- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 723 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. DOMANIKA S/O SABASTIN, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO. 88, QAIRALI APARTMENT, ERNAKULAM COCHIN, KERALA STATE-682011 2. BALANAGAMMA S/O SREENIVAS GOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT B.R. KAVAL VILLAGE HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 105 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B. LATHIF, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HUNSUR TOWN POLICE, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105 REP BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2. DOMANIKA S/O SABASTIN R/AT: B.R. KAVAL, HANAGUDU HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, DISTRICT MYSORE-571105 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.06.2018 IN C.C.NO.517/2018 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.15/2010 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT HUNSUR, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.419, 420, 465 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.07.2018 IN C.C.NO.517/2018. 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 petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.15/2010 of Hunsur Town Police Station in CC.No.517/2018 pending on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') are seeking to set aside the order dated 03.07.2018 taking cognizance of the offence, registration of the criminal case and consequently are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Sri. B. Lathif, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Rangaswamy. R, learned HCGP for respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 No.1 and Sri. Syed Akbar Pasha, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 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 petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. Respondent No.2 filed the first information on 22.01.2010 with Hunsur Police Station against accused Nos.1 and 2, alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 read with Section 34 of IPC. The FIR came to be registered in Crime No.15/2010. 5. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that, he is Domanik S/o Sebastian resident of Kerala, he was granted immovable property in Sy.No.40 of Borekoppanakaval by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 Tahsildar and since then, he was in possession and ownership of the property. He sold the property in favour of one Smt. Kempamma, under the sale deed dated 18.01.2010, for a valid consideration. It is his further contention that petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 is Domanik S/o Sebastian. He is also from Kerala and taking advantage of the similarity in the names, accused No.1 sold four acres of land in Sy.No.40 of Borekoppanakaval Hanagodu Hobli, in favour of one Smt. Balanagamma, under the registered sale deed dated 05.01.2010. Thus accused Nos.1 and 2 have forged, concocted the documents and committed cheating. There is impersonation by accused No.1, projecting himself as Domanik S/o Sebastian. 6. During investigation the police found that respondent No.2 was Sri. Raju S/o Nambichari, resident of Kerala. Subsequently, he came to Karnataka and projected himself as Domanik S/o Sebastian and concocted certain documents. It is stated that the election identity card, ration card etc., disclose that respondent No.2 was Raju S/o Nambichari and there are no materials to substantiate that he was Domanik S/o Sebastian as claimed. Hence, 'B' report came - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 to be filed, which also states that the election identiy card pertaining to Raju S/o Nambichari contains the photo of respondent No.2 and therefore, it is clear that he was not Domanik S/o Sebastian. There are no documents to support the contention of respondent No.2 and therefore, they filed the 'B' report. 7. Respondent No.2 filed the protest memo before the Trial Court requesting for rejection of the 'B' report, stating that he is ready and willing to produce additional documents, as the Police have filed the false report. It is also stated that the Investigating Officer has not taken the trouble of verifying the documents that are produced by accused No.1 and therefore, the 'B' report is liable to be rejected. The 8. Trial Court after taking into consideration the protest memo, in the light of the 'B' report, passed the order dated 03.07.2018 rejecting the 'B' report and taking cognizance for the above said offence against accused Nos.1 and 2. If registered CC.No.517/2018 and summoned the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners produced the copy of the judgment passed by the Trial Court in CC.No.175/2011 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur, dated 31.07.2023 to contend that, petitioner No.1 had filed a similar complaint against respondent No.2 and Smt. Kempamma, who said to have purchased the property under the registered sale deed from respondent No.2 and the FIR in Crime No.17/2010 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 read with Section 34 of IPC. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed. On 06.06.2011 the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and registered CC.No.175/2011 against respondent No.2 and another, which ended in their conviction. 