IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 15778 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SRI M. KALI RAJU NAIDU S/O LATE B.S.MARAPPA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.24, 11^TH C CROSS, NEAR FOOD OFFICE, KODANADRAMAPURAM, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU – 560 003.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI RAVINDRA B.S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J PEENYA POLICE STATION, PEENYA, KARISHETTY BENGALURU. Location: High Court of Karnataka REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX.

2. G.PUTTAHANUMAKKA, W/O G.V.GANGANAGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING NO.136, 2^ND BLOCK, 10^TH CROSS, 4^TH MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 032.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R-1;

SMT.BHAVANA G.K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S FILED 528 BNSS OF 2023 (U/S

482 OF CR.PC) PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.06.2025 IN C.C.NO.27258/2025 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE XXXI ADDL.ACJM COURT, BENGALURU ANNEXURE-G.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order of the concerned Court dated 17-06-2025, which allows an application filed by the complainant under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

2.1. The 2^nd respondent registers a complaint on

29-05-2015, in which the petitioner was also drawn as an accused. The said complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.501 of 2015. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. While filing the charge sheet, the name of the petitioner gets dropped. Further proceedings go on before the concerned Court. The prosecution noticing the fact the name of the petitioner could not have been dropped while filing the charge sheet, prefers an application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. to bring the petitioner back into the web of proceedings.

2.2. A notice is issued by the concerned Court to the petitioner as to why he should not be brought back into the web of proceedings. The petitioner replies to the said notice. On consideration of the reply, the concerned Court passes an order permitting the petitioner to be brought in as an accused, owing to the law and the evidence that was found at the time when the trial was on. The petitioner, on allowing of the application, is before the Court in the subject petition, calling in question the said order.

3. Heard Sri. Ravindra B.S., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri. Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Bhavana G.K, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a purchaser from the hands of K. Nithyananda Swamy, the accused no.1 and has nothing to do with the GPA executed in the year 1992 in favour of accused No.1 by one B.M.Rajanna. The petitioner has purchased the property in the year 2015 from the hands of the said K. Nithyananda Swamy. The learned counsel submits that Section 319 of Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to misuse or abuse the position, by bringing in all those who had been dropped, without any rhyme or reason. He would seek quashment of the order. He would add the circumstance of pendency of a civil suit in O.S.No.903 of 2015 in which the present petitioner is also a defendant before the concerned Court. On all these scores, the learned counsel seeks quashment of the order which brings him back into the web of crime.

5. Per-contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent/complainant would vehemently refute the submissions in contending that the complaint was filed not only against Nithyananda Swamy. The complaint of forgery, fraud, cheating and conspiracy was against both the accused No.1 and the present petitioner. The police conduct investigation and drop the name of the present petitioner from the array of accuse