Karnataka High Court
A Sheereshadevi W/O A. Venkata Rao And ... vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865
CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200399 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. A SHEERESHADEVI W/O A. VENKATA RAO,
AGE: 65 YEARS, R/O. VENKATESHWARA COLONY,
OPP. DUDDUPUDI SCHOOL,
WALBELLARY ROAD, PWD CAMP, SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR,
NOW RESIDENT OF SAI PRANAY RESIDENCY,
PLOT NO. 402, 4TH FLOOR PORNKAY,
VIJAYAWADA, DIST. KRISHNA-523117
2. A. KRISHNA PRASAD S/O TATAIAH
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC:
R/O. VENKATESHWARA COLONY,
OPP. DUDDUPUDI SCHOOL,
Digitally signed by
NIJAMUDDIN WALBELLARY ROAD,
JAMKHANDI
PWD CAMP,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR.
KARNATAKA
3. K. SATYANARAYANA S/O KRISHNA RAO,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VENKATESHWARA COLONY,
OPP. DUDDUPUDI SCHOOL,
WALBELLARY ROAD,
PWD CAMP, SINDHANUR,
DIST. RAICHUR.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AMEETH KUMAR DESHAPANDE, SR. ADV A/W
SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865
CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH POLICE, SINDHANUR TOWN PS,
DIST. RAICHUR,
R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH.
2. K.P. LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE PAPAIH
SINCE DIED,
(AMENDED TITLE AMENDED
AS PER ORDER DATED 04.12.2023)
a) RAGHUNANDAN K.L.
S/O K. P. LAKSHMAIAH,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK,
R/O NO.05-42, SRI. VENKATA NIVAS,
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN,
BANGALORE NORTH-580064.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHIVASHANKAR H. MANUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. UNDER SECTION 528(BNSS) PRAYING TO ORDER
DATED 08.09.2022 PASSED IN CRL.R.P. NO.62/2018 BY THE
LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR
AND QUASH THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DATED 30.10.2013
AND ORDER DATED 08.05.2018 IN CC NO.844/2013 PASSED
BY THE LEARNED PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC SINDHANUR
AND CONSEQUENTLY DISCHARGE THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME
NO.52/13 SINDHANUR POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 468, 419 READ
WITH 34 OF IPC
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865
CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) Petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 3 are seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.844/2013 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 419 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The facts leading to the present case are that the second respondent/complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in P.C. No.61/2013 against two officials of KSFC as well as the present petitioners. It was alleged that the complainant had participated in the auction conducted by KSFC in respect of the disputed property, was declared the highest bidder, and had deposited a sum of Rs.35,04,000/-. Despite this, the first petitioner, in collusion with KSFC officials, is alleged to have obtained a registered sale deed dated 20.05.2008 by falsely depicting the complainant as a -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865 CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023 HC-KAR consenting witness. On these allegations, the KSFC officials were arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 and the present petitioners as accused Nos.3 to 5.
3. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation, which culminated in registration of Crime No.52/2013. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed a charge sheet but dropped the names of the Branch Manager and Deputy Manager of KSFC, who were originally arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. Consequently, the present petitioners, initially shown as accused Nos.3 to 5, now stand re-numbered as accused Nos.1 to 3 in the charge sheet.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, reiterating the grounds urged, contended that once the Investigating Officer has exonerated the KSFC officials who were the principal actors in the transaction, the prosecution against the petitioners who are at best third parties to the earlier transaction cannot be sustained. It is -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865 CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023 HC-KAR argued that even if the entire charge sheet is accepted at face value, it does not disclose the commission of any offence. Accordingly, the rejection of the discharge application by the learned Magistrate is termed perverse, and the Revisional Court, having failed to properly examine the order of the Magistrate, has also committed an error warranting interference.
5. Inviting attention to the recitals of the sale deed, learned Senior Counsel submitted that there is no material to suggest that petitioner No.1 played any fraud on the complainant. As regards petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3), it is pointed out that they have merely signed the document as witnesses, had no role in the transaction, and are not beneficiaries. Roping them into the criminal proceedings, it is submitted, is wholly unsustainable.
6. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jit Vinayak Arolkar, learned Senior -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865 CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023 HC-KAR Counsel argued that petitioner No.1, being merely a purchaser, cannot be attributed with offences of forgery or cheating in the absence of specific allegations. Continuation of proceedings, it is urged, would amount to abuse of the process of law and therefore calls for quashing under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant submitted that the concurrent findings of the Courts below are in accordance with law, and the scope of interference under Section 482 is extremely limited. Referring to the complaint allegations, he submitted that petitioner No.1 was fully aware that the complainant was the successful bidder and had deposited Rs.35,04,000/- with KSFC. Despite this, the officials proceeded to execute a sale deed in favour of petitioner No.1 under the impression that the complainant had consented. It is alleged that while the officials did not visit the Sub-Registrar's Office, accused No.1, in collusion with accused Nos.2 and 3, forged the complainant's signature -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865 CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023 HC-KAR and impersonated him as a consenting witness. Hence, the Magistrate rightly rejected the discharge application.
8. Referring to the prima facie materials, learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submitted that petitioner No.1 attempted to mislead KSFC officials by portraying the complainant as a shareholder in Ksheera Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd., the purchaser of the property through petitioner No.1. This establishes the nexus and indicates active involvement in forging the complainant's signature. Therefore, the case clearly discloses offences of forgery and cheating, and sufficient material exists to proceed against the petitioners.
