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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865
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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865
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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865
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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865
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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865
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
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6865
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
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
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
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
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
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
Ct:si
