IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

SUNIL SHETTY S/O SUKUMARA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A SUNIL HOUSE, BARKE GARDEN, MANNAGUDDE, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 003.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. BALAKRISHNA M.R, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY URVA PS, D.K. DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. BHARATHI VIJAY W/O VIJAY KUMAR B, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A NO. 3-18-6, S.R. NIVASA, SIMON ROAD, MAROLI, MANGALURU, DK DISTRICT - 575 005.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL ENTIRE IN PROCEEDINGS CC.NO.31/2011 (LPC.NO.22/2015) PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406, 420, 418, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/URVA PS.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner/accused No.2 is before the Court calling in question further continuance of proceedings in C.C.No.222/2010 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the IPC' for short).

2. Heard Sri. Balakrishna M.R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. The petitioner is accused No.2, at the relevant point in time was not available for trial. The accused No.1 initially gets acquitted, accused Nos.3 and 4 later get acquitted in C.C.No.222/2010. Now, who remains in the fray is the present petitioner/accused No.2. Therefore, a split charge is drawn against the petitioner on account of his non-availability at the relevant point in time in C.C.No.31/2011. The concerned Court in terms of its order dated 04.07.2014 acquits the accused Nos.3 and 4, who were available for trial on the following reasons:

"REASONS

9. Point Nos. 1 to 6: All these points are inter-

connected to each other. Hence I took these points for consideration at one stretch to avoid repetition.

10. On perusal of oral as well as documentary evidence, I am of the opinion that prosecution has failed to prove allegation against accused Nos 3 and 4. P.W.1 being complaint, who set the lat into motion, in her evidence deposed reiterating the allegation of prosecution with regard to accused No.2. P.W.1 has not at all deposed any incriminating evidence against accused Nos 3 and 4. 78 Whatever evidence of P.W.1 has given it is only against accused No.2 who is ordered to split up from this case. In her evidence, she has deposed she came to know one Sunil Shetty, Vinod, Rajesh and others have forged the documents. Admittedly, name of accused Nos 3 and 4 is Vinod and Rajesh. At the cost of repetition, I would like to say, P.W.1 has not deposed any incriminating evidence against accused Nos 3 and 4. She has not deposed any single word that accused No.3 was working as Salesman at Gurudev Enterprises and accused No.3 has handed over her photo and I.D. card to accused No.4. Further she has not deposed, in turn accused No. 4 in order got get commission illegally and unlawfully affixed her photo and I.D card and got activation of mobile sim No.9008173294. This being the evidence of P.W.1, it is fatal to the case of prosecution.

11. On perusal of evidence of P.W.2 who is Airtel Distributor in his evidence he has deposed he has not seen accused Nos 3 and 4 of the present case. Further he has deposed in the year 2009 Urva Police have visited his Gurudev Enterprises situated at Kuntikana and took one office seal and police have seized sand same under mahazar. Further he has deposed he has no idea for what purpose police have seized the same. A