Sri N Keshav Chandra Vs State of Karnataka

SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY A., S/O LATE R. ANANTHARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS NO.1028, DCH/22/04 MARUTHI NILAYA JAYALAKSHMI VILLAS ROAD CHAMARAJANPURAM BEHIND AIRLINE HOTEL MYSURU – 577 009. …PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. HEMANTH KUMAR G.M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDI POLICE STATION MANDI MOHALLA MYSURU-570 001 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:43257 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

SRI. V. CHANDRA S/O LATE K.V.VARADARAJ AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS NO.H-3, SHAKTHI SUNSHINE APARTMENTS 8^TH CROSS, 10^TH MAIN, MARUTHI NAGAR, MALLESHAPALYA BENGALURU - 560 075.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. UMAPATHI S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN C.C.NO.5997/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC MYSURU, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 468, 469, 470, 420, 447, 120-B, 201 OF IPC, BY THE MANDI POLICE STATION, AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶26

These two petitioners are accused Nos.3 and 4 and in the petition, it is contented that respondent No.2 filed the complaint before the first respondent-Police on 03.10.2020 and

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43257 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

the Police have registered the case in Crime No.97/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 470, 420, 447, 120B and 201 of IPC against accused Nos.1 and 2 and others for the incident that alleged to have taken place on 22.09.1991.

¶30

The allegation made in the complaint is that property originally belonged to one Sri V. Chinnagiriyappa, who is the maternal uncle of respondent No.2, who had executed a registered Will dated 29.05.1978 in which the property in question was given to three persons P. Nandini, Vijayalakshmi and V. Chandra and others and the accused No.1-Chandra started claiming on the basis of some fraudulent documents. The respondent No.2 was not aware of such documents, but Sri V. Chinnagiriyappa’s estranged wife has filed O.S.No.451/1998 claiming right over the property and in the suit, Sri Chandra executed a Will dated 22.09.1991 and the suit was dismissed and finding has been recorded that when once the suit is dismissed, interest amongst the defendants would not operate as res judicata and the same has to be adjudicated in an independent proceeding wherever it is initiated. Based on the same, the said Chandra has gone before the Municipal

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43257 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Authorities, managed with Municipal Authorities and had obtained khatha in respect of the properties in question. The respondent No.2 has challenged the same before the High Court in W.P. and the High Court has set aside the same. The Mysore authorities has cancelled the khatha which was in the name of Chandra and reinstated the khatha in the name of the original owner Sri V. Chinnagiriyappa. The respondent No.2 had taken the copy of Notary Will which was produced by Chandra in O.S.No.451/1998 and also obtained the Court admitted/certified copies of the signatures available of Sri V. Chinnagiriyappa in the vakalath and his affidavit filed in O.S.No.2907/1990 and the respondent No.2 has sent the same for Forensic examination. The Forensic examination has given clear report that there is absolutely no resemblance in the admitted and the signatures of Sri. V. Chinnagiriappa in the Court proceedings and the signatures found on Notary Will dated 22.09.1991 which is claimed is a created and fabricated document. It is also contented that it is only on virtue of the orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 18.11.2019 that this entire issue could have been dealt with no examination of criminality of the action of Chandra and further exercise was

¶34

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43257 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

undertaken in securing the certified copies and seeking opinion from a reputed Forensic Laboratory only to find out that it is a forged Will. The respondent No.2 co-owner was in possession of a portion and distribution caused by Sri Chandra and other accused and broke open the lock and facilitated and abetted the trespassing into a portion of the property along with other accused. The material discloses that Will was a created, forged and fabricated document. Hence, complaint is lodged and investigation is conducted and Police have also filed the chargesheet.

¶37

The main contention of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners before this Court is that earlier original proceedings was initiated in O.S.No.451/1998 and a specific stand was taken regarding the Will is concerned. The Civil Court comes to the conclusion that Will is not proved and also an appeal was filed and appeal was also dismissed and R.S.A. was filed and afterthought, after dismissal of the suit, as a counter blast of the civil suit, present complaint is filed. The entire matter on hand is purely civil in nature. The complainant has chosen to given tinge of criminal colour to a civil matter and

¶38

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43257 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

referring the findings of the Civil Court in O.S.No.451/1998, R.A.No.183/2015 and R.S.A.No.1794/2017, the counsel contends that the very initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners, who are the witnesses of the said Will are wrongly brought within the jurisdiction of criminal proceedings. Hence, this Court has to quash the proceedings.

¶41

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that this Court has already considered the case of accused No.1 in Criminal Petition No.227/2021 vide order dated 01.03.2021 and dismissed the same that matter requires trial and so also in respect of accused No.2 in Criminal Petition No.399/2025 vide order dated 28.02.2025 and dismissed the same that he has to face trial. The counsel also submits that when the forensic report is given that Will is created, forged and fabricated and these petitioners are also part of fabrication of document and specific allegation is made against them that in collusion with accused Nos.1 and 2, these two petitioners indulged in creation of document and attested the same as witnesses to the Will, the petitioners are

¶42

7 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:43257 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

not entitled for quashing of the proceedings initiated against them.

¶46

The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State would submit that investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed and Trial Court also taken cognizance considering the material available on record, particularly the offences under Section 468, 469, 470, 420, 447, 120B and 201 of IPC. Hence, no ground is made out to quash the proceedings.

¶47

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1State and learned counsel for respondent No.2, the petitioners also not dispute the fact that they are the witnesses to the document of Will which was allegedly executed in the year 1991. The counsel would submit that they are the witnesses and they were not having any intention to cheat anyone and not indulged in creation of any document and there cannot be any criminal prosecution against these two petitioners. The counsel also would submit that though the petitions against accused Nos.1 and 2 are dismissed and they indulged in

¶48

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:43257 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

obtaining the document and also creation of document of tenancy, but, these petitioners are not the beneficiaries and they have no pecuniary interest over the property. Hence, there cannot be any criminal prosecution against them. The said contention of learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted for the reason when specific allegation is made against these two petitioners that they are the witnesses to the Will and colluded in created of Will and being the attesting witnesses to the Will.

¶51

Prima facie, the material collected by the Investigating Officer discloses that Sri V. Chinnagiriyappa had not executed any Will and when the created document of Will was sent to FSL and FSL report is very clear that the admitted signature not tallies with the signature of Sri V. Chinnagiriyappa, when such report is given, the presence of Sri V. Chinnagiriyappa and very execution of the Will is doubtful and these two witnesses are attesting witnesses for execution of the Will and said Sri V. Chinnagiriyappa was not present and executed the document of Will and the same is a created and forged document, the matter requires trial with regard to very

¶52

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:43257 CRL.P No. 8692 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

attestation of the Will. When such material is available on record and this Court already considered the matter in detail while considering the earlier petitions filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 and dealt with the same that matter requires trial and in respect of allegations against these two petitioners also, matters requires trial and there cannot be any order quashing the proceedings. Even though there is a finding in the civil suit that the alleged document of Will was not sent to handwriting expert and now, the opinion of the handwriting expert is taken. Hence, no ground is made out by the petitioners to quash the proceedings.

¶55

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶56

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶57

ST

¶58

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

Sri N Keshav Chandra v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri N Keshav Chandra v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Nagaiah Vs B M Nissar Ahamed

Brahmachari Vs S. Ramamurthy

Shri.K.N.Venkatareddy Vs Kadirappa

Sri Suresh Jollera Vs Sri. Basappa

Mohan N Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunath @ R C Manjunath Vs Smt. Renukamma @ C Renuka