- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2100 CRL.RP No. 100190 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100190 OF 2024 (397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: SMT.RAJANI W/O RAJESH CHITTUR, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GOUDAR ONI, GULAGANJIKOPPA, NEAR WATER TANK, DHARWAD-580008 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.S. KORISHETTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.REKHA W/O KUMARSWAMI HIREMATH, AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. H.NO.496, II CROSS, II BLOCK, 8TH MAIN, BASVESHWAR NAGAR, BENGALURU-590079. 2. ABHIJIT JAYADEV TORGALMATH, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND SERVICE, R/O. CTS NO.4A/9B1, SADKHANKERI ROAD, DHARWAD-580008. 3. SMT. SHASHIKALA JAYADEV TORGALMATH, AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O. CTS NO.4A/9B1, SADKHANKERI ROAD, DHARWAD-580008. 4. SMT. ROOPA W/O ASHOK PURANIK AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE, R/O.125, ALDERWOOD LANE, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.17 16:59:29 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2100 CRL.RP No. 100190 of 2024 AURARA CITY IIINOIS, CHICAGO (USA), R/BY HER GPA HOLDER RESPONDENT NO.3. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4; NOTICE SERVED TO R1) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 397 R/W 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS OF THE COURTS BELOW AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN CRL.APPEAL NO. 345/2022 DATED 16.12.2023 BY THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND MEMBER ADDL. MACT, BELAGAVI, AND ALSO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, BAILHONGAL DATED 21.11.2022, PASSED ON I.A.NO. IV IN O.S.NO. 01/2011, AND CONSEQUENTLY I.A. NO. IV BE ALLOWED AS PRAYED, BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri K.S.Korishettar, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Vyas Desai for Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 4. 2. Defendant No.4 in O.S.No.1/2011 is the petitioner challenging the rejection of the application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to take action against respondents No.2 to 4 who are the plaintiffs. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2100 CRL.RP No. 100190 of 2024 3. Factual aspects which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 A compromise decree came to be passed in O.S.No.1/2011, which is now set aside and the suit is being contested for partition. During the course of the proceedings in the said suit, respondents No.2 to 4 said to have filed certain documents which are the documents pertaining to survey of the lands before the Additional Director of Land Records. 3.2 Present petitioner being defendant No.4 objected and questioned the validity of those documents by contending that the signatures found in the documents before the Survey Authorities is not the signature of defendant No.4 and filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to take action against respondents No.2 to 4. 4. Learned trial Judge after entertaining the objections of the petitioners, respondents No.2 to 4 dismissed the said application. 5. Being aggrieved upon the same, present petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2100 CRL.RP No. 100190 of 2024 6. District Court on consideration of material on record also dismissed the revision petition. 7. Challenging the orders passed by learned trial Magistrate and learned District Judge in refusing to take action under Section 340 Cr.P.C., petitioner is before this Court in this petition with the following prayer: “To call for the records of the courts below and examine the records and set aside the order passed in Crl. Appeal No.345/2022 dated 16.12.2023 by the IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Member Addl. MACT, Belagavi, and also setting aside the order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Bailhongal dated 21.11.2022, passed on I.A. No.IV in O.S.No.01/2011, and consequently I.A. No. IV be allowed as prayed, by allowing this petition, in the interest of justice.” 8. Sri K.S.Korishettar, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that respondents No.2 to 4 had played fraud on the petitioner and got a compromise decree which has been now set aside and suit is being contested in O.S.No.1/2011 before the Court in Bailhongal. 9. He would further contend that necessary documents have been concocted by respondents No.2 to 4 and the same is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2100 CRL.RP No. 100190 of 2024 sought to be relied upon for getting the suit decreed in O.S.No.1/2011 which when came to the knowledge of the petitioner, she has filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to take action against respondents No.2 to 4 which has been wrongly dismissed by the learned trial Magistrate and mechanically upheld by the First Appellate Court and sought for allowing the petition. 10. Per contra, Sri Vyasa Desai, learned counsel representing respondents No.2 to 4 supports the impugned order by contending that there is no proof that it is these respondents who have allegedly forged the documents before the Survey Authorities and sought for dismissal of the petition. 11. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 12. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the opinion is yet to be found out as to the signature found in the survey records is that of the present petitioner who is defendant No.4 in O.S.No.1/2011 or somebody else has forged the signature. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2100 CRL.RP No. 100190 of 2024 13. Without ascertaining said aspect of the matter filing an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to take action against respondents No.2 to 4 is nothing but a premature action and rightly rejected by both the Courts. 14. Accordingly, reserving the liberty for the present petitioner who is defendant No.4 in O.S.No.1/2011 to refer the disputed documents to handwriting expert after obtaining the necessary report from the handwriting expert, suitable action can be taken accordingly. 15. Therefore, the rejection of the application is just and proper. 16. Hence, following: ORDER Petition is dismissed with the liberty as referred to supra. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CLK Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 57