Karnataka High Court
WP/5121/2026 of SRI. VASANTH @ VASANTHKUMAR Vs SRI. V T JAYARAM on 1 October 2026
CNR: KAHC010115332026 NC: 2026:KHC:54835 WP No. 5121 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 5121 OF 2026 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VASANTH @ VASANTHKUMAR S/O LATE. G.V.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 5121 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. VASANTH @ VASANTHKUMAR
S/O LATE. G.V. YOGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 156, 157, 158,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, MARUTHI
MARKANDESWARA NAGARA,
BANGALORE-560 091
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK N PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI. V T JAYARAM
S/O LATE. VENKATAPPA @
PAPEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
R/AT NO.43, 21ST CROSS,
VISWANEEDAM POST,
SUKANDAKATTE,
YESWANTHAPURA HOBLI,
BANGALORE -560 091
2.
SRI.ANANTHA NARASIMHAMURTHY,
S/O LATE. G.V.YOGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 156, 157, 158,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location:
High Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
MARUTHI MARKANDESWARA NAGARA,
BANGALORE -560 091 .
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.L. MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 25.06.2026
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 27.01.2026, PASSED BY THE LEARNED XXVIII
ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL, BANGALORE ON I.A.NO. 1/2026 FILED UNDER SECTION 379 OF
BNSS, 2023 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE
IN
EX.
NO.25001/2024
AND
ALLOW
THE
APPLICATION I.A.NO. 1/2026 FILED BY THE PETITIONER
UNDER SECTION 379 OF BNSS, 2023 READ WITH SECTION 151
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IN EX. NO.25001/2025 AS
PER ANNEXURE-A AND AWARD COST.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
1. This writ petition is filed impugning the order dated 27.01.2026, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 379 of the BNSS came to be rejected.
HC-KAR
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Decree Holder, with the assistance of Artificial Intelligence, has manipulated certain photographs and produced the same before the Court. It is submitted that such an attempt has been made to mislead the Court, which warrants initiation of proceedings under Section 379 of the BNSS. It is further submitted that, when an application was filed seeking cognizance of the offence allegedly committed by the Decree Holder, the Trial Court committed an error in deferring consideration of the said application until the disposal of the case.
3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, in the absence of the ingredients of Section 379 of the BNSS being made out, the Trial Court was justified in deferring consideration of the application until the final disposal of the case.
4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
HC-KAR
5. Section 379 of the BNSS prescribes the procedure to be followed when the Court is of the opinion that any offence referred to in Section 215 appears to have been committed in, or in relation to, a proceeding before that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding before that Court. After such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it deems necessary, the Court is required to record a finding to that effect and thereafter direct registration of a complaint and proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law.
6. In the present case, the alleged manipulation of the documents with an intent to mislead the Court is itself a matter to be adjudicated upon in the proceedings. In view of the procedure contemplated under Section 379 of the BNSS, unless a preliminary inquiry is conducted and a satisfaction is recorded to that effect, no action can be initiated under the said provision. It is for this reason that the Trial Court has deferred consideration of the application filed by the petitioner herein. In that view of the matter, this Court finds no error warranting interference with the impugned order.
HC-KAR
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE
VP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11