[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Suvalal Jain vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:9060
CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6566 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. SUVALAL JAIN,
S/O LATE SRI NATHULAL JAIN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.225/B,
KENGERI, VIDYA PEETA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 060
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANDESH C.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY BAGALAGUNTE
POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY
ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
Digitally signed
by PRASHANTH
NV 2. SRI K N SIDDAGANGAIAH
Location: High S/O LATE SRI NANJAIAH
Court of AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
Karnataka
RESIDING AT NO.71/11,
2ND CROSS, SAPTHAGIRI
LAYOUT, NAGASANDRA
POST, DODDBIDARAKALLU
BENGALURU - 560 041
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1
SRI. S. DORE RAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED IN P.C.R.NO.13299/2020 AS
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:9060
CRL.P No. 6566 of 2022
HC-KAR
AGAINST THE ACCUSED NO.1-PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
420, 41, 422, 423, 424, 465, 468, 471, 120B OF IPC, IN REJECTING
THE B-FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE BAGALAGUNTE POLICE-
RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER SECTION 156(3) OF CR.PC AND THEREBY
FURTHER REFERRING THE MATTER FOR INVESTIGATION ONCE
AGAIN TO THE JURISDICTIONAL POLICE, BENGALURU POLICE-
RESPONDENT NO.1 UNDER SEC.173(8) OF THE CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 TO INVESTIGATE AND SUBMIT THE
REPORT PASSED BY THE HONBLE XXXI A.C.M.M., VIDE ANNEXURE-A
IN PURSUANCE TO THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE COMPLAINANT
VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused No.1 in
PCR.No.13299/2020 on the file of learned XXXI Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in Crime No.340/2020
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 421,
422, 423, 424, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 120B of Indian
Penal Code (for short 'IPC') is seeking to quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against him.
2. Heard Sri. Sandesh. C.R, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Sri. Rangaswamy. R, learned HCGP for respondent
NC: 2026:KHC:9060
HC-KAR
No.1 and Sri. S. Dore Raju, learned counsel for respondent
No.2. Perused the materials on record.
3. Respondent No.2 - complainant filed the private
complaint in PCR.No.13299/2020 against accused Nos.1 to 13
alleging commission of the offences as stated above. It is the
contention of the complainant that he was searching for a
house site in Bengaluru and he met one Sri. K. Narayana, an
ex-serviceman who offered to sell his site bearing No.6 formed
in Sy.No.54/2 measuring 70 X 30 feet situated in Bagalagunte
Village, Yeshwanthapur. Accordingly, the said Sri. K. Narayana,
executed the registered sale deed selling site No.6 in favour of
respondent No.2. It is stated that the said Sri.K.Narayana, had
purchased the said site from its original owner Sri.B.C.Mallaiah,
and his children. As per the General Power of Attorney deed
and the affidavit dated 29.01.1986 full sale consideration was
paid by respondent No.2 and under the registered sale deed he
was put in possession of the property in question. It is alleged
that the children of Sri.B.C.Mallaiah, conspired with accused
No.1 and made alteration in the plan, played fraud on the said
Sri. K. Narayana and also responded No.2. It is contended
NC: 2026:KHC:9060
HC-KAR
that, accused No.2 being the daughter of Sri. B.C. Mallaiah, and
other accused were not having any right, title or interest over
site No.6, however, accused No.2 executed a gift deed in
favour of one Smt.Hanumakka, who is none other than her
mother. It was part of conspiracy between the family members
at the instance of accused No.1
4. It is contended by the complainant that, after
purchasing the site No.6, he obtained a loan, put up a house
and was in possession of the property. Accused No.1 with the
active convenience of other accused filed the suit in
OS.No.731/2009 before the XIV Additional City Civil Judge,
Bengaluru seeking declaration of his title, cancellation of the
sale deed said to have been executed by accused No.2 along
with other accused in favour of accused No.1, for possession
and for permanent injunction. It is alleged that accused No.1
has deliberately shown the wrong address of respondent No.2
and managed to get an ex-parte decree. This fact came to the
knowledge of respondent No.2 just before filing of the
complaint. The Civil.Misc.No.647/2020 was filed seeking to set
aside the ex-parte decree and to restore the case on file and
NC: 2026:KHC:9060
HC-KAR
simultaneously, the private complaint in PCR.No.13299/2020
came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 13.
5. The learned Magistrate referred the matter for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating
Officer filed the 'B' report. The learned Magistrate after taking
into consideration the protest petition filed by the complainant
rejected the 'B' report and directed the Investigating Officer to
hold further investigation. In the meantime, the petitioner
being accused No.1 approached this Court seeking to quash the
criminal proceedings. An interim order of stay was granted and
therefore, it is stated that no further investigation was
undertaken.
