Mr Naveen Kumar S Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Mr Naveen Kumar S Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the FIR registered in Cr.No.274/2012 by White Field police station, Bengaluru, and of the criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.7092/2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

Court's answer

When the executants of the Sale Deed (accused Nos.1 and 2) themselves are acquitted by the Trial Court, no substance exists to constitute any offence against the present petitioner, who is alleged only to have purchased 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.40 under the registered Sale Deed dated 18.06.2011 for Rs.52,50,000/-; respondent No.2 (informant) had not appeared despite sufficient notice.

Ratio / Principle

The continuation of the criminal proceedings before the Trial Court is nothing but abuse of process of law; accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.7092/2016 is liable to be quashed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRL.P No. 9642 of 2024, High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru — oral order of Hon'ble Mrs. Justice M G Uma dated 07-07-2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:24482). Petitioner, arraigned as accused No.3, filed a S.482 Cr.P.C. application to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.7092/2016 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, arising out of FIR Cr.No.274/2012 (Whitefield Police Station) for the offence punishable under S.420 r/w S.34 IPC. Prosecution alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2, as PoA holders of Smt.Jayamma and others, first sold site katha No.40B/10 (Hidden View Layout, Nallurahalli village, Mahadevpura) to the informant on 08.03.2004 for Rs.3,98,520/- and thereafter, with common intention to cheat, executed Sale Deed dated 18.06.2011 for 30 guntas in Sy.No.40 — inclusive of land already sold to the informant — for Rs.52,50,000/-, the petitioner being the purchaser under the latter deed. Findings relied upon: accused Nos.1 and 2 stand acquitted in trial (judgment dated 07.02.2017, learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, C.C.No.8498/2013, Annexure-E), prosecution failing to prove their guilt; the informant's title-declaration suit O.S.No.1589/2012 was dismissed for default on 16.07.2018; respondent No.2 (informant) did not appear despite sufficient notice. Court's holding (ratio): with the executants themselves acquitted, no substance remains to constitute any offence against the mere purchaser, and continuation of the proceedings is nothing but abuse of process of law, rendering the Trial Court's order in C.C.No.7092/2016 liable to be quashed. Disposition: petition allowed; FIR Cr.No.274/2012 and the proceedings in C.C.No.7092/2016 quashed.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:24482 CRL.P No. 9642 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9642 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

MR. NAVEEN KUMAR S S/O MR. SAMPANGI RAMAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/A NO 197, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND STAGE, DOMLUR, BANGALORE - 560 071

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. GAGANDEEP .E. FOR

SRI. AJIT .P., ADVOCATES)

AND:

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY WHITEFIELD POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

MR. VEERESH OBERAY S/O MR. BISHVESHWARA OBERAY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS OLD R/A NO 23, BELL VADER ESTATE, NO. 8/8 ALIPUR ROAD, CALCUTTA, CENTRAL DIVISION, WEST BENGAL - 70027

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO. 7092/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE IPC ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 0274/2012 REGISTERED BY THE R1 WHITE FIELD POLICE

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:24482 CRL.P No. 9642 of 2024

HC-KAR

STATION, BANGALORE PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNX-A AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

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

Petitioner being accused No.3 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Cr.No.274/2012 by the White Field Police Station, Bangalore pending in CC No.7092/2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant has filed the first information stating that accused Nos.1 and 2 being the Power of Attorney Holders of Smt.Jayamma and others, executed the Sale Deed on 08.03.2004 in respect of site katha No.40B/10 (old No.B-10) of Hidden View Layout situated at Nallurahalli village, Mahadevpura, Bangalore, for consideration of Rs.3,98,520/-. Subsequently, accused Nos.1

and 2 with common intention to cheat the informant sold 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.40 which includes the land which was

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:24482 CRL.P No. 9642 of 2024

HC-KAR

already sold in favour of the informant, for total consideration of Rs.52,50,000/- and thereby all the accused have committed cheating. On the basis of first information, the FIR in Crime No.274/2012 of White Field Police Station came to be registered and after investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. Accused No.3 is before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings now pending in C.C.No.7092/2016.

Heard Sri Gagandeep, E., learned counsel for Sri. Ajit P.B., learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials on record.

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:24482 CRL.P No. 9642 of 2024

HC-KAR

R E A S O N S

It is the contention of the prosecution, even though accused Nos. 1 and 2 have sold a portion of the land comprised in site No.40/B-10, in favour of the informant under the Registered Sale Deed dated 08.03.2004, with a common intention to cheat the informant, they again executed the Sale Deed dated 18.06.2011 to an extent of 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.40, which includes the land which was already sold in favour of the informant, and thereby they have committed cheating.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the copy of the judgment dated 07.02.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, Rural District, Bengaluru in C.C.No.8498/2013 (Annexure-E) where-under accused Nos.1 and 2 were tried for the above said offence and they were acquitted by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove their guilt.

Learned counsel contended that the informant had filed the suit in O.S.No.1589/2012 on the file of learned III

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:24482 CRL.P No. 9642 of 2024

HC-KAR

Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, seeking declaration of his title under the registered Sale Deed said to have been executed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in his favour. He also submits that the said suit came to be dismissed for default on 16.07.2018.

The materials that are placed before the Court disclose that, serious allegations are made against accused Nos.1 and 2 for having committed the offence under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, and they, being the executants of the Sale Deed in favour of the informant were already acquitted by the Trial Court. The same is to be considered in the light of the allegations made against the present petitioner. The only allegation made against the present petitioner is that, he purchased 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.40 under the registered Sale Deed dated 18.06.2011 for the consideration of Rs.52,50,000/. When the executants of the Sale Deed themselves are acquitted by the Trial Court, I do not find any substance to constitute any offence against the present petitioner. Respondent No.2 being the informant has not chosen to appear before this Court in-spite of sufficient notice.

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:24482 CRL.P No. 9642 of 2024

HC-KAR

Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the continuation of the criminal proceedings before the Trial Court is nothing but abuse of process of law. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.7092/2016 is liable to be quashed.

In view of the discussions held above, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) The FIR registered in Cr.No.274/2012 by White Field police station, Bengaluru, pending in C.C.No.7092/2016 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Section 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed.

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

MKM CT:VS

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43