Full Judgment
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10633 OF 2025 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE K. T. SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
2. SMT. RANI, D/O LATE K. T. SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
3. SRI. AKASH, S/O LATE K. T. SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ALL ARE R/O KURUBALLIDODDI VILLAGE, SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, Digitally signed
by AL BHAGYA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 126. Location: HIGH …PETITIONERS COURT OF (BY SMT. SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE) KARNATAKA AND:THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SATHANUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF ADVOCATE GENERAL, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP) -2- THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.791/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 409, 465, 420, 468, 471, 34 OF IPC INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT - POLICE ON THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE DEFACTO COMPLAINANT PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED III ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, KANAKAPURA AS PER ANNEXURE-B AS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in CC No. 791/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. One Krishnegowda lodged a private complaint
alleging that the petitioners have fabricated a family tree and, on the strength of the same, the first petitioner, being the widow of late K.K. Siddhegowda, succeeded in getting her name mutated in the revenue records. It is further alleged that she thereafter executed a gift deed in favour of the second petitioner, her daughter. According to -3- the complainant, the said family tree is forged with an intention to defeat his legitimate rights over the property. Based on this complaint, registered as PCR No. 222/2019, the jurisdictional police registered a crime, investigated the matter, and thereafter filed a charge sheet alleging that the petitioners have forged the family tree and got their names unlawfully entered in the revenue records relating to the disputed property bearing Survey No. 98, measuring in all 5 acres 5 guntas. Aggrieved by the issuance of summons pursuant to the charge sheet, the petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings in CC No. 791/2025.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and the learned Additional SPP representing respondent No.1/State. It is reported that respondent No.2 - the defacto complainant, Krishnegowda, has since expired. -4-
4. On perusal of the records, it emerges that the
said Krishnegowda had earlier instituted a bare suit for injunction in O.S. No. 138/2019 before the competent Civil Court, seeking to restrain the present petitioners from interfering with his alleged possession over the suit schedule property. Paras 2 and 3 of the plaint are relevant for consideration and are extracted herein below:
"2. The plaintiff submits that Sri. Late Siddegowda is the original propositus. The original propositor and his wife viz., Smt. Maramma had the Sons viz., 1.Thibbegowda
2. Muguregowda and 3. Tipperegowda and all
of them are no more now. During their life time all the sons of original propositor have partitioned the ancestral property and residing separately by enjoying their respective share. The property bearing Sy. No.98 for an extent of 5.05 acres situated at Kabbalu Village, Sathanurhobli, Kanakapura Taluk, has fallen to the share of 2ndson Muguregowda, along with other properties, partition among the sons the sons of Late Muguregowda the suit schedule property has fallen to the share of the plaintiff herein. Since from more than 50 years the family members of the plaintiff are inlawful possession and enjoyment of the oil schedule property. The defendants have no right, title,interest whatsoever over the suit schedule property. To establish such facts the -5-
plaintiff is herewith producing all the relevant revenue documents for kind perusal and consideration of this Hon'ble court.
3. The plaintiff further submits that the
st 1 defendant herein is the wife of late K.T.Siddegowda and 2nd defendant is the daughter of the late K.T. Siddegowda The late Thipperegowda is the father of late K.T Siddegowda, the said late Thipperegowda had six children, they are in joint family status, there are other properties allotted to the share of Late Thipperegowda. The family members of Thipperegowda enjoying their respective shares, the suit schedule property exclusively belonged to the plaintiff only, due to lack of knowledge the plaintiff in has not transfer the katha in his name, but he is possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The 1st defendant herein without the knowledge and consent has colluded with revenue officials got transferred the katha of the suit schedule property in her name, and subsequently the katha of the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of the 2nd defendant, intentionally and deliberately the defendants have colluded with each other create some documents and change the Katha in their names, the document were created by the defendants not genuine and valid in the eye of law, hence no value can be attached to those documents."
