- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6076 CRL.P No. 1141 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1141 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O G.MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT HADRIPURA VILLAGE DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 561 204. …PETITIONER (BY SRI M.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DODDABELAVANGALA P. S., REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. V.VARALAKSHMI W/O VEGI ANANTHA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/AT NO.401, KIRALAMPUDI ARCADE, OPP. N.I.I.T ASILMETTA JUNCTION VISHAKAPATTANAM ANDHRA RADESH – 533 431. Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6076 CRL.P No. 1141 of 2023 3. CHANDRAMOULI S/O HONNAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT TALAGAWARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK – 561 203. 4. SRI SANTHOSHA T. C., S/O CHANDRAMOULI AGED AOBUT 28 YEARS R/AT TALAGAWARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK – 561 203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; MISS. MONICA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA BY DISMISSING PCR AND ACCEPTING THE ‘B’ FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DODDABELVANGALA POLICE STATION IN CR.NO.112/2019 REGISTERED ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER PASSED U/S 156(3) OF CRPC IN PCR.NO.266/2019, REJECT THE ‘B’ REPORT AND RESTORE THE PCR BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6076 CRL.P No. 1141 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 18.10.2022, passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura, whereby, accepts the ‘B’ report and closes the proceedings in PCR No.266/2019 and all further proceedings taken thereto. 2. Heard Sri M. Shashidhara, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Miss. Monica Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 3. The petitioner is the complainant, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are accused Nos.1 to 3. A transaction happens between the complainant and the accused of a sale of a particular property on 22.08.2019. The petitioner - complainant challenging the sale deed has approached the concerned civil Court in O.S.No.334/2019. The concerned Civil Court has by its judgment dated 30.09.2020 rejected the suit filed by the petitioner. The review petition is preferred in R.P.No.3/2021, before the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapur, which also comes - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6076 CRL.P No. 1141 of 2023 to be dismissed. Those records are also produced by the learned counsel for petitioner today. 4. In the interregnum, what the complainant would do is that, setting the criminal law into motion by filing a private complaint before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate directs for investigation into the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. and the police after investigation file a ‘B’ report before the concerned Court. The concerned Court holding that the issue was purely civil in nature and the civil suit is pending consideration, accepts the ‘B’ report and dismisses the complaint filed by the petitioner. The order reads as follows: “REASONS 7. Point No.1: The Complainant has alleged that in order to grab the property of the Complainant's family, the Accused persons have created the sale deed dt: 22- 08-2019 instead of mortgage deed. She has produced the certified copy of the sale deed dt:22-08-2019 and RTC extracts of land bearing Sy No.7/1, 30/2, 30/3, 30/4 and 30/6. 8. The Complainant has produced certified copy of the sale deed dt:22-08-2019 and after perusal of the same, it appears to this court that the complainant and her son sold the properties bearing Sy.No.30/2 measuring 28 guntas, 30/3 measuring 16.08 guntas, 30/4 measuring 22 guntas and 30/6 measuring 07 guntas in favour of accused No.1. As per RTC extracts the properties bearing - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6076 CRL.P No. 1141 of 2023 Sy No.7/1, 30/2, 30/3, 30/4 and 30/6 are standing in the name of complainant. 9. After considering the materials on record, at this stage it appears to this Court that the complainant has not disputed the receipt of consideration amount as per sale deed and also not disputed the signature in the sale deed. Further the complainant has not stated that before signing the deed of sale, there was no opportunity to know about the document or to be aware of it. Further it is also shows that the son of complainant has also put the signature to the sale deed. After considering the materials on record, it appears to this Court that the only allegation in the complaint is that the accused No.1 and 2 have created the sale deed instead of mortgage deed. But the complainant has not produced any document except sale deed to prove that there was a transaction between the complainant and accused No.1 only in relation to the mortgage of property. This can be hardly be said to be an allegation that would even prima facie satisfy the offence punishable under sections 415, 416, 420, 441, 463 of IPC. As per sections Section 415, 416, 420 and 463 of IPC deals with the offence punishable for criminal breach of trust, the ingredients of which is found under Section 415 and Section 420 of IPC deals with the offences punishable for cheating, ingredients of which are found in Section 415 of IPC. None of the ingredients that are depicted either in 415 of IPC or in 420 of IPC can even be found to be present in the complaint. The complainant has sold her property to accused No.1 through registered sale deed. The matter being purely civil in nature and the complainant having exercised his right of filing a civil suit against the accused No.1 to 3 could not have initiated the criminal proceedings against the accused persons. 10. It is relevant to refer the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India which is reported in (2022) 7 SCC 124 "VIJAYKUMAR GHAI AND OTHERS V/S STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under Para-47- At the same time, in order to attract the Ingredients of Section of 406 and 420 IPC it is imperative on the part of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6076 CRL.P No. 1141 of 2023 complainant to prima facie establish that there was an intention on part of the petitioner and/or others to cheat and/or to defraud the complainant right from the Inception. Further more it has to be prima facie established that due to such alleged act of cheating the complainant (Respondent No. 2 herein) had suffered a wrongful loss and the same had resulted in wrongful gain for the accused(appellant herein). In absence of these elements, no proceeding is permissible in the eyes of law with regard to the commission of the offence punishable u/s 420 IPC. This Court has applied the ratio laid down in the above case to the case on hand. After considering the materials on record, this Court is of the opinion that there is no allegation of Impersonation and forgery of the signature in the complaint. After considering the materials on record this Court is of the opinion that there are no materials against the Accused No.1 to 3 for taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 415, 416, 420, 441, 463 R/W Sec. 34 of IPC. With these observations, this Court has answered Point No.1 in the Negative. 11. Point No. 2: For the aforesaid discussion on Point No. 1, this Court proceeds to pass the following Order O R D E R This private complaint is filed by the Complainant U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C for taking cognizance against the persons for the offences punishable U/Sec.U/Sec.415, 417, 418, 419, 416, 420, 423, 424, 426, 463, 464, 466, 467 R/W Sec.34 of IPC is hereby dismissed. Further B report filed by the concerned I O is hereby accepted.” (Emphasis added) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6076 CRL.P No. 1141 of 2023 This is what is challenged by the petitioner before this Court. 5. If the order of the concerned Court rejecting the ‘B’ report is noticed, what would unmistakably emerge is that, it is unassailable for the reason that a purely civil dispute between the two, which was pending consideration at the relevant point in time before the concerned civil Court is projected to become a crime on several grounds, which neither the civil Court has accepted nor the concerned Court has accepted. In that light, permitting further proceedings to continue or entertainment of this petition or setting aside of the order, which directs to close the proceedings on acceptance of the ‘B’ report would on the face of it, become an abuse of the process of the law. Therefore, the petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed. 6. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order will not come in the way of any other proceedings, pending between the parties. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 161/CT:SS