Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/2455/2020 of SRI. DR. LAKSHMAN Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 19 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010543722019 NC: 2026:KHC:51476 CRL.P No. 2455 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2455 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DR. LAKSHMAN S/O SRI SANKARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2455 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. DR. LAKSHMAN
S/O SRI SANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.23, 6TH ‘A’ CROSS,
A.C.E.S. DOLLARS COLONY,
R.M.V. 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 094.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. BHAT GANAPATHY NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ATTIBELE POLICE STATION,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2.
M/S. NANDAVANA PROPERTIES
OFFICE AT NO.48, 1ST FLOOR,
B-2, B J TOWERS, HUSKOOR GATE,
NEAR BIO-CON ELECTRONIC CITY,
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
HOSUR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 100,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI SAMPATH KUMAR,
S/O SRI RAJAPPA.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. S. F.GOUTAM CHAND, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1855/2018
ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT
ANEKAL, CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C,.NO.1855/2018 FILED UNDER SECTIONS 417, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC, FILED BY THE ATTIBELE P.S., ON THE FILE OF THE
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT ANEKAL.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
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
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The prayer is sought for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.1855/2018. The material discloses that when the private complaint was filed, the Trial Court directed the police by passing a pre-cognizance order under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to investigate the matter
HC-KAR
and police having registered the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet.
3. The allegation in the complaint as well as in the charge sheet is that even though the petitioner is not the owner of the property and though property belongs to C.W.5 and C.W.6, misrepresented that he is the owner and he is also a confirming party to the sale deed and in all, received an amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- and deceived the complainant. Hence, police investigated the matter and filed charge sheet.
4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that very initiation of private complaint is erroneous and there is no intention to cheat the complainant and in the absence of any ingredients of cheating at the inception, question of entertaining the complaint as well as investigating the matter does not arise. The Trial Court committed an error in referring the matter under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and also considering the charge sheet filed against the petitioner. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.
HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1/State would submit that when the matter was referred for investigation, the Investigating Officer investigated the matter and invoked the offences under Sections 417, 468, 465 and 471 of IPC in view of creation of document and for having received the amount. Hence, it is a matter of trial.
6. Having considered the factual aspects of the case and the accusation made in the complaint and so also the investigation made by the police, specific allegations are made that he had deceived the complainant by receiving an amount of Rs.1,30,00,000/- misrepresenting that he is the owner of the property though, the property belongs to C.W.5 and C.W.6. When such allegations are made and the material is also collected by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, question of entertaining the petition under Section 482 does not arise and it requires trial with regard to intentional act of cheating.
7. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following:
HC-KAR
ORDER
The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35