High Court disposed of a writ petition and criminal petition seeking to quash proceedings or expedite the trial in a case involving forged documents. The Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months.
Direction to the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, within 6 months.
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:29442 WP No. 29212 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5438 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 29212 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5438 OF 2025
IN WP No. 29212/2025 BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka
SRI. PATEL VENKATAPPA @ VENKATAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR'S SRI. V. RAJANNA, S/O LATE PATEL VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT BETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, HEGGANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 110.
(BY SRI. SHASHANK NAGENDRAN., ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONER
AND:
REPRESENTED BY VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL - 562 110, BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
NC: 2026:KHC:29442 WP No. 29212 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5438 of 2025
HC-KAR
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. S.P.P., FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BNS, 2023 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO EXPEDITIOUSLY CONCLUDE THE TRAIL IN CC 3942/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF IIND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI WITHIN THE OUTER LIMIT OF 6 MONTHS AS PER ANNEXURE - E.
NC: 2026:KHC:29442 WP No. 29212 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5438 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN CRL.P NO. 5438/2025
BETWEEN:
SRI. MUNEGOWDA, S/O LATE SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT BETTENAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINATH P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
REP. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2(A) SRI V. RAJANNA, S/O. LATE PATEL VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT BETTENAHALLI VILLAGE,
NC: 2026:KHC:29442 WP No. 29212 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5438 of 2025
HC-KAR
HEGGANAHALLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR R1;
SRI.SHASHANK NAGENDRAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2(A))
THIS CRL.P. FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OR CHARGE SHEET FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C NO.3942/2024 OF VISHWANTHAPURA POLICE WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU FOR THE O/P/U/S 467, 468, 465, 471, 420, 120B, 504 AND 506 OF IPC ARISING OUT OF CRIME NUMBER 211/2015.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Both these petitions arise out of a solitary cause of action, on registration of a crime by the legal representative of the de-facto complainant who is the petitioner in W.P.No.29212/2025. The issue dates back to registration of a crime in Crime No. 211/2015 for offences
HC-KAR
punishable under Sections 467, 468, 465, 420, 120B and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
2. The moment the crime got registered, the accused were before this Court and the co-ordinate bench had granted an interim order of stay. The said stay gets obliterated on the score of the petition being dismissed in terms of an order of the co-ordinate bench on 12.12.2022. After which, the investigation went on and the Investigating Officer files his charge sheet in the year 2024. The concerned Court registers C.C. 3942/2024. The moment the charge sheet is filed, again the petitioners are back at the doors of this Court. However, the twist is that there is no interim order of stay in the case at hand.
3. The legal representative of the complainant has preferred the companion petition seeking expeditious conclusion of the trial as the issue is of the year 2015. In the light of no interim order subsisting in the case at hand
NC: 2026:KHC:29442 WP No. 29212 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5438 of 2025
HC-KAR
and the co-ordinate bench while rejecting the petition of
these accused has observed as follows:
“ORDER
Aggrieved by the registration of F.I.R in Crime No.211/2015 on the file of Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Devanahalli, the present petition is filed by accused No.1 therein.
2. The said F.I.R has been registered pursuant to the complaint lodged by respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 is uncle of accused No.1. In the complaint, he has alleged that the father of accused No.1 and respondent No.2 partitioned their properties and started living separately. However, accused No.1 created a General Power of Attorney (for short hereinafter referred to as 'G.P.A') forging the signature of respondent No.2 and sold the same in favour of the third party.
3. Based on the said complaint, F.I.R has been registered against accused No.1 and others for the offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 465, 471, 420, 120B, 504 and 506 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, accused No.2 who is also named in the complaint and who purchased the property from accused No.1, filed Crl.P.No.2835/2016 and this Court was pleased to quash the proceedings against him on the ground that there is no specific allegation made against accused No.2 and has observed that he is only a purchaser of the property. Aggrieved by registering of the F.I.R, the accused No.1 has preferred this petition.
4. The case of the petitioner is that the dispute pertaining to the complainant and the
NC: 2026:KHC:29442 WP No. 29212 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5438 of 2025
HC-KAR
petitioner is purely civil in nature which is given the colour of a criminal case, that respondent No.2 has not submitted any documents to the police station and that the complaint is being used as a weapon to harass and persecute the petitioner herein and the process of law is being abused by respondent No.2, to make illegal gains at the costs of petitioner herein.
