- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:561 CRL.P No. 101289 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101289 OF 2020 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SRI. TUKARAM S/O. NAGAPPA ADAGALI AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KULAHALLI, TQ. JAMKHANDI-587301. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, PSI, JAMKHANDI TOWN POLICE STATION, DIST. JAMKHANDI, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD-580011. 2. GANGAPPA S/O SHIVARAI MASTI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KULAHALLI, TQ.JAMKHANDI-587301. 3. INDIRABAI W/O SHIVARAI MASTI AGE. 82 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KULAHALLI, TQ. JAMKHANDI-587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. KIRTILATA R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE SERVED TO R2 AND R3) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 05/02/2020 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, JAMKHANDI IN C.C.NO.33/2015 AS REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIOENR HEREIN UNDER SECTION 239 OF CR.P.C. AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:561 CRL.P No. 101289 of 2020 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri.M.L.Vanti, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader representing for respondent No.1-State. 2. Notice to respondent Nos.2 and 3 are served, but unrepresented. 3. Accused No.1 in C.C.No.33 of 2015 is the petitioner who has filed the present petition seeking for setting aside the order dated 05.02.2020 passed on the application filed under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19731. 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 5. A complaint came to be lodged by the second respondent before Jamkhandi Police, alleging that land bearing Survey No.182/2/1 measuring 2 acres belong to Gangappa Shivaray Masti, Indrabai Shivaray Masti, Parappa Shivaray Masti. On 21.05.2007, 12.08.2007 and 31.08.2007, documents bearing 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:561 CRL.P No. 101289 of 2020 the thumb impression of Sri.Parappa were executed. After his death on 10.08.2007, a sale deed was fraudulently created by impersonating Sri. Parappa and fording his signature, and the property was unlawfully transferred in the name of the present petitioner. 6. Based on the same, the police registered a case in Crime No.103 of 2008 and after completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18602. 7. Learned Trial Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and registered the case in C.C.No.33 of 2015 and issued process. Petitioner being the accused No.1 in the said case, entered appearance and filed an application under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C. 8. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor filed detailed written objections opposing the application. 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:561 CRL.P No. 101289 of 2020 9. Learned Trial Magistrate, after hearing the parties, appreciated the material on record and by impugned order dated 05.02.2020, dismissed the application. 10. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 is before this Court in this petition on the following grounds:  “It is submitted that the allegations made in the complaint are of civil nature the complainants have not challenged registered sale deed. Without challenging the same before the appropriate forum they cannot maintain criminal complaint as arm-twisting method to harass the petitioner herein.  It is submitted that the registered sale deed was executed on 21/5/2007 before the Sub Registrar Jamkhandi and Parappa died on 10/8/2007. Therefore the allegation of concoction of sale deed is baseless, same requires to be establish before the competent forum without establishing the same only on the presumption and assumption criminal complaint cannot be maintain. The copy if the sale deed is herewith produced and marked as Document No.6.  It is submitted that the investigating officer has rightly dropped proceedings as against the accused No. 3 to 10 stating that there are no material or evidence for connecting the accused to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:561 CRL.P No. 101289 of 2020 10 for the commission of alleged No. 3 in the complaint is offences. The allegation fabrication of sale deed in collusion with the material revenue officers. When there are connecting the revenue officer viz. Registrar, village accountant etc... the petitioner also stands on same footing therefore the proceedings against the accused no.1/ petitioner is abuse of process of court. The court below ought to have considered the application filed under section-239 of Cr. P. C. and discharged the petitioner.  It is submitted that on perusing the entire complaint it is alleged that the petitioner herein as forged the document by impersonating son of complainant No.1. The court below failed to consider the fact that once the sale deed is registered it is the duty of revenue officers to mutate and prepare 11E sketch based on the sale deed. The petitioner has no role except paying required fees for mutation at the time of registration of deed. The revenue officers against whom allegations are made are infect duty bond to mutate the name of the petitioners are dropped from the charge sheet. Thus proceedings against petitioner is clear-cut abuse of process of court. Hence the court below has committed an error by rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:561 CRL.P No. 101289 of 2020  It is further submitted that the trail court has committed an error by on not appreciating material record to decide the discharge application filed under section-239 of Cr.P.C and also order passed by the learned trial Judge is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court and this Hon'ble Court therefore the order impugned is deserves to be set aside.  It is submitted that on perusing the entire complaint it do not constitute any IPC offence. There is no prema facia, cogent or corroborative material available to connect the petitioner. The learned Magistrate committed illegality by not considering all these facts and erroneously rejected the application seeking discharge. There is clear-cut non application of mind.  Having regard to the facts of the case and the material on record in the present case, if the petitioner is asked to appear before trial court it would amount to infringement of personal liberty guaranteed to the petitioners under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, hence same deserves to be quashed.  Viewing from any angle the proceedings against petitioner is unsustainable either on the facts or in Law. Therefore, the complaint and Initiation of proceeding thereof amounts to abuse of process of law.” - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:561 CRL.P No. 101289 of 2020 11. Sri.M.L.Vanti, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that the learned Trial Magistrate failed to appreciate that accused No.1 was merely the beneficiary under the sale deed and he did not have any hand in the alleged impersonation of the vendors. Therefore, he could not have been proceeded in the criminal case, and hence, sought for allowing of the petition. 12. Per contra, Smt.Kirtilata R. Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader would contend that admittedly on the date of execution of the sale deed, the vendor by name Parappa was no more and therefore, there is a clear case of impersonation which has to be decided after leading the evidence. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, it is evident that the land bearing Survey Nos.182/2/1 measuring 5 acre 16 guntas was the subject matter of the sale deed. Out of the said land, the complainant sold 2 acres in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 on 21.05.2007. Thereafter, accused No.1 in - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:561 CRL.P No. 101289 of 2020 collusion with accused No.3 (who is not a party to the proceedings), forged documents by inserting 19 guntas of the total land and sold the same in favour of accused No.2. 15. A sketch was obtained prior to the execution of the sale. Parappa is stated to have died on 10.08.2007. Thereafter, on 12.08.2007, by impersonating Parappa, a sketch was prepared in active collusion with the surveyor, who is arrayed as accused No.2, and the signature of Parappa was forged therein. 16. Further, the Investigation Agency is in a position to collect the death certificate of Parappa as well as the role played by the accused No.1 in creating the documents so as to facilitate the sale of the land in favour of accused No.1. 17. Since accused No.1 is the beneficiary under the document, he is prima facie liable for the alleged criminal acts which has to be decided by the Trial Court after a full-fledged trial. 18. Therefore, dismissal of the application seeking discharge is just and proper in view of the principles of law - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:561 CRL.P No. 101289 of 2020 enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi3. 19. Hence, the following: ORDER The petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/- CT:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 20 3 (2005) 1 SCC 568