S. Gopal Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

S. Gopal Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the registration of the crime in Crime No.437/2023 arising out of PCR No.51860/2023 (entire proceedings quashed); proceedings against deceased petitioner No.1 had already stood abated.

Issue for consideration

Whether the registration of the crime in Crime No.437/2023 arising out of PCR No.51860/2023 - founded on an incident of 1994 first complained of in 2018 and referred to the Magistrate only about five years later - is hit by gross, unexplained delay and constitutes an abuse of process warranting quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Court's answer

The entire proceedings in Crime No.437/2023 are hit by gross delay - the incident dates to 1994, was first complained of in 2018, and reached the Magistrate about five years later, by which time the incident was close to 30 years old - and the delay is unexplained on the face of it.

Ratio / Principle

In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Chanchalpati Das v. State of W.B., (2023) 20 SCC 120, permitting further investigation in this case would become an abuse of the process of law.

Key takeaways

The registration of the crime in Crime No.437/2023 arising out of PCR No.51860/2023 stands quashed.ratio¶¶117

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M. Nagaprasanna, J.), CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023, order dated 02-06-2026: Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. ALLOWED; registration of the crime in Crime No.437/2023, arising out of PCR No.51860/2023 (Jeevan Bhimanagar Police Station; offences under Sections 420, 503 and 506 r/w Section 34 IPC), QUASHED. The complaint rested on an alleged cash loan of Rs.6,00,000/- said to have been handed to petitioner No.1 on 22.02.1994 to secure de-notification of land Sy.No.67, Tippasandra Village. It reached the police only in September 2018 (declined as civil; endorsement dated 09-03-2021), demand notices of 08-03-2022 and 07-05-2022 followed, and only thereafter was a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. filed seeking Section 156(3) investigation, on which the Magistrate referred the matter and the crime was registered - by then close to 30 years old. Holding the proceedings hit by gross, facially unexplained delay, and that further investigation would, in light of Chanchalpati Das v. State of W.B., (2023) 20 SCC 120, be an abuse of the process of law, the Court quashed the crime registration. Petitioner No.1 having died, proceedings against him stood abated; petitioner No.2 (his wife) prosecuted the petition.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13692 OF 2023

BETWEEN:

S. GOPAL S/O. LATE SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

SOWBHAGYA

W/O. S. GOPAL,

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,

AS PER PCR ADDRESS OF THE

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka

PETITIONERS NO.1098, 4tH AND 5th FLOOR, SRI SHAMANNA COMPLEX, NEW TIPPASANDRA, HAL III STAGE, BENGALURU - 560 075.

AS PER ADHAR CARD AND PETITIONERS ARE NOW R/AT NO. 1098, NEAR POORANA PRAJNA SCHOOL ROAD, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BANGALORE - 560 075.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VARADARAJAN M.S, ADVOCATE FOR P2; VIDE ORDER DATED P1 STANDS ABATED)

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY JEEVAN BHIMANAGAR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING AMBEDKAR VEEDI BANGALORE - 560 001.

S. RAJU S/O. KALLI SANNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO. 1690, 4TH A CROSS, 9TH MAIN, HAL 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 075.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. VEENA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.51860/2023 AGAINST THE PETITIONER REGISTERED BY THE JEEVAN BHIMANAGAR POLICE STATION, IN THAT REGARD IN CR.NO.0437/2023 ON THE FILE OF X ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 503 AND 506 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of a crime in crime No.437/2023 arising out of PCR No.51860/2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 503 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

Heard Sri. Varadarajan M.S., learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.2; Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Veena Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

Facts in brief, germane are as follows:

The petitioner No.1 is no more and therefore, the proceeding stands abated against him, who remains in the fray is the second petitioner. The petitioners are said to have entered into certain transactions with the complainant, which results in the complainant allegedly handing over Rs.6,00,000/on 22.02.1994. Two decades pass by, the complainant forgets