5. It is also submitted that the alleged forged document is alleged to have been created in the year 2005, where as the complaint has been lodged as late as 2015 and it is also submitted that there are civil disputes between the petitioner and respondent No.2 and for that reason, it is prayed that this Court be pleased to quash the further proceedings in Crime No.211/2015.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is a specific allegation as to the petitioner creating a forged G.P.A, as though it is given by respondent No.2 in his favour and using the same, he has alienated a valuable property belonging to respondent No.2 and that the complaint has been filed immediately after respondent No.2 came to know of it and there is no delay in filing the complaint and that it is a matter of investigation whether the said offences have been committed or not and this Court cannot in exercise of its power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., decide the dispute where there are disputed questions of facts and on the said ground, it is prayed that the petition be dismissed.
7. It is true that a civil case, if given the colour of a criminal case and the person is sought to be prosecuted, the proceedings can be quashed. Similarly, the criminal
NC: 2026:KHC:29442 WP No. 29212 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5438 of 2025
HC-KAR
proceedings cannot be used as a weapon to harass or persecute a party, so that, the complainant can make illegal gains. The criminal proceedings cannot be allowed to be abused to sub-serve the vested interests. However, a single act may give raise to civil cause of action and may also constitute a crime. In that event, this Court cannot quash the criminal proceedings, merely on the ground that it has also given raise to a civil cause of action. Further, in the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, this Court cannot decide as to the disputed questions of facts. It normally strikes down those proceedings, wherein the allegations, if deemed to be true also does not constitute the offences as alleged.
8. In the instant case, there is a specific allegation against the petitioner herein by respondent No.2, that the petitioner has fabricated the G.P.A, as though given by respondent No.2 to him and in the process, he has forged the signature of respondent No.2 herein and has used the said G.P.A to sell the property belonging to respondent No.2. The allegations made thereunder does constitute the offences as alleged in the F.I.R. Whether the said allegations are true or false, is a matter of investigation.
9. Learned High Court Government Pleader, upon instructions submits that the police would only investigate into the matter as to, whether the G.P.A is forged or not and whether the signature / thumb impression in the said G.P.A belongs to respondent No.2 or not, by referring the matter to an Expert's opinion and only thereafter decide, whether to go ahead with the criminal case or not. She further states that the police will not unduly harass the
NC: 2026:KHC:29442 WP No. 29212 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5438 of 2025
HC-KAR
petitioner nor will they try to settle the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.2.
10. It is needless to state that the police shall investigate the matter in the manner known to law and will not unduly harass the petitioner herein.
11. As the allegations made in the complaint, if held to be true, constitute the offences alleged in the F.I.R., under the given peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed, not appropriate to interfere in the investigation at this stage.
12. Further, quashing of the F.I.R as against accused No.2, does not entitle the same to be quashed against the petitioner herein, because as per the alleged facts, accused No.2 is only a purchaser and this Court has come to the conclusion that there are no specific allegations against him, whereas, the petitioner herein is alleged to have concocted the G.P.A by forging the signature and had sold the property.
13. Hence, the petition is hereby dismissed .
14. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration.
4. The Co-ordinate Bench clearly holds that it is an
issue for investigation in the least for the petitioners to come out clean. After filing of the charge sheet, the petitioners are again before the Court. The proceedings
NC: 2026:KHC:29442 WP No. 29212 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5438 of 2025
HC-KAR
must be taken to its logical conclusion, as there is no warrant of grant of an interim order in the case at hand, particularly in the light of the finding rendered by the Coordinate Bench as 7 years the matter was languishing before this Court on an interim order being granted, in the year 2015 at the crime stage.
5. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose
these petitions with a direction to the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, as the issue revolves around forgery of a general power of Attorney or otherwise.
6. All contentions shall remain open to be urged before the concerned Court.
7. It is needless to observe that the concerned
Court would consider all the submissions and answer them at the appropriate time.
NC: 2026:KHC:29442 WP No. 29212 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 5438 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. With the aforesaid observations, petitions stand
disposed .
Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
BVK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 23
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the trial court to conclude the pending criminal trial within a specified time period in the absence of an interim stay order.
Whether the petitioners should be granted a direction to expedite the conclusion of proceedings given the delay and findings of a coordinate bench.
Whether the High Court should intervene to ensure the criminal trial regarding forged documents is concluded expeditiously.
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Sri. Patel Venkatappappa @ Venkatappu (LRS)
State of Karnataka
Sri. Munegowda
M.Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
