1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.1632/2017 (GM -RES)

BETWEEN:

V.HANUMANTHARAYAPPA,

SON OF VEERAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,

RESIDING AT NO.45,

MARIYAPPANAPALAYA,

JANATHA LAYOUT,

JNANABHARATHI POST,

BANGALORE 3 56.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

BY KUMBALGODU POLICE STATION,

BANGALORE 3 74.

2.

SMT.MUNIYAMMA @

MUNESHAMMA,

WIFE OF HOMBAIAH,

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

NO.12, SHESHAGIRIHALLI COLONY,

BIDADI HOBLI,

2

RAMANAGARA TALUK

AND DISTRICT 3 562 120.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT.B.G.NAMITHA MAHESH, HCGP FOR R1;

SRI.B.V.RAJANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ

WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH

THE REFERENCE OF THE PCR NO.601/2016 DATED

04.11.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE 3 B AND C TO THE W.P.

THIS

WRIT

PETITION

COMING

ON

FOR

PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

This petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure relating to a private complaint

dated 04-11-2016, filed by the 2^nd respondent pending

on the file of the II Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Bengaluru in P.C.R.No.601 of 2016, whereby the

learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and has

referred the PCR to the jurisdictional police for

investigation and report.

3

2.

Heard Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, Smt. B.G.Namitha Mahesh,

learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

the first respondent, Sri B.V.Rajanna, learned counsel

appearing for the second respondent and perused the

material on record.

3.

Brief facts as projected by the complainant

in the complaint are that, the complainant is the wife of

accused No.4 and a party to the sale transaction of a

landed property on 24-05-2016. The complainant is

also one of the vendors. The sale deed is executed in

favour of one Sri Prakashnath Swamy @ Shekarappa.

The role of the petitioner in the transaction is that, he

was a witness to the sale deed.

4.

The version of the complainant is that, the

petitioner who is an attesting witness has identified all

the parties to the sale transaction and the sale

4

transaction is a fraud and the vendors are impersonated

in the sale transaction and forged the signatures in the

sale deed executed. The petitioner is alleged to be guilty

of offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420,

477, 468, 504 and 506 of the IPC read with 34 of IPC.

The PCR having been referred for investigation to the

jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.,

by its order dated 04-11-2016, the petitioner has

knocked the doors of this Court challenging the said

order.

5.

The offences alleged against the petitioner

are under Sections 417, 419, 420, 504 and 506 of the

IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, all of which concerned

cheating, forgery and falsification of records. The

petitioner is neither the vendor nor the purchaser of the

property in question in the sale transaction. The PCR

averments indicate intention of accused Nos.1 to 3 to

cheat the complainant and her children and in

5

furtherance of the said motive have impersonated and

misled the Sub-Registrar and purchased the property

from accused No.4 and others in particular. There is no

allegation even in the PCR against the petitioner to have

acted more than an attesting witness. The evidenciary

value of attesting witness in law is not on par with

evidenciary value of either the vendor or the purchaser.

If the vendors have forged or impersonated, misled the

Sub-Registrar and purchased the property from the

accused, the attesting witness cannot be held to be

responsible for such forgery or impersonation as he has

only lent