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

that he had lent sum of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioners on 22.02.1994. Wakes up from slumber and seeks to register a complaint in the month of September-2018. The police declined to register the complaint on the score that the matter was purely civil in nature. Again the petitioner goes back to sleep. After 5 years wakes up and goes back to the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation and therefore, the subject crime has sprung. The registration of the crime is what drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

Sri. Varadarajan, learned counsel appearing for petitioner No.2 would submit that the first petitioner is no more and the proceedings have stood abated. The second petitioner is the wife. There is no whisper about any transaction between the wife and the complainant in the entire complaint. He would otherwise submit that an incident to the year 1994 is sought to be complained of in the year 2023. Therefore, there is gross delay and which is unexplained.

The learned counsel appearing for the

respondent/complainant would however seek to justify the

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

registration of the complaint contending that in the year 2018

for the first time, 'A' complaint was sought to be registered and after 5 years again when the petitioners did not return the amount, the subject complaint comes to be filed.

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the available material on record.

The afore-narrated facts are the averments in the complaint. Since the entire issue is now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint so registered before the learned Magistrate invoking Section 200

of the Cr.P.C. The complaint reads as follows:

" COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

The complainant above named submits as follows;

1. The address of the complainant for the purpose of service of notice/summons from this Hon'ble court is as given in the cause title and is also care of his advocates Mohamed Shafiulla & Vinod Kumar. E, No.9, H.H.S. Complex, Cubbonpet Main Road, Bangalore-560 002.

2. The address of the accused for the purpose of service of notice/ summons from this Hon'ble court is as given above in the cause title.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

3. It is submitted that complainant and 1^st respondent were close friends prior to 1994, further complainant and 1st respondent were well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of each other's life very personally.

4. It is submitted that 1st respondent owned land bearing Sy.No.67, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Tippasandra Village, which was notified for acquisition by the BDA way back in the year 1994. At that time complainant was working at Karnataka Government Secretariat and 1st respondent approached complainant for financial aid to get release the notified land by BDA by way of de-notification.

5. It is submitted that complainant was very close to 1st respondent at that time of acquisition proceeding by BDA, as per request and demand made by 1st respondent the complainant given a loan of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) bay way of cash, the said loan amount was arranged by complainant from his monthly savings from his salary and some amount was borrowed from complainant's friends. At the time of advancing loan 1st respondent promised to complainant that 1st respondent will return back the loan amount as soon as 1st respondent get the de-notification order in respect of above said land from BDA, accordingly land bearing Sy.No.67, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas situated at Tippasandra Village was de-notified.

6. It is submitted that while advancing loan amount to 1st respondent his wife Smt. Bhagyamma i.e., 2^nd respondent and 1st respondent's son Sunil were also present at the time receiving above said loan amount, 2nd respondent and his family members were also fully aware of the loan transaction between complainant and 1st respondent, further 1st respondent had promised complainant that after getting de-notification order 1st respondent not only he would return the loan amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only) to complainant but 1st respondent also promised

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

complainant that 1st respondent will give a site measuring 60 X 40 in the name of complainant, the promise 1st respondent had made before his family members.

7. It is submitted that luck prevailed upon 1st respondent, and he succeeded in obtaining the denotification order in respect of land bearing Sy.No.67, measuring 1 acre, 20 guntas on 20-101994 which has been published in the Karnataka Gazette notification part III (1) by the housing and urban development secretariat.

8. It is submitted that after de-notification of land complainant request 1st respondent to return his above said loan amount and site which 1st respondent had promised to complainant. To the dismay of complainant 1st respondent never responded to complainant requested/ demand and 1st respondent has forgotten the fact that he had executed a consent /agreement letter dated 2202-1994, wherein 1st respondent have acknowledged the said amount in writing before two witnesses. However after the formation of layout 1st respondent never bothered to meet complainant to return back loan amount which 1st respondent had promised not only before your family members even upon Manjunatha Swamy Temple God.

