Sri Pradeepa P N Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE RURAL POLICE STATION, MADIKERI REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

GOVINDA PANI S/O THANDAYUTHA PANI AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT MANDAPAM ROAD KLIPAUK CHENNAI, TAMILNADU-62351.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. ANGAD KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W 482 OF CPC, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 56/2025 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPLE CIVIL JUDGE (JR DV) AND JMFC COURT, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 463, 464, 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This writ petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Cr.No.56/2025 on the file of Principal Civil Judge(Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Madikeri, for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 471, 419, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

A written complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 alleging that, on the basis of a forged representation, the petitioner, by misusing his position as a Government Surveyor, prepared and issued forged notices intimating

¶25

the date of survey. The complainant, who resides abroad, has categorically disputed his presence in India and denied

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

the signatures appearing on the said notices. It is further alleged that, on the strength of the forged representation, the notices were issued and statements were recorded. Consequently, respondent No.2 filed a written complaint before the jurisdictional police, alleging forgery, impersonation, and misuse of his Aadhaar credentials, contending that the petitioner forged his signatures on the representation and notices with intent to cheat.

¶29

The present petition is filed by accused No.2 (the Surveyor) seeking quashing of the proceedings primarily on two grounds. First, it is contended that the survey was undertaken in discharge of his official duties and, therefore, prior sanction under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory before prosecuting him. Secondly,

¶30

the petitioner submits that the survey was initiated pursuant to a file received from the Tahsildar’s office, and notices were issued in that process. Hence, the alleged forgery of respondent No.2’s signatures by unknown persons, if any, cannot attract criminal liability insofar as

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

the petitioner is concerned. On these grounds, the

¶34

petitioner has prayed for quashing of the proceedings.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

¶36

(i) Parminder Kaur v. State of U.P. , [2009 Supreme

¶37

(SC) 1675] and

¶38

(ii) Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan & Another (Criminal Appeal No. 842/2026).

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the petition, contending that the complaint is supported by both oral and documentary evidence, including the complainant’s passport, immigration stamps, and the forensic report concerning the alleged forged signatures. He submits that a thorough investigation is necessary since the allegations involve serious offences of forgery and abuse of public office. While countering the petitioner’s submissions, he argues

¶40

5 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

that the FIR discloses independent criminal offences and is unconnected with any civil dispute regarding the property. He further submits that the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and that

¶44

this petition ought not to have been entertained to stall a cognizable investigation. According to him, the FIR clearly makes out a prima facie case of cheating and forgery.

¶45

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶46

petitioner, the learned counsel for respondent

¶47

No.2/complainant, and the learned HCGP for the State.

¶48

At this stage, it is necessary to examine the gist

¶49

of the allegations in the complaint, particularly paragraphs 5 and 6, which are relevant to the petitioner’s alleged involvement. It would be appropriate to extract those paragraphs for consideration.

¶50

"5. In the meantime, my mother Smt. Susheela Pani passed away on 09.05.2021 leaving behind me, my Brother and one sister as her sole legal heirs. On the demise of my mother, Smt. Susheela Pani my elder brother, sister and I being her onlylegal heirs acquired the absolute right, title and interest in and over the aforesaid properties by

¶51

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

succession rights. Inorder to set the records right, after my mother's sad demise, my brother and I engaged a lawyer, by name Ranjit from Madikeri, to assist us to update the property documentation, including obtaining the RTC and to obtain the tax assessment based on the survey sketch of the land the said property. Subsequently, Ranjit referred us to a real estate facilitator/agent by name Sri Prasanna Bhat Shat for expediting the process.

¶54

6. On 19th April 2023, I along with my brother, my friend Mr. Naveen Cariappa, and my cousin Mr. Shankar Raj, met the real estate agent, with whom we had shared copies of all the property related documents, all our Aadhar card copies, PAN card copies and my mother's death certificate. These documents were handed over to the realestate agent, by name Mr. Prasanna Bhat with the sole purpose of procuring the RTC in our name and to get the tax assessment for our property."

¶55

The extracted portion, referred to hereinabove, reveals that the complainant has admitted that his mother was the absolute owner of the property in question and that she passed away on 09.05.2021. Upon her demise, the complainant, along with his siblings, approached an advocate by name Ranjit, residing at Madikeri, for guidance regarding the mutation of their names in respect of the said property. The said advocate is stated to have

¶56

7 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

referred them to one Prasanna Bhat, described as a real

¶60

estate facilitator/ agent.

¶61

The tenor of paragraphs 5 and 6 of the complaint further indicates that the complainant and his family members entrusted to the said Prasanna Bhat, the relevant property-related documents, including copies of their Aadhaar cards, PAN cards, and the death certificate of their mother. These documents were handed over for the limited purpose of carrying out the necessary formalities for entering their names in the revenue records by deleting the name of their deceased mother from the ownership column of the disputed property.