5. On a careful reading of paragraphs 2 and 3 of
the plaint extracted supra, what unmistakably emerges is -6- that the petitioners and the defacto complainant belong to the same family and are closely related. Paragraph 2 of the plaint reveals that the property in dispute originally belonged to one Siddegowda, who had three sons, namely, Thibbegowda, Muguregowda and Tipperegowda. The petitioners herein represent the branch of Tipperegowda, whereas the defacto complainant, late Krishnegowda, represents the branch of Muguregowda. In the civil suit, the defacto complainant has asserted that the suit property fell to the share of his father, Muguregowda, and therefore, he claims rights over the same. Consistent with this stand, both in the civil suit and in the private complaint filed under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the allegation is that the petitioners have fabricated and forged a family tree and, on that basis, have succeeded in getting their names entered in the revenue records relating to the property in question.
6. However, the RTC extracts, produced at
Annexure-"G" series, tell a different story. The revenue -7- entries clearly demonstrate that the disputed property continued to stand in the name of Tipperegowda, the ancestor of the petitioners, at least up to the year 2012-
2013. Upon the demise of Tipperegowda, it was the first
petitioner - his daughter-in-law who succeeded in getting her name mutated in the RTC. The civil suit filed by Krishnegowda is of the year 2019, whereas the RTC extracts show that long prior thereto, as early as 2012- 2013, the name of Tipperegowda was reflected as the holder of the disputed property. Subsequent to his demise, the first petitioner, being his daughter-in-law, succeeded in getting her name lawfully entered in the RTC. It is further pertinent to note that Tipperegowda had as many as eight children, none of whom raised any objection to the said mutation in favour of the first petitioner. After the mutation, the first petitioner executed a registered gift deed dated 04.12.2017 in favour of the second petitioner, her daughter, and the same forms part of the charge sheet material. -8-
7. If these significant aspects are taken into
consideration, it becomes evident that the learned Magistrate was not justified in entertaining a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The defacto complainant, while filing the private complaint, deliberately suppressed the fact that he had already instituted a civil suit for injunction simpliciter in O.S. No. Notwithstanding the pendency of the civil suit, the learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., pursuant to which Sathanoor Police registered a crime, conducted investigation, and ultimately filed a charge sheet against the petitioners.
8. On a deeper examination of the records placed
before this Court, it becomes clear that the entire dispute is essentially civil in nature, arising out of rival claims between two branches of the same family. The genealogy of Siddegowda, as reflected in the family tree, indicates that he had three sons. While the petitioners trace their -9- rights through Tipperegowda, the defacto complainant claims through Muguregowda. The material on record, particularly the RTCs, demonstrate that the property was standing exclusively in the name of Tipperegowda, and after his demise, it was his daughter-in-law, the first petitioner, who lawfully got her name mutated. In fact, the Death Certificate now produced along with the memo confirms the relationship of the first petitioner with son of Tipperegowda, whose name is clearly reflected in the RTC of 2012.
9. In these circumstances, this Court is of the firm
view that continuation of criminal proceedings would be wholly unwarranted and would not result in conviction, even if the entire charge sheet material is taken at its face value. The controversy raised is one of civil nature, which is already the subject matter of O.S. No. 138/2019, where the burden squarely lies on the legal heirs of the deceased defacto complainant to establish that the disputed property was, in fact, allotted to the share of their - 10 - predecessor, Muguregowda, under a family partition. Absent such proof, the institution of criminal proceedings on allegations of forgery of family tree appears to be nothing more than a device adopted by the defacto complainant to exert pressure on the petitioners and to overreach the civil process.
10. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that
the initiation and continuation of criminal prosecution against the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings pending in C.C. No. 791/2025 stand quashed.
11. For the reasons stated supra, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings pending in
C.C.No.791/2025 for offences punishable under Sections 409, 465, 420, 468, 471 read with Section - 11 - 34 of IPC are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8