Accused sought to quash a charge sheet for cheating by suppressing a mortgage while selling property. The court dismissed the petition as a re-agitation of issues already rejected at discharge stage and in an earlier criminal petition, holding no supervening circumstance existed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17580 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SACHIN .S, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AND:
NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025
HC-KAR
K.KAMARAJ ROAD BENGALURU-560042.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ANGAD KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.50533/2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE HONBLE X ADDL.C.J.M MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners - accused
Nos.1 and 2 seeking quashing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.50533/2022 for the alleged offences punishable
under Sections 420, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2.
HC-KAR
Cholamandalam Finance by creating a mortgage over the very same property. It is further alleged that during the subsistence of the said mortgage and without redeeming the same, accused No.1 entered into an agreement of sale in favour of C.W.1 and C.W.2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.43,00,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.19,35,000/-. The prosecution case proceeds on the footing that the existence of the mortgage was deliberately suppressed at the time of entering into the agreement of sale and receiving the substantial advance amount, thereby inducing the complainant to part with money under a false representation. On these allegations,
the Investigating Agency has laid the charge sheet in C.C.No.50533/2022 for the offences invoked therein. The present petition is filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., calling in question the legality and correctness of the said charge sheet.
NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025
HC-KAR
counsel appearing for respondent No.2–complainant at considerable length. The records of the case, including the earlier proceedings, have also been perused.
trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. This Court had further held that such disputed questions of
HC-KAR
fact cannot be gone into in proceedings seeking discharge
and must necessarily be tested during the course of fullfledged trial.
NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025
HC-KAR
controversy, is extracted herein below for ready
reference:-
"7. The real issue which has to be established during the course of trial is, whether the petitioners, being the absolute owners of the property but having mortgaged the same with Cholamandal Finance, deliberately suppressed this fact and entered into an agreement to sell with C.W.1 and C.W.2. If the prosecution is able to prove that the petitioners, with dishonest intention, executed such an agreement to sell without disclosing the subsisting mortgage, then the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC would be attracted. It is for the prosecution, by leading cogent evidence, to establish such intention and suppression. At this preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to record any findings in favour of the petitioners nor extend any indulgence in their favour."
made by this Court while dismissing Criminal Petition No.10067/2025, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded therein squarely operate against the present petitioners. This Court had, in unequivocal terms, observed that the pivotal issue namely, whether the
HC-KAR
petitioners had deliberately suppressed the subsisting mortgage created in favour of Cholamandalam Finance and thereby induced the complainant to part with a substantial sum of Rs.19,35,000/- is a matter which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings. It was categorically held that such questions involve appreciation of evidence, examination of witnesses and scrutiny of surrounding circumstances, all of which necessarily fall within the domain of trial. The earlier order has thus already concluded that the allegations cannot be brushed aside at the threshold.
HC-KAR
Permitting such a course would amount to allowing the petitioners to circumvent the earlier order and to seek, in substance, a review of the findings rendered by this Court.
order rejecting discharge, entertaining a second petition on identical grounds would virtually amount to sitting in review over its own order an exercise which is impermissible in criminal jurisprudence in the absence of statutory provision conferring such power.
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025
HC-KAR
to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Petition is dismissed .
(ii) The Trial Court shall proceed with trial in C.C.No.50533/2022 in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made herein, which are only for the purpose of deciding the petition.
(iii) All contentions are kept open to be urged before the Trial Court.
Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a second quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be entertained after discharge rejection and dismissal of an earlier criminal petition on identical grounds.
Whether the charge sheet alleging suppression of a subsisting mortgage in a sale agreement discloses offences prima facie.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
VINOD KUMAR .K
VIMALA .M
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SHESHADHRI BHAT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
