- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15386 CRL.P No. 1670 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1670 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI. M.L. GOWDA S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS OCCUPATION-ADVOCATE OFFICE AT NO.165 1ST FLOOR, 6TH MAIN 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 011 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BASAVARAJU P, ADVOCATE) AND: REGISTRAR GENERAL OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MOHD. AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2018 IN C.C.NO.29444/2014, PASSED BY THE VIII A.C.M.M., AT BANGALORE AND ORDER DATED 05.02.2019 IN CRL.RP.NO.942/2018, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE LXIV ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE CCH-65 AT BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15386 CRL.P No. 1670 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition challenging an order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.29444/2014, by which his application under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) was rejected. He has also challenged an order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-64, Bengaluru City, in Criminal Revision Petition No.942/2018, by which the order of the trial Court was confirmed. 2. (i) The petitioner was representing the respondent in Crl.P.No.535/2014, which was filed to quash proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.77/2013 on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court-II (MMTC-2), Bengaluru, filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 2005'). During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner representing the respondent in the criminal petition had filed a counter objection. Along with the counter objection, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15386 CRL.P No. 1670 of 2019 an affidavit of the respondent was filed, which purportedly was sworn before a Notary Public on 05.06.2014. It was brought to the notice of this Court in Crl.P.No.535/2014 that the respondent was not in India on 05.06.2014. Therefore, the signature of the respondent made before the notary and identified by the petitioner herein was fake. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in terms of an order dated 07.07.2014, therefore directed the Registrar General of this Court to take out proceedings against the petitioner and the notary who attested the affidavit. Following this, a private complaint was filed by the Registrar General of this Court in PCR No.29444/2014. The trial Court dispensed the recording of his sworn statement and directed registration of a criminal case and issued summons to the petitioner vide order dated 11.02.2015. (ii) The petitioner then filed an application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C. to discharge him from the case. The trial Court in terms of an order dated 15.11.2018, rejected the said application and the revision petition filed thereagainst was also dismissed in terms of an order dated 05.02.2019. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner is before this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15386 CRL.P No. 1670 of 2019 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an advocate who was representing one Smt.Manasa in Crl.P.No.535/2014. He submits that Smt.Manasa had signed an affidavit and the petitioner had identified her signature, which was thereafter notarised. He contends that the said Smt.Manasa and her spouse had settled the dispute in Crl.P.No.1581/2015 and Crl.P.No.535/2014. The petitioner is now put on the guillotine for no fault of his. He therefore prays that the impugned order passed by the trial Court and upheld by the Revisional Court be set aside. 4. The Additional State Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner has filed an affidavit on which the signature of his client was forged. Therefore, the trial Court had taken out proceedings for an offence under Section 465 of IPC. He therefore submits that there is no need to quash the orders passed by the trial Court and the Revisional Court. 5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15386 CRL.P No. 1670 of 2019 6. The petitioner was representing Smt.Manasa who had initiated criminal action against her husband and her in- laws under the provisions of the Act, 2005. It appears that a petition was thereafter filed for quashing the said proceedings in Crl.P.No.1581/2015 and Crl.P.No.535/2014. During the pendency of those petitions, an affidavit was filed by Smt.Manasa and she affixed her signature thereon, which was identified by the petitioner. It appears that the said affidavit was notarised before a Notary Public after the said Smt.Manasa left to the United States of America. Smt.Manasa has not complained that the signatures found on the affidavit did not belong to her. Therefore, the question of taking cognizance for an offence under Section 465 of IPC would not arise. This apart, Smt.Manasa and her spouse have settled the dispute, but this case is outstanding and the petitioner for no fault of his is forced to face a prosecution. Furtherance, it may well nigh be impossible to secure the presence of Smt.Manasa to prove the changes against the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15386 CRL.P No. 1670 of 2019 7. In that view of the matter, it is appropriate that the proceedings against the petitioner is set at naught. Consequently, the following order is passed: ORDER i. The petition is allowed; ii. The impugned order dated 15.11.2018 passed by the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.29444/2014 and the impugned order dated 05.02.2019 passed by the LXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, CCH-26, Bengaluru City, in Criminal Revision Petition No.942/2018 are quashed; iii. The impugned prosecution of the petitioner in C.C.No.29444/2014, on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is quashed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34