[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri. K. G. Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2026

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                           -1-
                                                         NC: 2026:KHC:7958
                                                     CRL.P No. 383 of 2024


                HC-KAR



                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                       DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                        BEFORE

                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

                          CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 383 OF 2024

                BETWEEN:

                1.    SRI. K. G. NAGARAJ
                      S/O GIDDANAIK
                      AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
                      C/O NAVARATHNA WINES
                      48/42, PATTEGARAPALYA MAIN ROAD
                      60 FEET ROAD KANAKANAGARA
                      BENGALURU-560 072

                      AND ALSO AT
                      RACHIKOPPA VILLAGE
                      KUMSHI HOBLI
                      SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT
                      BENGALURU CITY-562 149
Digitally
signed by       2.    H MANJAPPA
SANJEEVINI J          S/O HIRIYA NAIK
KARISHETTY
                      AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
Location:
High Court of         R/A NO.59/2, III CROSS
Karnataka             SATHYANARAYANA LAYOUT
                      KIRLOSKAR COLONY
                      IV BLOCK III STAGE
                      BASAVESWARANAGAR
                      BENGALURU-560 079
                                                            ...PETITIONERS

                (BY SRI. LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)
                               -2-
                                           NC: 2026:KHC:7958
                                       CRL.P No. 383 of 2024


HC-KAR



AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION
     BENGALURU DISTRICT CITY
     REP: SPP
     HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
     BENGALURU-560 001

2.   SRI. K.G NAGARAJ
     S/O LATE VEERAPPA GOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
     R/A KODAKANI VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI, SORABA TALUK
     SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577 429
                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, LEARNED ADDL. SPP FOR R1,
     SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)


       THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2023 PASSED BY THE XXIV
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.25774/2015 REJECTING THE APPLICATION U/S 239 OF
CR.P.C.   FILED   BY   THE   PETITIONERS   HEREIN   FOR   THE
DISCHARGED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120B, 419, 420, 465,
468, 471, 109 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC UNDER ANNEXURE-A AND
ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION IN THE ABOVE CASE.


       THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                              -3-
                                                                  NC: 2026:KHC:7958
                                                         CRL.P No. 383 of 2024


 HC-KAR



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA


                                  ORAL ORDER

The petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 are at the doors of

this Court calling in question the proceedings in

C.C.No.25774/2015 on the file of the XXIV Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate registered for the offences punishable

under Section 120B, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 109 read with

Section 34 of the IPC and have also called in question the order

of the concerned Court rejecting the application seeking their

discharge from the array of accused.

2. Heard Sri. Leeladhar H.P., learned counsel

appearing for the petitioners, Sri. B.N.Jagadeesha, learned

Addl. SPP. representing the State and Sri. S.Balakrishnan,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the

material on record.

3. The petitioners get embroiled in a crime in

Crime No.25774/2015 for the offences punishable under

Sections 419 and 420 of the IPC. The police conduct

investigation and file a charge sheet now bringing in several

other offences, that are the ones punishable under Sections

NC: 2026:KHC:7958

HC-KAR

465, 468, 471, 109 of the IPC. After the charge sheet being

filed before the concerned Court, the petitioners approach this

Court in W.P.Nos.8295-96/2016 which comes to be rejected by

a judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench on 14.11.2016, after

which, it transpires that in a civil suit that was pending between

the parties, certain issues are held in favour of the petitioners.

Therefore, springs the second petition on the same cause of

action i.e., the present petition.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

would vehemently contend that the Civil Court had framed an

issue as to whether the 1st petitioner has forged the initial by

putting 'K' before 'G' to become 'KG Nagaraj' while he was only

'G Nagaraj'. The learned counsel submits that the issue has

been held to be negative by the Civil Court and therefore, the

very act of forgery is taken away. The learned counsel submits

that on this score the petition must be entertained as it

amounts to a changed circumstance for a second petition to be

held maintainable under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri. S.Balakrishnan

appearing for the respondent No.2 would reiterate that all the

NC: 2026:KHC:7958

HC-KAR

issues had been gone into by the Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court at the time when the first petition comes to be rejected.

As such, a second petition on the same cause of action cannot

be entertained. Therefore, he would seek dismissal of the

petition.

6. On the merit of the matter, the learned counsel

would further contend that forgery is clearly established by the

FSL by contemporaneous documents and on all these scores,

the learned counsel submits that the petition be dismissed.

7. The learned Addl. SPP would also toe the lines of

the counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contending that the

petition must be dismissed and this is a matter of trial for the

petitioners to come out clean.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have

perused the material on record.

9. The petitioners call in question C.C.No.25774/2015.

These very petitioners calling the very C.C.No.25774/2015

were before this Court in W.P.Nos.8295-96/2016. The

NC: 2026:KHC:7958

HC-KAR

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the following order rejects

the petition:

"7. I have perused the grounds urged in the petitions, the documents produced by the petitioners along with the petitions, so also, the objection statement filed by respondent No.2-complainant and also the documents produced in support of the said objection statement. I have also perused the principles enunciated in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, referred to above.

8. The investigation material prima facie show that name of petitioner No.1 as per the school records was G.Nagaraj and the same continued till the year 2014 and in the year 2014 there is change of name of petitioner No.1 as K.G.Nagaraj. The investigation officer has collected the material in this regard during the course of investigation. It is the contention of the second respondent-complainant that CL-2 licence, which was originally granted to him has been deliberately changed by the petitioners herein by impersonation before the authorities representing petitioner No.1 herein as K.G.Nagaraj. Even the photographs have been affixed on the application for getting the licence into his name. But the contention of the petitioners that it was not done with an intention to impersonate, is a matter for the concerned trial Court to thrash out during the course of trial. Looking to the material on record and the documents produced on both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the investigation material collected during investigation prima facie show the commission of alleged offences by the petitioners and at this stage, this Court cannot go into detail regarding each and every aspect of the matter to ascertain as to whether the documents produced are right or wrong. It is only for the trial Court, after the parties are put into test of cross-examination, to establish the same. Even endorsement is said to have been collected from the department regarding issuance of CL-2 licence, which prima facie show about the commission of the alleged offences by the petitioners. When such

NC: 2026:KHC:7958

HC-KAR

material is available and when serious allegations of impersonation of respondent No.2-complainant is made by petitioner No.1 in collusion with the department as well as petitioner No.2, I am of the clear opinion that it is not a case to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the entire charge sheet material and it cannot be said that the case of complainant is totally groundless, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. Further, the factual aspects of the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their contentions and the facts and circumstances in the case on hand, are not exactly one and the same. Therefore, the said decisions will not come to the aid and assistance of the petitioners' counsel, at this stage, for quashing of the proceedings.