6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner,
accused No.1 purchased site No.6 on 26.07.2004. But later
respondent No.2 concocted the document styled as sale deed
dated 29.07.2004 said to have been executed by Sri. B.C.
Mallaiah and his children. Therefore, the petitioner had filed the
suit seeking declaration of his title, cancellation of the sale deed
said to have been executed in favour of respondent No.2, for
possession and for permanent injunction. The said suit came to
NC: 2026:KHC:9060
HC-KAR
be decreed. Later an application was filed seeking to set aside
the judgment in decree passed by the Trial Court.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
there is absolutely no reason to file the private complaint
against the petitioner as he has not played any role in
execution of any of the documents, but he paid the
consideration amount and got the sale deed in his favour. No
offence as alleged against the petitioner is made out. The Trial
Court ignored the 'B' report filed by the Investigating Officer
and directed to hold further investigation without any basis.
Hence, he prays to allow the petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2
opposing the petition submitted that, this petitioner being
accused No.1 is the mastermind and a land grabber therefore,
he is a court bird. He is in the habit of identifying the sites or
the lands or properties and lay claim over the same by
concocting the documents, filing the suits before the Civil Court
by giving false addresses of the defendants and obtaining the
decree. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that a
minimum of 35 cases of cheating and other criminal offences
NC: 2026:KHC:9060
HC-KAR
were registered against this petitioner in various Police Stations
and the Courts at Bengaluru. Accused No.2 being the daughter
Sri. B.C. Mallaiah was the corporator. She along with her family
members joined hands with accused No.1 in changing the plan
and concocting the documents styled as sale deed to sell site
No.6 in favour of respondent No.2 when it was already sold in
favour of Sri. K.Narayana - the ex-serviceman. Since the
accused are very influential and they are land grabbers, the
Police have filed the 'B' report. The Trial Court on consideration
of the materials on record rejected the 'B' report and directed
further investigation. In the meantime, the petitioner has
approached this Court and got the stay order. Learned counsel
contended that if an impartial investigation is undertaken, the
fraud and the offences committed by the accused will come to
light and therefore, prays for dismissal of the petition.
9. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioners have made out any
grounds to allow the petition and to quash the
criminal proceedings initiated against him?"
NC: 2026:KHC:9060
HC-KAR
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
10. On perusal of the materials on record, the
allegations made by respondent No.2 is very serious in nature.
According to the petitioner, he purchased site No.6 under the
sale deed dated 29.07.2004. But while filing the suit against
respondent No.2 in OS.No.731/2009, he has sought for
possession of site No.6. It is pertinent to note that respondent
No.2 contended that, after purchase of property from the
earlier owner - Sri.Narayana, respondent No.2 had constructed
the house and started residing there. Learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 has filed a list of criminal and civil
miscellaneous cases involving the petitioner herein in various
Police Stations and Courts of Bangalore City.
11. Respondent No.2 specifically stated that the
petitioner - accused No.1 is a money lender, pawn broker, a
real estate agent, and it is alleged that he is the land grabber.
It is stated that accused No.2 was the corporator, having
money, manpower and political influence. It is also alleged that
NC: 2026:KHC:9060
HC-KAR
the judgment decree in OS.No.731/2009 was obtained by
accused No.1 by furnishing false address of respondent No.2.
However, Mis.No.647/2020 filed on 10.12.2020 is pending
consideration before the Civil Court. In the meantime, the
present complaint came to be filed. The allegations made
against the petitioner is in particular and all the accused in
general are very serious in nature. It is premature to form an
opinion that, the petitioner is falsely implicated in the matter
without any basis.
12. When prima facie the petitioner is having the
criminal antecedents and admittedly, he has obtained an ex-
parte decree against respondent No.2 by filing the suit for
possession against respondent No.2, even though, he said to
have purchased the property under the registered sale deed
dated 29.07.2004 from Sri. B.C. Mallaiah and his children,
much prior to the sale deed executed in favour of respondent
No.2, gives rise to a serious doubt about his contention which
makes a prima facie case against the petitioner. There is no
explanation by the petitioner as to why he allowed respondent
No.2 to construct the building on the site in question and
allowed him to be in possession of the same. Even though, the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:9060
HC-KAR
'B' report came to be filed, the learned Magistrate rejected the
same and ordered for further investigation, by assigning
reasons. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to
allow the petition. I am of the opinion that, since there are
prima facie materials and the petitioner is not entitled for an
order to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.
Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
PNV
CT:VS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