10. Placing reliance on the judgment dated 31.07.2023 passed in CC.No.175/2011, the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Court after full fledged trial formed an opinion that the prosecution was successful in proving the guilt of respondent No.2 and another for the very same offence under Sections 419, 420, 465 read with Section 34 of IPC, and recorded a categorical finding that respondent - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 No.2 being Raju S/o Nambichari, impersonated himself as Domanik S/o Sebastian claimed the property as accused No.1 and therefore, he committed the offences. 11. This fact of recording conviction of respondent No.2 and another by the Trial Court in CC.No.175/2011 is not disputed by respondent No.2. But on the other hand, it is his contention that, the Trial Court erroneously convicted them, and that, respondent No.2 has challenged the same by preferring the appeal, which is pending consideration. Thus admittedly, respondent No.2 is convicted by the Trial Court which is of-course a subject matter of the appeal pending before the Sessions Court in a criminal appeal. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that, in CC.No.175/2011 petitioner No.1 herein was examined as witness and he categorically admitted that he is the son of Domanik S/o Sebastian and there are several other admissions, but the Trial Court ignored all those materials and therefore, the said judgment is to be rejected. 13. This Court is not sitting in appeal to re-appreciate the materials on record in CC.No.175/2011 and a finding - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 cannot be recorded in that regard, as the appeal is pending consideration before the Appellate Court. It is suffice to say that the Trial Court has formed an opinion that, respondent No.2 and another who are the accused in CC.No.175/2011 have committed the offence and were convicted for the above said offences by holding that there was impersonation, cheating and forgery. 14. It is pertinent to note that, in CC.No.175/2011 respondent No.2 produced Ex.D1 to 8, on which learned counsel for respondent No.2 places reliance even before this Court, to contend that, there are enough and more materials to show that the land in question was granted in his favour by the Tahsildar and he is in possession of the same. Interestingly, even though these documents were got marked as Ex.D1 to 8 by tendering it to petitioner No.1 who was examined in that case, respondent No.2 has never chosen to step into the witnesses box and to depose about his defence. It is also pertinent to note that respondent No.2 has not given any reasonable explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. If at all respondent No.2 was having sufficient - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 materials in his support to contend that, he got the land granted by the Tahsildar and he was in possession of the original documents, nothing prevented him from entering into the witness box and deposing about the same, especially when he was tried on serious charges for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 read with Section 34 of IPC. 15. It is stated that petitioner No.2 has filed the suit OS.No.151/2015 against Smt. Kempamma, said to have purchased the land in question from respondent No.2 under the sale deed dated 18.01.2010. This fact is also not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2. However, he contends that he has filed counter claim in the said suit, but no such materials are placed before this Court to substantiate the same. Admittedly, the suit OS.No.151/2015 filed by petitioner No.2 seeking declaration that the sale deed dated 18.01.2010 is null and void is pending consideration. 16. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 while addressing the argument specifically admitted that originally respondent No.2 was from Kerala and named as Raju S/o Nambichari. But contends that, he subsequently, converted into - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 Christianity and named as Domanik S/o Sebastian. But learned counsel for respondent No.2 failed to explain as to how he could be Domanik S/o Sebastian when originally he was Raju S/o Nambichari. Moreover, there are no materials to substantiate the contention of respondent No.2 regarding his conversion as Domanik S/o Sebastian. Even if the contention of respondent No.2 that, he is converted and named as Domanik is to be accepted, his father's name which was admitted 'Nambichari' could not have been changed as 'Sebastian'. 17. The Investigating Officer while filing the 'B' report referred to various documents which are collected from Kerala to contend that respondent No.2 was named as Raju S/o Nambichari. It is also stated that, voters card and the ration card were standing in the name of Raju S/o Nambichari which bears the photo of respondent No.2. This fact is not disputed, rather it is admitted by respondent No.2. Under such circumstance, the burden lies on respondent No.2 to explain as how and when he came to be named as Domanik S/o Sebastian and why he failed to putforth such defence before the Trial - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 Court in CC.No.175/2011, where he was tried for serious offence. 