Siddarudha.M.J @ Sathish Gowda Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Siddarudha.M.J @ Sathish Gowda Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; entire proceedings in C.C.No.2737/2021 pending before the II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Magadi, Ramanagar District quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner/accused No.4; validity of the alleged power of attorney left open to the pending civil suit; all contentions kept open.

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.2737/2021 (Crime No.416/2020, Tavarekere P.S.) for offences under Sections 323, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC should be quashed against the petitioner (arraigned as accused No.4) as constituting an abuse of the process of law. +1 more

Court's answer

Where the only allegation against an accused is that he accompanied accused Nos.1 and 2 at the time of the incident, and there is no other allegation of his having committed the offence along with accused Nos.1 and 2 in deceiving the de facto complainant, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2737/2021 pending on the file of the II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Magadi, Ramanagar District are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner/accused No.4.

Key takeaways

The Court clarified that it has not adjudicated the validity of the alleged power of attorney executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.4; the Trial Court in the pending suit filed by accused No.1 is at liberty to adjudicate it without being influenced by any observations made in this order, the observations being only for the purpose of the present petition, and all contentions are kept open.obiter¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS) by Siddarudha M.J @ Sathish Gowda, arraigned as accused No.4, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.2737/2021 (Crime No.416/2020, PCR No.180/2020, Tavarekere P.S., Ramanagara) for offences under Sections 323, 420, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC, arising out of formation and sale of 48 sites measuring 30 x 40 in 20 guntas of Sy.No.28 at Varthur, Narsipura Village, Bangalore South Taluk through a chain of power of attorney, agreement of sale and registered sale deeds. Noting that proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 2 had already been quashed by this Court's order dated 31.10.2023 in Crl.P.No.6719/2022, and that the only allegation against the remaining accused was their having accompanied accused Nos.1 and 2 at the time of the incident with no other allegation of deceiving the de facto complainants, the Court held that continuation of the criminal proceeding would be an abuse of process of law and quashed the proceedings qua the petitioner/accused No.4. The Court expressly clarified that it had not adjudicated the validity of the alleged power of attorney executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.4, leaving it to the Trial Court in the pending civil suit, uninfluenced by this order, and kept all contentions open.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16859 CRL.P No. 5857 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5857 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SIDDARUDHA.M.J @ SATHISH GOWDA, S/O JOGI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 10^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, NEAR HMR SCHOOL, JNANAJYOTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 056.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MANJUNATH M R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY TAVAREKERE P.S, RAMANAGARA. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

SRI. HEMANTH. S., S/O S. L. SHIVALINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.151, 8^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, 4^TH BLOCK, NANDINI LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 096.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16859 CRL.P No. 5857 of 2025

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.2737/2021, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 420, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, REGISTERED IN CR.NO.416/2020 (PCR.NO.180/2020) BY TAVAREKERE P.S., RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2nd ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 504 & 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

The Defacto complainant in this petition lodged the FIR alleging that, accused No.1 though not the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.28 measuring 5 acres 14 guntas plus (3 guntas of Kharab) situated at Varthur, Narsipura Village Tavarekere Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, executed power of attorney in favour of accused No.4 Ravikumar V., for dealing with the property to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.28. Accused No.4 in turn

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16859 CRL.P No. 5857 of 2025

executed registered agreement of sale in favour of accused No.5 who purportedly formed a residential layout in the said extent of 20 guntas and conveyed 48 sites measuring 30 feet X 40 feet to the de facto-complainant and others.

Though the sale deeds had been executed in favour of the defacto-complainants, the accused No.1 and 2 came to the sites and objected to the enjoyment of the sites by the defacto complainants. Thereafter, accused No.1 to 4 colluding with each other hatched a plan to grab sites belonging to the defacto complainant by trespassing into the sites and when questioned, accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to have stated that the 20 guntas of land belongs to them. The police after conducting an investigation submitted the charges sheets.