9. Learned HCGP supported the submissions of respondent No.2 and contended that no ground is made out for interference with the concurrent orders.
10. After hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant, and the learned HCGP, the limited -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865 CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023 HC-KAR question that arises for consideration is whether the concurrent orders of the Courts below rejecting the petitioners' application for discharge warrant interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/complainant, the first and foremost document that requires careful examination by this Court at this stage is the document relied upon by the first petitioner namely, the certificate issued by a Chartered Accountant asserting that the second respondent/complainant is a shareholder of Ksheera Milk Foods Pvt. Ltd., holding approximately 10,000 shares in the said company. Based on this certificate, the first petitioner appears to have projected before the KSFC officials that the complainant was an integral part of the purchasing entity and, therefore, had already accorded consent for execution of the sale deed. It is in this manner that the first petitioner is alleged to have created an impression that despite the complainant having deposited -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865 CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023 HC-KAR a sum of Rs.35,00,000/-, the KSFC could proceed to execute the sale deed in favour of the first petitioner, since the complainant's consent, according to the first petitioner, stood implicitly secured through his purported shareholding. This document, thus, forms the foundational piece of material relied upon by the complainant to demonstrate the alleged collusion and misrepresentation practiced upon the KSFC officials.
12. In the backdrop of the above document, it becomes necessary for this Court to advert to the recitals contained in the registered sale deed itself. The contents of the document assume significance, particularly in light of the allegation that the complainant's signature was forged and that he was falsely depicted as a consenting witness to facilitate the transaction. A careful reading of the sale deed reveals that at page 3, the first unnumbered paragraph bears crucial relevance. Since the correctness and authenticity of this recital lie at the heart of the present controversy, and since the said paragraph has a
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865 CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023 HC-KAR direct bearing on whether prima facie material exists to proceed against the petitioners, it would be apposite to reproduce the said portion of the sale deed. The said recital is accordingly extracted hereinbelow:
"The Corporation has decided to sell the schedule property by advertising but at the request of the borrower firm the same was deferred as the firm had promised to pay the dues on instalment or would avail OTS basis. Meanwhile the borrower firm came up with a proposal to dispose of the schedule property to the purchaser herein on consent basis. The purchaser herein and the borrower company gave an offer of Rs.35.00 lakhs to purchase the schedule property and plant and machinery in as is where is condition. The Corporation accepted the offer of the borrower firm and the purchaser and agreed to sell the schedule property for the said sum of Rs.35.00 lakhs (Rupees Thirty Five Lakhs only) vide it's sale letter bearing ref. No.KSFC/HO/R-1/CMS/16-161/2003-04/D-4021 dated 09.09.2003 on deferred payment basis."
(Emphasis supplied by me)
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865 CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023 HC-KAR
13. On a closer examination of the recitals contained at page 3 of the sale deed, which have already been extracted hereinabove, it becomes evident that the sale deed has been executed in favour of the first petitioner by expressly citing the complainant as a consenting witness. The said recital further records that the borrower-firm had proposed to dispose of the schedule property in favour of the purchaser namely, the first petitioner/accused No.1 on a consent basis. The concluding page of the sale deed also reflects the purported signature of the second respondent/complainant, again shown in the capacity of a consenting witness. These recitals, taken together, form a material part of the prosecution case alleging that the complainant's consent was falsely portrayed.
14. In addition to the recitals, the photograph affixed on the reverse side of the first page of the sale deed assumes considerable significance. The second respondent/complainant has categorically asserted that
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865 CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023 HC-KAR the photograph displayed is not his and that the same has been affixed without his knowledge or consent. According to him, this falsification, coupled with the alleged forged signature, demonstrates alleged active collusion among the first petitioner and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (the attesting witnesses). It is the complainant's specific case that all three petitioners have, in concert, impersonated him and committed offences of forgery and cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC. In view of this serious dispute regarding identity, the authenticity of the photograph and signature will require detailed scrutiny during trial.
15. Taking into account these significant aspects, this Court is satisfied that there exists prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners. Once the application for discharge has been rejected by the learned Magistrate and such order has been confirmed by the Revisional Court, the scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. becomes extremely limited. At this stage, this Court
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865 CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023 HC-KAR cannot embark upon an appreciation or evaluation of the evidence. The only consideration is whether some material exists to warrant continuation of proceedings, and in the present case, the material on record clearly meets that threshold. Accordingly, the Magistrate has rightly rejected the discharge application, and the Revisional Court has correctly affirmed the same.
16. The judgment relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners does not advance their case in the facts and circumstances of this matter, which have been discussed in detail hereinabove. The prosecution case, inter alia, rests on the allegation that accused No.1 approached the KSFC officials and obtained the sale deed by representing that the complainant had consented to the transaction, notwithstanding his status as the highest bidder. Additionally, the role of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, whether they merely identified the parties or played a more active part in the alleged impersonation and forgery is a matter requiring thorough evidence-based
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865 CRL.P No. 200399 of 2023 HC-KAR examination. These contentious and complex factual aspects can only be resolved through a full-fledged trial and cannot be adjudicated in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
17. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the petitioners must face trial. No grounds are made out to warrant interference. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
18. It is further clarified that any observations made in this order are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and shall not influence the learned trial Court, which shall independently assess the evidence during trial without being guided by any observations contained herein.
sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 24 Ct:si