- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:10491
CRL.P No. 9404 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 10939 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9404 OF 2022
(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10939 OF 2022
IN CRL.P No. 9404/2022
BETWEEN:
SMT. LAKSHMI,
W/O LATE M. JAYARAM,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT NO.72, OLD AIRPORT MAIN ROAD,
BEHIND RAJESHWARI THEATRE BUS STOP,
KONENA AGRAHARA, MURUGESH PALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 017.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
J.B.NAGAR, POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 075.
REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. CHAND PASHA,
S/O LATE KASIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.336/2, SHAMANNA LANE,
- 2 -
CHURCH STREET,
MURUGESHPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 017. …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RSHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN., ADV FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR.NO.53651/2022 IN CR.NO.158/2022 (AS PER ANNEXURE A,B AND C) ON THE FILE
OF THE X A.C.M.M., COURT MAYO HALL, BENGALURU UNDER
SEC.172, 177, 179, 182, 191, 192, 195, 200, 203, 209, 419,
420, 463, 464, 448, 466, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC JEEVAN
BHEEMA NAGAR P.S., PERUSE THE SAME, HEAR THE PARTIES.
IN CRL.P NO. 10939/2022
BETWEEN:
1. GULNAZ BEGUM,
W/O KHASIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/A NO.756/A, 5TH CROSS,
BEHIND SYNDICATE BANK,
KONENA AGRAHARA, VIMANAPURA,
BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 017.
2. SYED ZAMEER,
S/O KHASIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT: NO.146, KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI,
BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU - 562 110.
3. BHASHABHAI,
S/O KHASIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT KRISHNAPPA GARDEN SLUM AREA,
SUDDAGUNTEPALYA,
VTC: BENGALURU NORTH,
C V RAMAN NAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 093.
- 3 -
4. MUNNA S/O KHASIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NO.237, SEETHAPPA COLONY,
NEW THIPPASANDRA,
BENGALURU NORTH - 560 075.
5. PEER BHASHA S/O MUKTHIYAR PASHA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT NO.3, 1ST CROSS,
WIND TUNNEL ROAD,
MURUGESHPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 017.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
J B NAGAR, POLICE STATION,
BENGALURU - 560 075.
REP BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. CHAND PASHA,
S/O LATE KHASIM SAB,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT NO.336/2, SHAMANNA LANE,
CHURCH STREET, MURUGESHPALYA,
BENGALURU - 560 017.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K CHANDRA MOHAN., ADV FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF
PCR.NO.53651/2022 IN CR.NO.158/2022 (AS PER
ANNEXURE A, B AND C) ON THE FILE OF THE X ACMM,
BANGALORE U/S 172, 177, 179, 182, 191, 192, 195, 200,
203, 209, 419, 420, 463, 464, 448, 465, 468, 471, 466 OF
IPC JEEVAN BHEEMA NAGAR POLICE STATION TO PERUSE
THE SAME HEAR THE PARTIES.
- 4 -
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
ORAL ORDER
The entire proceedings in PCR No.53651/2022 pending on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Mayohall at Bengaluru is sought to be quashed in these two petitions.
2. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
3. Respondent No.2 herein filed PCR No.53651/2022 against accused Nos.1 to 9, which was referred to police for investigation consequent to which Crime No.158/2022 was registered at Jeevan Bheemanagar police station, Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Sections 466, 177, 182, 419, 420, 448, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC.
4. Petitioner in Crl.P.No.9404/2022 is accused No.7 and petitioners in Crl.P.No.10939/2022 are accused Nos.1 to 4 and 8 respectively.
- 5 -
5. It is the case of the complainant that, property bearing Khatha No.458/1 and the property No.4, East to West 30 feet and North to South 33 feet, was self-acquired by the complainant's mother by name Noor Jan, having paid full sale consideration to the previous owner of the property. The said property was then registered in favour of complainant's father and therefore, the said property exclusively belonged to complainant's mother and later transferred in favour of complainant's father. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 are unknown to the complainant and his family members and the said accused falsely claiming to be the legal heirs of complainant's father forged his signature and created bogus Will and colluding with accused Nos.5 and 6 created a Release Deed dated 30.12.2014. Accused No.1 released the said property in favour of accused Nos.2 to 4 and accused Nos.5 and 6 are the witnesses to the said release deed. It is further alleged that after the said release deed, accused No.1 sold the said property in favour of one Jayaram, husband of
- 6 -
accused No.7 and accused Nos.8 and 9 are the witnesses to the forged Will.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the matter is purely civil in nature and after an inordinate delay of 10 years, the complainant is questioning the Will alleging that it is forged. He contended that there is a suit in O.S.No.5186/2022 filed by the complainant and his mother before the Civil Court, seeking declaration, which itself shows that the dispute is civil in nature and therefore, it is for the Civil Court to decide the rights of the parties with regard to the property in question.
7. It is further contended that accused No.1 is the second wife of Kasimsab and the said Kasimsab has executed a Will bequeathing the property in her favour. After the death of Kasimsab the children of his second wife have executed Release Deed dated 31.12.2014 in respect of Item No.2 mentioned in the Will in favour of their mother i.e., petitioner No.1. It is contended that the properties bequeathed by Late Kasimsab, have been
- 7 -
validly transferred by the legatees under the Will into the names of the third parties by exercising their rights of ownership. Hence, there is no offence committed by the petitioners. It is further contended that accused No.7 is not the purchaser of the property and therefore, no criminal proceedings can be initiated against the said accused.
8. The allegations are that the accused have committed fraud in respect of property belonging to the complainant's father-Late Kasimsab, by creating a forged Will and thereafter, sold the property to one Jayaram, husband of accused No.7. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 have forged the signature of complainant's father and created bogus Will and a Release Deed on 30.12.2014 in collusion with accused Nos.5 and 6, said to be the witnesses to the said release deed. Thereafter, the property was allegedly sold through a sale deed in favour of one Jayaram in collusion with accused Nos.8 and 9, said to be the attesting witnesses to the Will.
- 8 -
9. When allegations are made that accused have forged the Will and release deed etc., in collusion with the persons who attested the documents, it is a matter which has to be investigated by the police. It is no doubt that a suit is preferred by the complainant and his mother before the Civil Court for declaration. However, investigation into the alleged offences cannot be snubbed at the threshold. Insofar as accused No.7 is concerned, there are no specific allegations made against her. On the other hand, it is alleged that the property was purchased by her husband, by name Jayarama. If accused Nos.1 to 4 have sold the property by playing fraud, accused No.7 being the wife of the purchaser cannot be dragged into a criminal proceeding merely because she is in possession of the property, subsequent to the death of her husband. The complainant in that regard has to workout his remedy before the Civil Court. Hence, the criminal proceedings initiated against accused No.7 cannot be allowed to continue. Insofar as other accused are concerned, the
- 9 -
investigation may have to continue. It is for the Investigation Officer to file an appropriate report.
10. The observations made in this order shall not influence the Investigation Officer while filing the report. Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
i. Crl.P.No.9404/2022 is allowed.
ii. Crl.P.No.10939/2022 is dismissed.
iii. The proceedings arising out of PCR No.53651/2022 and registration of Crime No.158/2022 of Jeevan Bheemanagar police station are quashed insofar as accused No.7-Smt.N.V.Lakshmi is concerned.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
AMA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16
Comments