The summary of the charge sheets is that, Accused No.1 purchased the land measuring 5 acres 14 guntas + 3 guntas Kharab land through a registered sale deed dated 31.03.2016 from M/s DLF housing Company, and thereafter the petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of accused No.4 on 16.02.2017 for an extent of 20 guntas, and in turn accused No.4 as a GPA holder executed an agreement of sale in favour of accused No.5 conveying 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.28. Thereafter the accused No.4 and 5 have executed registered sale deeds in favour of the defacto complainant and others conveying 48 sites measuring 30 X 40 for valuable sale consideration.

The accused No.1 after executing the power of attorney has conveyed the entire extent of land including the 20

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16859 CRL.P No. 5857 of 2025

guntas of land in favour of accused No.2 by executing registered gift deed dated 30.03.2017.

Accused Nos.1 to 5 in collusion with each other and with a common intention of cheating the defacto complainant after receiving the sale consideration are claiming that the 20 guntas of land belong to Accused Nos.1 & 2.

Accused Nos.1 and 2 had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.6719/2022 and connected matters challenging the very same impugned proceedings. This Court vide order dated 31.10.2023 quashed the proceedings insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 and 2 by observing as under:

"12. An extent of 5 acres 14 guntas of land in Sy.No.28 was purchased by the petitioner-accused No.1 under the registered sale deed dated 31.03.2016 executed by M/s DFL housing Company represented by its partners. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner-accused No.1 has executed a power of attorney dated 16.2.2017 in favour of the accused No.4 to deal with 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.28 and the clause contained in the power of attorney discloses that the accused No.1 was entrusted with the responsibility to sell the portion of the land/ lease/mortgage the schedule property or in part and for on behalf of accused No.1 and to execute appropriate registered sale deeds and to receive sale consideration there upon.

13. In terms of the power of attorney granted, accused No.4 entered into an agreement of sale dated 28.3.2017 in favour of accused No.5. Perusal of the agreement of sale discloses that the 20 guntas of land was said have been conveyed to accused No.5 subject to certain terms and conditions for a sum of Rs.40 Lakhs out of which a sum of Rs.5 Lakh was received by accused No.4, and the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deeds in favour of accused N0.5.

14. In terms of the registered GPA and registered sale agreement dated 20.8.2017, accused No.4 as power of attorney of accused No.1 and accused No.5 as 2^nd party

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16859 CRL.P No. 5857 of 2025

developer executed registered sale deeds in favour of the defacto complainants conveying plots measuring 30 X 40.

15. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused after having formed plots in 20 guntas of land have executed multiple sale deeds in respect of each of the plots to make wrongful gain at the expense of the de facto complainants.

16. Whether the GPA was created by accused No.4 cannot be gone into in these petitions, and the same can be adjudicated by the Civil Court in the pending suits filed by accused No.1 against the accused Nos. 4 and 5 for declaration and permanent injunction wherein it is alleged that the accused No.4 by forging the signature of accused No.1 had created power of attorney and thereafter, the said accused along with accused No.5 have fraudulently conveyed the plots to the de facto complainants.

17. The accused No.4 under the alleged GPA was authorized to deal with 20 guntas of land, however it is alleged that the accused No.4 and 5 have executed multiple sale deeds in respect of each plot. In the absence of any material that the petitioners connived with the accused No.4 and 5 to cheat the defacto complainant, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for any act of Accused No.4 if he has exceeded the authority give, since they are neither the parties nor the signatories to the sale deeds. "

The only allegation against accused Nos.3 and 5 is that they had accompanied accused Nos.1 and 2 at the time of the incident and except the said allegation, there is no other allegations of having committed the offence along with accused Nos.1 and 2 in deceiving the defacto complainant. Under such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law.

Hence, the following:

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:16859 CRL.P No. 5857 of 2025

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed .

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2737/2021, pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Magadi, Ramanagar District insofar it relates to petitioner/accused No.4, are hereby quashed.

It is made clear, this Court has not adjudicated the validity of the alleged power of attorney executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.4, and the Trial Court in pending suit filed by the accused No.1 is at liberty to adjudicate the same without being influenced by any observations made in this order, and the observation made, if any, is only for the purpose of the present petition.

All contentions are kept open.

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 105