- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9060 CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6566 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. SUVALAL JAIN, S/O LATE SRI NATHULAL JAIN AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.225/B, KENGERI, VIDYA PEETA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 060 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH C.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY BAGALAGUNTE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SRI K N SIDDAGANGAIAH S/O LATE SRI NANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.71/11, 2ND CROSS, SAPTHAGIRI LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA POST, DODDBIDARAKALLU BENGALURU - 560 041 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. S. DORE RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED IN P.C.R.NO.13299/2020 AS Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9060 CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022 AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1-PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 41, 422, 423, 424, 465, 468, 471, 120B OF IPC, IN REJECTING THE B-FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE BAGALAGUNTE POLICE- RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER SECTION 156(3) OF CR.PC AND THEREBY FURTHER REFERRING THE MATTER FOR INVESTIGATION ONCE AGAIN TO THE JURISDICTIONAL POLICE, BENGALURU POLICE- RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SEC.173(8) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 TO INVESTIGATE AND SUBMIT THE REPORT PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXXI A.C.M.M., VIDE ANNEXURE-A IN PURSUANCE TO THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE COMPLAINANT VIDE ANNEXURE-C. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused No.1 in PCR.No.13299/2020 on the file of learned XXXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crime No.340/2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Heard Sri. Sandesh. C.R, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Rangaswamy. R, learned HCGP for respondent - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9060 CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022 No.1 and Sri. S. Dore Raju, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. Respondent No.2 - complainant filed the private complaint in PCR.No.13299/2020 against accused Nos.1 to 13 alleging commission of the offences as stated above. It is the contention of the complainant that he was searching for a house site in Bengaluru and he met one Sri. K. Narayana, an ex-serviceman who offered to sell his site bearing No.6 formed in Sy.No.54/2 measuring 70 X 30 feet situated in Bagalagunte Village, Yeshwanthapur. Accordingly, the said Sri. K. Narayana, executed the registered sale deed selling site No.6 in favour of respondent No.2. It is stated that the said Sri.K.Narayana, had purchased the said site from its original owner Sri.B.C.Mallaiah, and his children. As per the General Power of Attorney deed and the affidavit dated 29.01.1986 full sale consideration was paid by respondent No.2 and under the registered sale deed he was put in possession of the property in question. It is alleged that the children of Sri.B.C.Mallaiah, conspired with accused No.1 and made alteration in the plan, played fraud on the said Sri. K. Narayana and also responded No.2. It is contended - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9060 CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022 that, accused No.2 being the daughter of Sri. B.C. Mallaiah, and other accused were not having any right, title or interest over site No.6, however, accused No.2 executed a gift deed in favour of one Smt.Hanumakka, who is none other than her mother. It was part of conspiracy between the family members at the instance of accused No.1 4. It is contended by the complainant that, after purchasing the site No.6, he obtained a loan, put up a house and was in possession of the property. Accused No.1 with the active convenience of other accused filed the suit in OS.No.731/2009 before the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru seeking declaration of his title, cancellation of the sale deed said to have been executed by accused No.2 along with other accused in favour of accused No.1, for possession and for permanent injunction. It is alleged that accused No.1 has deliberately shown the wrong address of respondent No.2 and managed to get an ex-parte decree. This fact came to the knowledge of respondent No.2 just before filing of the complaint. The Civil.Misc.No.647/2020 was filed seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree and to restore the case on file and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9060 CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022 simultaneously, the private complaint in PCR.No.13299/2020 came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 13. 5. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Officer filed the 'B' report. The learned Magistrate after taking into consideration the protest petition filed by the complainant rejected the 'B' report and directed the Investigating Officer to hold further investigation. In the meantime, the petitioner being accused No.1 approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. An interim order of stay was granted and therefore, it is stated that no further investigation was undertaken. 6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, accused No.1 purchased site No.6 on 26.07.2004. But later respondent No.2 concocted the document styled as sale deed dated 29.07.2004 said to have been executed by Sri. B.C. Mallaiah and his children. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the suit seeking declaration of his title, cancellation of the sale deed said to have been executed in favour of respondent No.2, for possession and for permanent injunction. The said suit came to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9060 CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022 be decreed. Later an application was filed seeking to set aside the judgment in decree passed by the Trial Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is absolutely no reason to file the private complaint against the petitioner as he has not played any role in execution of any of the documents, but he paid the consideration amount and got the sale deed in his favour. No offence as alleged against the petitioner is made out. The Trial Court ignored the 'B' report filed by the Investigating Officer and directed to hold further investigation without any basis. Hence, he prays to allow the petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposing the petition submitted that, this petitioner being accused No.1 is the mastermind and a land grabber therefore, he is a court bird. He is in the habit of identifying the sites or the lands or properties and lay claim over the same by concocting the documents, filing the suits before the Civil Court by giving false addresses of the defendants and obtaining the decree. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that a minimum of 35 cases of cheating and other criminal offences - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9060 CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022 were registered against this petitioner in various Police Stations and the Courts at Bengaluru. Accused No.2 being the daughter Sri. B.C. Mallaiah was the corporator. She along with her family members joined hands with accused No.1 in changing the plan and concocting the documents styled as sale deed to sell site No.6 in favour of respondent No.2 when it was already sold in favour of Sri. K.Narayana - the ex-serviceman. Since the accused are very influential and they are land grabbers, the Police have filed the 'B' report. The Trial Court on consideration of the materials on record rejected the 'B' report and directed further investigation. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached this Court and got the stay order. Learned counsel contended that if an impartial investigation is undertaken, the fraud and the offences committed by the accused will come to light and therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition. 9. 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 him?" - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9060 CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022 My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 10. On perusal of the materials on record, the allegations made by respondent No.2 is very serious in nature. According to the petitioner, he purchased site No.6 under the sale deed dated 29.07.2004. But while filing the suit against respondent No.2 in OS.No.731/2009, he has sought for possession of site No.6. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.2 contended that, after purchase of property from the earlier owner - Sri.Narayana, respondent No.2 had constructed the house and started residing there. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed a list of criminal and civil miscellaneous cases involving the petitioner herein in various Police Stations and Courts of Bangalore City. 11. Respondent No.2 specifically stated that the petitioner - accused No.1 is a money lender, pawn broker, a real estate agent, and it is alleged that he is the land grabber. It is stated that accused No.2 was the corporator, having money, manpower and political influence. It is also alleged that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9060 CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022 the judgment decree in OS.No.731/2009 was obtained by accused No.1 by furnishing false address of respondent No.2. However, Mis.No.647/2020 filed on 10.12.2020 is pending consideration before the Civil Court. In the meantime, the present complaint came to be filed. The allegations made against the petitioner is in particular and all the accused in general are very serious in nature. It is premature to form an opinion that, the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter without any basis. 12. When prima facie the petitioner is having the criminal antecedents and admittedly, he has obtained an ex- parte decree against respondent No.2 by filing the suit for possession against respondent No.2, even though, he said to have purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 29.07.2004 from Sri. B.C. Mallaiah and his children, much prior to the sale deed executed in favour of respondent No.2, gives rise to a serious doubt about his contention which makes a prima facie case against the petitioner. There is no explanation by the petitioner as to why he allowed respondent No.2 to construct the building on the site in question and allowed him to be in possession of the same. Even though, the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9060 CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022 'B' report came to be filed, the learned Magistrate rejected the same and ordered for further investigation, by assigning reasons. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to allow the petition. I am of the opinion that, since there are prima facie materials and the petitioner is not entitled for an order to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7