¶62

In contrast, the pleadings in the civil suit

¶63

instituted by respondent No.2 present a different picture. In O.S. No.64/2024, the complainant and his siblings have categorically admitted that their mother’s name was never mutated in the revenue records, notwithstanding the fact that she had acquired title under a registered sale deed

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

executed by the original owner, Smt. A.B. Damayanthi. For a proper appreciation of this aspect, it is necessary to refer to paragraphs 5 and 7 of the plaint in the said suit, which are extracted below for ready reference:

¶68

"5. The plaintiffs submit that, even though Smt A B Damayanthi executed the registered sale deed in favour of Smt Susheela Pani, the Record of Rights pertaining to 'A' schedule property was not issued to her name due to technical reasons and the same continued in the name of original owner. Well, pursuant to said purchase, all the relevant documents maintained in the office of sub-registrar including encumbrance certificate disclose the name of their mother Smt Susheela Pani as the lawful owner. The application to mutate the revenue records pertaining to 'A' schedule property was moved by Smt Susheela Pani way back in the year 1997. The revenue department mutated the Khatha of an area of 2.75 acres and 3.00 acres out of 22.41 acres bearing number 79/1996-97 MC/TMT/5/97-98 and MC /TMT/1/97-98 as per registered sale deed bearing number 993 pertaining to 'A' schedule property. The boundaries were fixed, sketch drawn and legal possession and enjoyment was confirmed."

¶69

"7. The plaintiff submits that, the first defendant Sri. Raghu A.N. and his family members noticed the revenue records pertaining to 'A' schedule property did not show the name of Smt A B Damayanthi the original purchaser of 'A' schedule property as well as the name of subsequent purchaser Smt Susheela Pani, took advantage of the discrepancies in the revenue records and hence hatched a plan to somehow

¶70

9 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

knock off the 'A schedule property by misusing the revenue entries. The first defendant Sri Raghu was well aware that his father Mr. Narayann were not the owners of 'A' schedule property, which was owned by Smt Damayanthi, who in turn had sold the same to the mother of plaintiffs."

¶74

On a careful reading of the paragraphs extracted above, it becomes evident that the

¶75

complainant’s allegation that the survey was manipulated and that the signatures of respondent No.2 were forged by

¶76

the petitioner/surveyor with an intention to cheat the complainant and his family members appears to be an exaggeration and is inconsistent with the pleadings set out in the plaint extracted supra. The records further disclose

¶77

that the survey was, in fact, never completed. It was abandoned midway owing to objections raised by the adjoining landowners.

¶78

Conversely, the averments in the plaint, which have been culled out hereinabove, indicate that the legal heirs of the original owner, by taking undue advantage of

¶79

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

the fact that the vendor’s name continued to remain in the ownership column despite the execution of the registered sale deed, managed to obtain an inheritance khata in their favour. They thereafter alienated the property in favour of third parties, which ultimately compelled the complainant to institute a suit for bare injunction, numbered O.S. No.64/2024. The tenor of these pleadings, therefore, belies the version put forth in the criminal complaint that the alleged acts of forgery or manipulation in the survey records were the basis for the wrongful sale of the property.

¶82

A crucial aspect that cannot escape the attention of this Court is that the allegations made in the written complaint do not, even on a prima facie examination, establish that the legal heirs of the original owner, namely Smt. Damayanthi, sold the property on the strength of any survey records. On the contrary, the pleadings in the civil suit clearly reveal that the sale was effected solely on the basis of an inheritance khata , which

¶83

11 -

¶84

NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶85

HC-KAR

¶86

was entirely unrelated to the survey proceedings which, as already noted, remained unaccomplished.

¶87

The complaint itself records that several documents,including property papers, Aadhaar card copies, PAN card copies, and the death certificate of the complainant’s mother had been voluntarily handed over

¶88

by the complainant and his siblings to a real estate agent, Prasanna Bhat, with the object of getting the property surveyed and securing a change of khata . These very averments undermine the complainant’s case and, on the face of it, fail to disclose the commission of any offence insofar as the present petitioner is concerned. It is, indeed, noteworthy that no complaint has been lodged against the said Prasanna Bhat, who was admittedly entrusted with the task of facilitating the change of khata .

¶89

With regard to the maintainability of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, who is a public servant, this issue need not detain the Court in view of the

¶90

12 -

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

well-settled legal position. A long line of precedents of the

¶94

Hon’ble Supreme Court and of this Court have consistently held that no criminal prosecution can be launched against a public servant in respect of acts performed in discharge

¶95

of his official duties unless the previous sanction contemplated under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is obtained. In the present case, there is no material to show that the mandatory sanction was secured prior to the registration of the FIR and initiation of proceedings against the petitioner.

¶96

For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶97

ORDER

¶98

(i) The writ petition is hereby allowed .

¶99

(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.56/2025, pending before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC, Madikeri, Kodagu District, for offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 471, 419 and 420 read with

¶100

NC: 2025:KHC:37119 WP No. 20423 of 2025

¶101