Suresh Vs the State of Karnataka

SURESH, S/O SHIVA RAMA RAO S, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.1036/14E, SUMUKH BHOOMI S.J.H, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU-570008.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. DHANUSH MENON, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKSHAY RAMACHANDRA HUDDAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOKPURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU,

¶16

REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

MAHESH R.C., S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.2084, 4^TH CROSS, ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU-570008.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1)

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.432/2023, REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT-POLICE ASHOKPURAM POLICE STATION PURSUANT TO THE FILING OF THE CHARGESHEET DATED 10.05.2022 (ANNEXURE-C) IN CC NO.432/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 R/W SECTION 34 OF THE IPC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

¶28

the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State. This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.432/2023 registered by the 1^st respondent - Ashokpuram Police Station pursuant to the filing of the charge sheet dated 10.05.2022, (Annexure-C) in C.C.No.432/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code pending on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM Court, Mysuru.

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioner in his

¶32

argument would vehemently contend that there are no material against the present petitioner and only allegation is made in the private complaint at page No.6 of the complaint that this petitioner with an intention to cheat, prepared fake forged documents by impersonating Smt.M.V.Shamala and Smt.R.Indiramma and availed loan of Rs.65,00,000/- from M/s Navanagara Urban Cooperative Bank, Hottagally Branch, Mysore by mortgaging the fake title deeds and forged documents of properties prepared in the name of both of them and coming to know the about the above fraud, they again obtained the encumbrance certificate from the Sub-Registrar of South Mysore and the above loan of Rs.65,00,000/- was encumbered in the name of Smt.R.Indiramma and Smt.M.V.Shamala along with their property situated in Sy.No.102/1A which was converted into Sy.No.1864/c New No.CH 44/3, measuring 1,25,509 square feet.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The counsel also would submits that only allegation is made in page No.6 against this petitioner and while filing the charge sheet as per Annexure-C, no material is collected against this petitioner that he had indulged in committing the fraud or conspiracy and Trial

¶36

Court ought not to have taken the cognizance and proceeded against this petitioner. The counsel also would submits that cognizance is taken for both the offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC as well as other offences and ought not to have been done. If it is allegation of cheating would have invoked Section 420 and not 406 of IPC.

¶37

The counsel in support of his argument, relies upon the judgment of Apex Court (2024) 10 Supreme Court Cases 690 in case of Delhi Race Club (1940) 940 Ltd., and others V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and another and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.43 wherein distinction is made with regard to the offence under Section 420 as well as 406 of IPC.

¶38

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The counsel also relies upon the judgment of

¶41

Apex Court reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 2058 in case of Arshad Neyaz Khan V/s State of Jharkhand and another and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.16 wherein discussed with regard to Section 406 of IPC punishment for criminal breach of trust and so also the offence under Section 420 of IPC and also brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.21 wherein the above judgment of Delhi Race Club case was also referred in paragraph No.21 and hence, counsel would submits that this is a case for remand the matter to the Trial Court with regard to the offence under Section 406 of IPC is concerned and simultaneously there cannot be a proceedings for both the offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.

¶42

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 would submits that the private complaint was filed and specific allegations are made against this petitioner with regard to the

¶43

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

conspiracy as well as fraud and so also taking up the property from the vendors who are not the owners of the property and indulged in creation of fake documents and taking the loan. When such allegation is made, counsel would submits that specific allegation against this petitioner is that he has purchased the property from accused No.19 and there was no any title to his Vendor, but he had purchased and involvement of this petitioner in purchasing the property and creation of document is a matter of trial. The counsel also would submits that even though the petitioner comes to know about that there was a fraud and cheating, no action is taken against his Vendor till date. When such being the case, matter requires trial.

¶46

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 and also taking note of the averments made in the private complaint and when the matter was referred to the I.O and I.O also investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.

¶47

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Admittedly, it is not in dispute that this petitioner had purchased the property from accused No.19 and specific allegation is made against creation of document and when the involvement of this petitioner is also stated in the complaint with regard to the fraud and creation of other document and pledging of fake documents and availing the loan and also the document is obtained from the Vendor who is not having any title and rightly pointed out by the counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State that no action is taken against the Vendor. If really Vendor had committed the fraud on the petitioner, he would have initiated the proceedings against the Vendor about the fraud and indulging in creation of documents and the same has not been done. When such being the case, matter requires trial. However, the counsel brought to notice of this Court the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Delhi Race Club is concerned and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.43 with regard to the distinction of both the offences of 420 as well as 406 of IPC are concerned, the

¶50

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

petitioner can file an application before the Trial Court for discharge in respect of the offence under Section 406 of IPC if no ingredients are made out against the petitioner and question of quashing the order and remanding the matter does not arise. The petitioner is having a remedy of seeking of discharge before the Court in respect of the offence under Section 406 of IPC. With this observation petition is disposed of .

¶53

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶54

RHS

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Suresh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Blue Horizon Hotels Private Limited Vs M/S Gaurav Rose Real Estate Private Limited

Kishor K @ Laddu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri R M Ajay Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Rajashekar Vs Sri Nagaraju

Dr. Divya J Vs Sri B N Govindaiah

Sri R M Ajay Vs the State of Karnataka