9. It is submitted that complainant having failed in his attempt for realizing the money from 1st respondent, the complainant though approached the jurisdictional police authority against fraud and mischief committed by 1st respondent, and not kept the promise made to complainant, which resulted in lodging of complaint to the police authority way back in the month of September 2018, the police authority especially Jeevanbeema Nagar Police station summoned the 1st respondent and made enquiry during the year early 2021.

10. It is submitted that persistent demand made by complainant the police authority called 1st respondent and enquired about the matter once

8 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

again, to the dismay of complainant he was astonished to know the unruly behavior of 1st respondent and your son. However the police authority issued an endorsement on 9-03-2021 this is a civil dispute please approaches the appropriate jurisdictional court of law. Further even otherwise complainant tried and attempted to convince and requested several time to return the loan money and promised site. All these facts are known by 2nd respondent, however because of 1st respondent fear his wife i.e., 2nd respondent is not coming forward to disclose the truth. Hence once again complainant request 1st respondent kindly to ask his conscious and realize promise in favour of complainant.

11. Thus the respondents have committed offence punishable under section 420, 503 & 506 R/w 34 and other related provisions of the Indian Penal Code.

12. The complainant submits that though the complainant has lodged a complainant within the jurisdictional police but the police have issued an endorsement dispute is of civil in nature taking advantage of the same the respondent avoided the demand notice issued by complainant on 08-032022 and second notice on 7-05-2022. Hence the complainant is constrained to file the present complaint before this Hon'ble court.

WHEREFORE, the Complainant humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to refer the matter for investigation to the jurisdiction police authority under section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, for the aforesaid offences committed by the respondent / accused persons, direct the police to register an FIR against the respondents / accused, in the interest of justice and equity.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, under the circumstances, the complainant above named prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to;

9 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

a) Summon the respondents / accused persons for the offenses punishable under section 420, 503 & 506 R/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and punish the respondents/accused in accordance with law;

b) And grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

The complaint alleges that an amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- was given to the petitioner for the purpose of purchase of a BDA site. The amount though was given in the year 1994, the allegation that the amount is not returned was

for the first time made in the year 2018 before the jurisdictional police. The police rendered a non-cognizable report on the score that the matter was purely civil in nature and therefore, the police would not interfere. 5 years thereafter, the jurisdiction of the Magistrate is invoked by the complainant to register a crime on the aforesaid incident, which was by then close to 30 years old. Therefore, the entire proceedings are hit by gross delay, which is on the face of it unexplained. If further investigation is permitted to continue against this petitioners, on the face it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CHANCHALPATI DAS V. STATE OF W.B., reported in (2023) 20 SCC 120.

10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

9. The Apex Court in the case of CHANCHALPATI

DAS (supra) has held as follows:

"10. According to Mr Divan, filing of an FIR in 2009 for the alleged theft of bus taken place in 2002, was sheer abuse of process of law. Even the investigating officer has failed to collect and produce any documents or evidence along with the charge-sheet with regard to the alleged forgery and fabrication of documents. Mr Divan has placed reliance on the decisions in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [ State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [ G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. , (2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513] , in Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre [ Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia v. Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre , (1988) 1 SCC 692 : 1988 SCC (Cri) 234] , in Subal Ghorai v. State of W.B. [ Subal Ghorai v. State of W.B. , (2013) 4 SCC 607 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 530] to buttress his submissions. Lastly, he submitted that to put a quietus in the matter, ISKCON, Bengaluru is ready and willing to purchase a latest model brand new Ashok Leyland bus in the name of ISKCON, Kolkata directly.

