Karnataka High Court
Smt Sakamma vs State Of Karnataka on 11 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45976
CRL.A No. 1781 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1781 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SMT SAKAMMA
W/O LATE CHIKKONU,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
R/AT THALEMALEDODDI VILLAGE,
KEELAGHATTA DAKLE,
KOPPA HOBLI, MADDURU TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 419
2. SRI. B. MUNIRAMA RAO
S/O LATE B. VENKATACHALAM NAIDU,
AGED 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.58,
WEST ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET,
BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SMT. RAMYA S.L., ADV. FOR
Digitally signed by SRI. JAYARAMU N. N., ADV.)
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY TUMAKURU RURAL POLICE
TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.
2. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
TUMKUR,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572101
BOTH ARE REP. BY
LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45976
CRL.A No. 1781 of 2019
HC-KAR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGLAURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP.)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.449 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2017 AND 04.11.2017 IN
CRL.MISC.NO.205/2016 PASSED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, AT TUMAKURU.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants have preferred this appeal challenging
the order passed by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge,
Tumkur in Crl.Misc.No.205/2016 dated 22.04.2017 and
04.11.2017.
2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the
appellants are the absolute owners of Property bearing
Survey No.103/2A measuring 0.12.08 guntas of
Keelaghatta village, Madduru taluk and Survey No.724/3
measuring 2 acres 30 guntas of Harohalli village,
Kanakpura taluk respectively. The FIR was registered by
the police in Crime No.304/2013 for the offence under
NC: 2025:KHC:45976
HC-KAR
Section 397 of Indian Penal Code. Later charge-sheet
came to be filed against six persons. Case is pending for
adjudication in S.C No.27/2015. It seems that some
persons, in the name of the appellants, themselves offered
surety to one of the accused therein i.e. Beemesh @
Bheema (accused No.3) and offered property of the
appellants as mentioned above as security. In the
affidavit, they have affixed photos, which are not that of
the appellants. The residential addresses mentioned in the
surety affidavits are also different from the appellants. It
is a clear case of impersonation, for which also order is
passed to trace the persons who offered surety to the said
accused and impersonated the appellants. The appellants
have appeared before the learned Prl. District and
Sessions Judge at Tumkur and filed affidavit about they
being the absolute owners of the property that is
wrongfully offered as security in the above criminal case
by some third parties by impersonating them. The
appellants have also produced Aadhar cards in support of
NC: 2025:KHC:45976
HC-KAR
authenticity. The appellants have never offered any surety
to any of the accused. But in the meanwhile, the Learned
P.D.J has directed to register a separate case against the
sureties and the rural police, Tumkur through the Dy.S.P.
The Dy.S.P is directed to trace out the persons who are
seen in the photos of the affidavits. The suo-motu case
was registered in Crl. Misc. No.205/2016, as per the Court
order dated 25.02.2016, passed by the Prl. District and
Sessions Judge, Tumkur in SC No. 27/2015. The
Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur has ordered to
attach the property to recover the surety amount and
further to issue FLW to the Tahashidar for not attaching
the property. Hence, he sought for allowing this appeal.
3. The appellants have produced the Pahani
extracts (RTC) pertaining to land bearing Survey
No.103/2A of Keelaghatta village for the year 2017-2018
which is standing in the name of Sakamma W/o Chikkonu.
The another RTC extract pertaining to land bearing Survey
No. 724/3 of Harohalli village for the year 2018-19, which
NC: 2025:KHC:45976
HC-KAR
is standing in the name of Venkatalakshmamma,
Galiswamy, B.Muniram Rao, B.Venkatachalam,
G.Shakuntala and N.Ramakrishna. The mutation extract is
also produced. The copy of the FIR pertaining to Crime
No.304/2013 and charge-sheet is also filed. The copies of
affidavits of Sakamma and Muniram Rao is produced.
4. The order sheet dated 22.04.2017 passed by
the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Crl.Misc.
No. 205/2016 reads as under:
"Respondent absent.
Notice to accused.
Issue notice against surety and the direction to attach the
property of sureties offered as security by 30/6".
5. The order sheet dated 04.11.2017 reads as
under:
"Re-issue FLW against respondents. Issue notice to
Tahsildar. Kanakapura for not attaching property of
sureties. I reporting to court by 29/12".
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader
Sri.R.Rangaswamy has produced memo with report
NC: 2025:KHC:45976
HC-KAR
submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tumkur
Sub-Division, Tumkur, which reveals that the Tumkur
Town police have registered the case in Crime No.
152/2022, on the basis of the order passed by the learned
Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Crl. Misc. No.
205/2016. Further it is submitted that the police have
arrested the accused and they are in judicial custody in
UTP No. 685/2022 and UTP No.7032/2022.
7. On examination of the materials placed before
this Court, it is crystal clear that fake B.Muniram Rao and
fake Sakamma have impersonated themselves as
Sakamma and Muniram Rao and furnished the fake surety.
In this regard, FIR is also registered in Crime No.
152/2022 on the file of Tumkur Town Police. The case is
registered for the offences punishable under Section 417,
419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. \
8. When the trial Court has passed an order for
initiating separate proceedings as to the fake surety and
fabricating of documents, it ought not to have passed this
NC: 2025:KHC:45976
HC-KAR
order for attaching the property of the present appellants.
Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned
Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur is not sustainable
under law. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER.
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned order passed by the Prl.
District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in
Crl.Misc No.205/2016 dated 22.04.2017
and 04.11.2017 are set aside.
iii） Registry is directed to send the copy of this
order to the trial Court for taking necessary
action.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE
KBM
