Rajappa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.167/2024 (ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.288/2019) OF THE RESPONDENT NO.1 HEBBAGODI P.S., FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 419, 420, 465, 471, 417 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE BEFORE THE 4^th ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioners have called in question the proceedings launched against them by the respondent No.1 in C.C.No.167/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 419, 420, 465, 471, 417 of IPC pending trial before the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court').

¶27

(i) The respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1 on 02.08.2019 that he had purchased the land in Sy.No.82 of Singena Agrahara village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, in terms of a sale deed dated 17.08.1994 from Sri.

¶28

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:21720 CRL.P No. 7462 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

Venkateshappa, Sri. Goolappa and Sri. Gangappa. He claimed that all the revenue records reflected the transaction and his name was entered therein and that he was in possession of the same. He claimed that the legal heirs of his vendors forcibly entered his property in respect of which, cases in Crime No.551/2006 and Crime No.679/2006 were registered with Hebbagodi Police Station, who advised the parties to approach the Civil Court. The legal heirs of the vendors continued to interfere with the possession of the respondent No.2 and he filed O.S.No.460/2010 for perpetual injunction. Despite the above, they continued to disturb the possession, which compelled him to file a case in Crime No.688/2013. He also filed a suit in O.S.No.382/2014 for declaration of his title and that the said suit is pending consideration. He claimed that during the pendency of the civil suits, the aforesaid persons along with others forcibly entered the property in question and constructed RCC building and also constructed a pump house. The respondent No.2 claimed that he being a Chartered Engineer, surveyed the property and fixed the boundaries. However, the aforesaid persons without his knowledge approached the Survey Department for bifurcation of the

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21720 CRL.P No. 7462 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

property and that a notice dated 01.10.2012 was purportedly issued to him. However, at the time of survey, one Mr. Narendra had represented the respondent No.2 and brought about false survey records to seem as if the legal heirs of the vendors of the respondent No.2 had title to the property claimed by them. With these, the respondent No.2 requested the respondent No.1 to initiate suitable action.

¶34

(ii) The respondent No.1 registered Crime No.288/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 471, 506 of IPC and took up investigation. The same was questioned before this Court in Crl.P.No.7959/2020 by the accused Nos.3 and 5. This Court in terms of an order dated 18.03.2023 rejected Crl.P.No.7959/2020 and paved the way for an investigation into the offences. Consequent thereto, the respondent No.1 investigated the case and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 419, 420, 465, 471 and 417 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued process. The petitioners being aggrieved by the same are before this Court.

¶35

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:21720 CRL.P No. 7462 of 2024

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the property from the accused Nos.6, 7, 12 and 13. He therefore, contends that the petitioners are not complicit in the offences committed by the other accused as they have purchased the property for valuable consideration. Therefore, he submits that the impugned prosecution in so far as the petitioners are concerned has to be set at nought.

¶38

Per contra, the respondent No.2 who has appeared in person submits that the petitioners are not bonafide purchasers of the property but have conspired with the other accused in bringing about a survey and durasth of a property which is owned by him. He contends that the petitioners and the other accused have brought about a fraudulent survey to seem as if the property owned by him is allotted to the other accused, from whom the petitioners have purchased. He therefore, contends that the complicity of the petitioners has to be tested in trial and the petitioners cannot upset the charge sheet filed by the respondent No.1, cognizance of which is taken by the Trial Court.

¶39

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:21720 CRL.P No. 7462 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

The learned High Court Government Pleader, reiterated the contentions of the respondent No.2 and submitted that there is an ample material to show that the petitioners have conspired with the other accused in bringing about unconscionable sale deeds only to deprive the lawful right and interest of the respondent No.2 in the property purchased by him.

¶42

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent No.2, who has appeared in person as well as the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶43

The respondent No.2 claimed that he had purchased a portion of the land in Sy.No.82 in terms of a sale deed dated 17.08.1994. The respondent No.2 claimed that after such purchase, the owners of the remaining extent of land were trying to interfere with his possession in the property, which compelled him to lodge various complaints before various police stations. He also claimed that he had filed a suit for perpetual injunction in O.S.No.460/2010, which he withdrew on 07.04.2014. It appears that during the pendency of the civil

¶44

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:21720 CRL.P No. 7462 of 2024

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

suits, the accused have got a survey conducted to bifurcate the property and the respondent No.2 was also one of the persons whose name appeared in the notice though it is claimed by the respondent No.2 that he was not served with the said notice. He contends that the other accused had propped up a person named Sri. Narendra, who claimed that he represented the respondent No.2 and that the said person forged the signatures of the respondent No.2 on the survey documents to seem as if the property claimed by the other accused belonged to them. The respondent No.1 after investigating the offences, has come to the conclusion that offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 471 and 506 of IPC are made out. If the survey records are brought about in the name of the respondent No.2, which affects his right to the property and if the signatures of the respondent No.2 have been forged by a person named Sri. Narendra, the same has to be tried, as any finding regarding the forgery of the signatures of the respondent No.2 may result in a conviction of the accused Nos.1 to 9 and accused Nos. 12 to 17. Therefore, it is not proper for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set at nought the charge sheet filed against the petitioners. It is for the

¶47

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:21720 CRL.P No. 7462 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

petitioners to establish their innocence before the Trial Court either by filing appropriate application for discharge or facing the trial.

¶50

In that view of the matter, this petition stands dismissed . However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach the Trial Court seeking discharge. If an application is filed, the Trial Court shall consider the same in accordance with law.

¶51

It goes without saying that the Trial Court shall

¶52

decide the application for discharge without being influenced by any observations made by this Court in the course of this Order.

¶53

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶54

PMR

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25

Rajappa Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajappa Reddy v. 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Sachin Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammed Rizwan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Doddanna Vs Union of India

Rajesh @ Raji Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Gugri Sarojini Devi Vs State by Old Town P S

M Praveen Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka