 465, 468, 420, 120(B), 204 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Heard Sri. Jithendra. M.S, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Asma Kouser, learned Addl.SPP for respondent No.1 and Sri. Rajesh. A, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2, initially the FIR was registered against accused Nos.1 and 6, but after investigation - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5633 CRL.P No. 2094 of 2020 the charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner - accused No.2 purchased site No.7/A measuring 854 Sq.ft situated at Geddalahalli Village, Bengaluru under the registered sale deed dated 27.07.2015. The entire sale construction amount of Rs.55,00,000/- along with stamp paper and the registration charges were paid by her. Now respondent No.2 contends that he is the grandson of Sri.Annayappa, who was the original owner of the property in question. There was a partition and as per the registered partition deed site No.7 measuring 783Sq.ft has fallen to his share and katha stands in his name. Inspite of that accused No.1 concocted the documents styled as GPA and managed to sell it in favour of accused No.2. Therefore, accused No.2 is in fact victim of the crime. 4. Learned counsel further submitted that sale deed dated 27.07.2015 is in respect of site No.7/A measuring 854 Sq.ft, but the claim of respondent No.2 is in respect of site No.7 measuring 783 Sq.ft. There is dispute regarding identification of the property. Under such circumstance no offence is made out against the present petitioner. As per the first information and even as per the final report the allegations are against accused - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5633 CRL.P No. 2094 of 2020 No.1. Under such circumstance, he prays for allowing the petition and quashing the criminal proceedings. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposing the petition submitted that even though respondent No.2 is the owner of the site No.7 as per the registered partition deed and being legal representative of Sri. Annayapa, accused No.1 managed to concoct the GPA and execute the sale deed dated 27.07.2015 in favour of accused No.2, who is none other than his daughter. Therefore, accused Nos.1 and 2 have colluded with one another and there was conspiracy to commit the offence. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that respondent No.2 had filed the suit in OS.No.1022/2021 in respect of his site No.7 which is now projected as site No.7/A, seeking declaration of his title and for permanent injunction. The petitioner herein is defendant No.2 in the said suit and suit is already decreed as per the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2024. All these facts and circumstances disclose that the petitioner is a party in commission of the offences along with accused No.1. There are - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5633 CRL.P No. 2094 of 2020 strong prima facie materials to constitute the above mentioned offences and therefore, he prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 8. It is alleged that one Sri. Annayappa the grandfather of respondent No.2 is said to have executed the GPA dated 24.10.1980 in favour of accused No.1. On the basis of the said GPA deed accused No.1 is said to have sold the property in question in favour of his own daughter accused No.2 under the registered sale deed 27.07.2015. It is stated that Sri. Annayappa had died on 07.06.1987. Even if it is to be accepted Sri. Annayappa, had infact executed the GPA deed dated 24.10.1980, it ceases to have any effect immediately - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5633 CRL.P No. 2094 of 2020 after his death on 07.06.1987. Under such circumstances, the sale deed dated 27.07.2015 could not have been executed. 9. It is the contention of the respondents that the original GPA was not produced by the accused. Accused No.1 is said to be absconding, his where-about could not be traced inspite of issuance of NBW with proclamation. 10. It is stated that, the petitioner being daughter of accused No.1 paid consideration of Rs.55,00,000/- for getting sale deed in her favour. strangely this amount of Rs.55,00,000/- is said to have been paid during 2015 was in cash. 11. It is relevant to refer to the suit OS.No.1022/2021 filed by respondent No.2 against accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking declaration of his title over the very same property. It is stated that the said suit came to be decreed on 24.06.2024. Strangely both the accused including the petitioner herein remained ex- parte and they never contested the suit. It is stated that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court has reached finality, as even the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said judgment and decree till date. Considering all these facts - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5633 CRL.P No. 2094 of 2020 and circumstances, I find strong prima facie case against the petitioner and accused No.1 for having committed the offences as alleged. When there are prima facie materials to constitute the offences, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of main petition pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration. Hence, the same is disposed off. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3