- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1631 CRL.P No. 5630 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5630 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI. MUNIHANUMAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT KONADASAPURA VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 096 …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PAVITHRA N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KARTHIK .V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AVALAHALLY POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 049 REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2. MRS. IQBAL BASITH W/O LATE IRSHAD BASITH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT NO.902 A, SALAPURIA SILVERWOODS, OLD MADRAS ROAD, BENGALURU-560093 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SYED KASHIF ALI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP .S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1631 CRL.P No. 5630 of 2019 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.184/2019 DATED 04.07.2019 OF THE AVALAHALLI P.S., REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 465, 471, 468 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE A.C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner being the sole accused in Crime No.184/2019 of Avalahally Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Heard Smt. Pavithra N, learned counsel for Sri.Karthik V, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Sowmya R, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri. Syed Kashif Ali, learned counsel for Sri. Pradeep S Sawkar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1631 CRL.P No. 5630 of 2019 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by 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 him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent No.2 as the informant filed the first information with Avalahally Police Station alleging that the petitioner has filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Bengaluru North, claiming that he is the tenant in respect of three acres of land in Sy.No.11 of Konedasanapura Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. According to respondent No.2, he was never notified about filing of such declaration under Form No.7 and he has never appeared before the Land Tribunal. However, it is his contention that an affidavit is said to have been filed before the Land Tribunal purportedly signed and executed by respondent No.2 with his forged - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1631 CRL.P No. 5630 of 2019 signature. Therefore, it is alleged that there was impersonation and forgery committed by the petitioner himself to get an order in his favour. Accordingly, requested the police to register the case. The FIR came to be registered for the above said offences. In the meantime, the petitioner had approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. In view of the interim order of stay, the investigation was not carried on. 5. On perusal of first information lodged by the informant, it is seen that there are serious allegations made against the petitioner for having committed forgery and impersonation in filing an affidavit before the Land Tribunal. A detailed investigation is required to be held by the Investigation Officer as to whether there was impersonation and forgery as alleged or not. The disputed signature is to be referred to the handwriting expert for comparison with the admitted signature of respondent No.2. Under such circumstances, it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1631 CRL.P No. 5630 of 2019 ORDER The petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of main petition, pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed off. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21