Dismissed¶40

Mr. Girish Kamath v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2025CRL.P/12956/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Justice Mohammad Nawaz, 01-04-2025; NC: 2025:KHC:13525), CRL.P No. 12956 of 2023 under S.482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS: quashing refused of prosecution in C.C.No.919/2023 (Crime No.6/2019, Mulki Police Station) for forgery/forged-GPA land sale offences under IPC Sections 419, 114, 420, 465, 467, 468, 201 r/w 34; bona fide purchaser plea rejected at threshold; liberty reserved to seek discharge; petition dismissed, interlocutory applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

The validity of the GPA cannot be examined in this quashing petition. ¶36

Mr. Girish Kamath Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.919/2023 (offences punishable under Sections 419, 114, 420, 465, 467, 468, 201 read with 34 IPC), pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodbidri, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

The validity of the GPA cannot be examined in this quashing petition.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Merely because the GPA and sale deed were not challenged is not, at this stage, a ground to conclude that the petitioner is innocent or a bona fide purchaser of the property.

¶36

Key takeaways

In the course of investigation, statements of CW5 to CW9 were recorded denying having executed any such GPA in favour of accused No.2.ratio¶37
This Court cannot conduct a mini enquiry at this stage; it is open to the petitioner to seek discharge from the case.ratio¶39
If the petitioner seeks discharge, the trial Court shall consider the same without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of C.C.No.919/2023 (Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodbidri) for offences punishable under Sections 419, 114, 420, 465, 467, 468, 201 read with 34 IPC, arising from Crime No.6/2019 of Mulki Police Station registered on referral of respondent No.2's private complaint. Allegation: accused No.2, by virtue of a forged GPA, sold the complainant's land in Sy.No.17/2 of Karnadu Village, Mulki, to accused No.1 (the petitioner), who claimed to be a bona fide purchaser and relied on the GPA and sale deed remaining unchallenged, with partition case FDP.No.13/2016 pending regarding the same property. Held: the validity of the GPA cannot be examined in the petition; non-challenge of the GPA/sale deed does not make the petitioner innocent or a bona fide purchaser at this stage; CW5 to CW9 denied executing the GPA; the Court cannot conduct a mini enquiry; the petitioner may seek discharge, to be considered by the trial Court uninfluenced by these observations. Petition dismissed; I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 disposed of.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13525 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12956 OF 2023

¶7

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. GIRISH KAMATH, S/O LATE DAMODAR KAMATH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/AT DOOR NO. 14-54, SVT SQUARE, NEAR FLOWER GARDEN, MANAMPADY VILLAGE, MULKY TALUK, DK DIST - 574 154.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. M.R. BALAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MULKY POLICE STATION, D.K. DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. MR. GURUDHATTA PRABHU, S/O SRIDHARA PRABHU, MAJOR IN AGE, C/O SUDHEER NARAHARI SHENOY, PANCHAMAHAL ROAD, MULKY, MANGALURU TALUK, D.K. DIST - 574 154.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. T.V. MANJUNATHACHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:13525 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2023

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.919/2023 INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, MULKY POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 114, 420, 465, 467, 468, 201 R/W 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MOODBIDRI.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Petitioner has challenged the registration of

¶24

CC.No.919/2023 on the file of Court of Senior Civil Judge

¶25

and JMFC, Moddabidri, for offences punishable under Section 419, 114, 420, 465, 467, 468, 201 read with 34 of IPC.

¶26

Respondent No.2 herein filed a private complaint, which was referred to police for investigation, consequent to which, a case in Crime No.6/2019 was registered at Mulki Police Station for the aforementioned offences, which culminated in filing of charge sheet.

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:13525 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2023

¶29

The allegations are that accused No.2, by virtue of a forged GPA sold the land belonging to the complainant in Sy.No.17/2 of Karnadu Village, Mulki, measuring about 0.37 cents, showing CW5 to CW9 as owners of the land and on the strength of said GPA sold the property to accused No.1 i.e., the petitioner herein.

¶30

It is contended that the petitioner is only a bonafide purchaser of the property and neither the GPA nor the sale deed has been challenged by respondent No.2 or CW5 to CW9, the persons alleged to have executed the deed in favour of accused No.2.

¶31

The learned counsel for petitioner would further contend that the complaint is filed with mala fide intention making frivolous allegations, a civil case between the family members of respondent No.2 in connection with the very same property in FDP.No.13/2016 is pending adjudication before the Principal Civil Judge, Karkala for partition. Therefore, it is contended that the criminal

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:13525 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2023

¶34

proceedings initiated against the petitioner is an abuse of process of the Court.

¶35

Learned High Court Government Pleader has contended that the police have filed charge sheet after a thorough investigation, as it was found that the GPA was fabricated and CW5 to CW9 have given their statements that they have not signed the GPA. It is therefore, contended that the proceedings cannot be quashed.

¶36

The validity of GPA cannot be examined in this petition. According to prosecution, the GPA in question is a fabricated document, which was obtained by accused No.2 by forging the signatures of CW5 to CW9. Merely because the said GPA and sale deed were not challenged, itself is not a ground to come a conclusion at this stage that the petitioner is innocent or he is a bonafied purchaser of the property.

¶37

In the course of investigation, statements of CW5 to CW9 are recorded, who have denied having executed any such GPA in favour of accused No.2. The

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13525 CRL.P No. 12956 of 2023

¶39

prosecution has alleged that there is collusion between accused No.2 and accused No.1, present petitioner to whom the property was sold by accused No.2. This Court cannot conduct a mini enquiry at this stage. It is open for the petitioner to seek discharge from the case, if he is so advised. In that event, the trial Court shall consider the same without being influenced by any of the observations made herein.

¶40

Petition is dismissed .

¶41

I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2023 are disposed of .

¶42

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶43

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT: BHK

Mr. Girish Kamath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Girish Kamath v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rekha S Kotegoudar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Sandeep Singh Bedi Alias Bobby Bedi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Arun Raj Basavaraj Vs Dr. Sphoorthi Basavannaiah

Sri Deepak K G Vs the State of Karnataka

Deepa Lakshmi Vs the State

Smt Padma Vs State of Karnataka