11. Per contra, the learned Senior Advocate Mr K. Venugopal appearing on behalf of Respondent 2 complainant submitted that both the appellants have been charged by Respondent 1 State for the offence under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-BIPC as per the final report submitted by the investigating officer and there being a prima facie case made out against the appellants, which even the High Court had recorded in the impugned order [ Chanchalpati Das v. State of W.B. , 2017 SCC OnLine Cal 1588] , this Court may not interfere with the same. According to him, the documents of registration produced by the appellants, claiming to have been received under the RTI from the Regional Transport Authority, Bengaluru concerned, have been produced for the first time before this Court and the same could not be taken into consideration. He further submitted that the underlying complaint pertained to only one luxury bus in comparison to the huge business empire including real estate built by the appellantaccused, cannot detract from, or minimise the gravity of the offences of forgery, cheating and breach of trust allegedly

11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

committed by the appellants. He also submitted that the proposal of appellants-accused to give a new bus to ISKCON, Kolkata cannot be accepted, as the offences alleged against the appellants are not compoundable under Section 320CrPC. Mr Venugopal has placed reliance on the decisions in CBI v. Maninder Singh [ CBI v. Maninder Singh , (2016) 1 SCC 389 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 292] ; State of Gujarat v. Gajanand M. Dalwadi [ State of Gujarat v. Gajanand M. Dalwadi , (2008) 1 SCC 716 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 304] ; Jasbir Singh v. Tara Singh [ Jasbir Singh v. Tara Singh , (2016) 16 SCC 441 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 514] ; Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan [ Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan , (2004) 4 SCC 432 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1294] ; Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. [ Kaptan Singh v. State of U.P. , (2021) 9 SCC 35 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 385] and CBI v. Arvind Khanna [ CBI v. Arvind Khanna , (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] in support of his submissions that the criminal proceedings against the appellants may not be quashed.

12. Having gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents on record and having anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that according to the respondent complainant, a letter in the form of complaint was written by the Branch Manager of ISKCON, Kolkata, on 30-9-2006 addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Ballygunge Police Station, Kolkata, in respect of an alleged theft of a bus having taken place in 2001, however, no action was taken by the said police station. Though, the complainant had reported the matter to the police station concerned earlier on 22-5-2002, however, no action was taken in that regard.

13. It is pertinent to note that with regard to the said allegations against the police station concerned, there is nothing on record to suggest that either the said report dated 22-5-2002 or the letter dated 30-9-2006 was ever received by the police station concerned or any follow-up action was taken by the respondent complainant in that regard. According to the respondent complainant, since no action was taken on the letter dated 30-9-2006 written to the police station concerned, the complaint was lodged in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore on 10-2-2009, which was registered as CR Case No. 747 of 2009, seeking investigation under Section 156(3)CrPC.

12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

14. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the Ballygunge Police Station concerned, Kolkata would not have taken any action on the report made in 2002 on behalf of the powerful body like ISKCON, Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30-9-2006 written by the Branch Manager of ISKCON, Kolkata. Respondent 2 complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the court was filed in the year 2009.

15. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by ISKCON, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court.

16. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint filed before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered at Ballygunge Police Station on 20-2-2009, it is discernible that except bald allegations made in the complaint with regard to the theft of bus in question there was no material or document produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations against the appellants. Even after the investigation of the said complaint, there was no evidence collected by the investigating officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients constituting the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-BIPC. Even if the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the chargesheet are taken at their face value none of the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are culled out. The learned Senior Counsel Mr Shyam Divan for the appellants had strenuously urged relying upon the documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership and registration of the said bus, that the said documents were executed by the then

13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:25740 CRL.P No. 13692 of 2023

HC-KAR

authorised persons of Iskcon, Kolkata, in our opinion, the said documents could not be considered in these proceedings, the same being not the part of the chargesheet papers.

17. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the other documents on record of the instant appeals that the investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence collected on the documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were committed. Under the circumstances, allowing such prosecution to continue would not only be an empty formality but would be gross wastage of court's precious time."

In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, permitting further investigation even in the case of hand would become an abuse of the process of law.

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed ;

(ii) The registration of a crime in crime No.437/2023 arising out of PCR No.51860/2023 stands quashed.

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

JY/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6