IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 955 OF 2022 BETWEEN:

1. SRI. ASWATHNARAYANA REDDY. P S/O SRI PUTTA REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A NO.2/1, J R ARCADE J R LAYOUT, CHALLAKERE KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043 AND ALSO AVAILABLE AT NO.33/1, GAUTAM NIVAS, CHELAKERE, BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560043 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE)

Digitally AND:

signed by R MANJUNA THA Location: 1. SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY HIGH COURT S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY OF KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

2. SRI CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

3. SRI RAMESH REDDY S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 EYARS

4. SRI SURENDRA BABU REDDY S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS 5. SRI LOKESH REDDY S/O GOPALA REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

6. SRI DAMODARA REDDY S/O LATE SRINIVASA REDDY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R1 TO R6 ARE R/AT CHELEKERE VILLAGE KALYAN NAGAR POST BENGALURU - 560 043

7. STATE POLICE BY HENNUR POLICE REPTD BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO 1.SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2017 IN C.C.NO.24173/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE XI A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU AND ALLOW THE SAID COMPLAINT AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED PERSONS/RESPONDENTS HEREIN AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri.C.Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for the State/respondent No.7. 2. This Court did not deem it fit to issue notice to respondent Nos.1 to 6.

3. Defacto complainant is the revision petitioner challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate after due trial in CC No.24173/2004 dated 07.02.2017 which was confirmed in Crl.A.No.25125/2017 dated 04.05.2022.

4. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

4.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Hennur Police Station alleging the commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter ‘IPC’ for short) said to have committed on

26.09.2001.

4.2. A complaint came to be lodged on 22.11.2002 i.e., more than one year two months after the alleged incident. 4.3. Case of the complainant is that there was a decree in favour of the complainant in O.S.No.6607/1999 in respect of the site bearing No.6 carved out of Sy.No.104 of Chelekere as the owner.

4.4. It was the contention of the complainant that accused persons with common intention, fabricated and created a layout plan showing said site as site No.7 and sold the same to accused No.6.

5. Police after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet. On receipt of the charge sheet, learned Trial Magistrate secured the presence of the accused and recorded the plea.

Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution proceeded to examine five witnesses as P.W.1 to 5 and placed on record 23 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 23.

7. Among the five witnesses, complainant is examined as P.W.1. Among the documentary evidence placed on record, Ex.P.1 is the complaint, Ex.P.2 is the spot mahazar, Exs.P.5 and 6 are the tax paid receipts and katha extracts, Ex.P.7 is the copy of General Power of Attorney, Ex.P.8 is the FIR, Ex.P.9 is the certified copy of the order passed in Crl.RP.No.545/2003, Ex.P.10 is the decree copy in O.S.No.6607/1999, Ex.P.11 is the copy of the sale deed, Ex.P.12 is the copy of the General Power of Attorney, Exs.P.13 and 14 are the certified copies of the layout plan, Ex.P.15 is the notarized copy of the demand register, Exs.P.16 an