18. From the above materials on record prima facie I am of the opinion that, the petitioners are being prosecuted on the basis of the complaint without any materials to substantiate the same. When respondent No.2 is already convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 read with Section 34 of IPC, it cannot be said at this stage that the petitioners have committed similar offences. Either the complaint filed by petitioner No.2 alleging commission of the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 read with Section 34 of IPC must be true or the complaint filed by respondent No.2 making similar allegations regarding commission of offence must be true. When a full fledged trial is held by the Trial Court on the basis of the complaint filed by petitioner No.2, which ended in conviction of respondent No.2 and another, it cannot be said that there are prima facie materials to substantiate the contention of respondent No.2 regarding commission of the offence by the petitioners. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 19. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 has filed the Police Complaint alleging commission of the above offence. The Police have filed the 'B' report explaining in detail referring to various documents collected during the investigation and holding that no case is made out to go for trial. Even though, respondent No.2 filed the protest memo, it is not in the form of complaint referred to under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In this regard, I may refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari V.s State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary Home, Civil Secretariat Lucknow and Another1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph Nos.43 to 45 as under: "43. We may also notice that in Veerappa and others v Bhimareddappa reported in 2002 CriLJ 2150 (Karnataka), the High Court of Karnataka observed as follows: "9. From the above, the position that to satisfy the emerges is this: Where initially complainant has not filed any complaint before the Magistrate under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C., but, has approached the police only and where the police after investigation have filed the 'B' report, if the complainant wants to protest, he is thereby inviting the Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Cr. P.C. on a complaint. If it were to be so, the protest petition that he files shall have to 1 2019 INSC 742 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 satisfy the requirements of a complaint as defined in Section 2 (d) of the Cr. P.C., and that should contain facts that constitute offence, for which, the learned Magistrate is taking cognizance under Section 190 (1) (a) of the Cr. P.C. Instead, if it is to be simply styled as a protest petition without containing all those necessary particulars that a normal complaint has to contain, then, it cannot be construed as a complaint for the purpose of proceeding under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C." 44.. Complaint is defined in Section 2 (d) of the Code as follows: "(d) " complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report. Explanation.- A report made by a police officer in a case which discloses, after investigation, the commission of a non- cognizable offence shall be deemed to be a complaint: and the police officer by whom such report is made shall be deemed to be the complainant;" 45. If a protest petition fulfills the requirements of a complaint, the Magistrate may treat the protest petition as a complaint and deal with the same as required under Section 200 read with Section 202 of the Code. In this case, in fact, there is no list of witnesses as such in the protest petition. The prayer in the protest petition is to set aside the final report and to allow the application against the final report. While we are not suggesting that the form must entirely be decisive of the question whether it amounts to a complaint or liable to be treated as a complaint, we would think that essentially, the protest petition in this case, is summing up of the objections the second respondent against the final report." (emphasis supplied) - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 20. In the present case, only a memo in the form of 'protest petition' without any necessary details has been filed. Hence, it is clear that the Trial Court without application of mind proceed to take cognizance of the offence. 21. In view of the discussions held above, I am of the opinion that there are no prima facie materials placed on record to prosecute the petitioners and that the criminal proceedings is in abuse of process of law. Hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner - accused Nos.1 and 2 (Crime No.15/2010 of Hunsur Town Police Station) in CC.No.517/2018 pending on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hunsur registered for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 read with Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed and the order dated 03.07.2018 in CC.No.517/2018 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:8171 CRL.P No. 723 of 2019 taking cognizance of the offence is set aside. At this stage learned counsel for respondent No.2 seeks liberty to revive the criminal proceedings against the petitioners, if in case he succeeds in CC.No.175/2011, which is pending in the appeal and in the suit OS.No.151/2015 pending trial. Since the judgment of convection and order of sentence is passed by the Trial Court in CC.No.175/2011 is subject matter of the appeal before the learned Sessions Judge and since, OS.No.151/2015 filed by petitioner No.2 is pending before the Trial Court for trial, I deem it appropriate to reserve the liberty with respondent No.2 to revive the criminal proceedings in accordance with law, if in case he succeeds in both these proceedings. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3