Suresh vs State of Karnataka - Criminal Petition

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 9, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Suresh vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026

Author: H.P.Sandesh

Bench: H.P.Sandesh

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15846
CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025

               HC-KAR

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                        BEFORE

                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12200 OF 2025

               BETWEEN:

               1.    SURESH,
                     S/O SHIVA RAMA RAO S,
                     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                     R/AT NO.1036/14E,
                     SUMUKH BHOOMI S.J.H,
                     1ST MAIN ROAD, VIDYARANYAPURAM,
                     MYSURU CITY, MYSURU-570008.
                                                            ...PETITIONER
                         (BY SRI. DHANUSH MENON, ADVOCATE FOR
                      SRI. AKSHAY RAMACHANDRA HUDDAR, ADVOCATE)

               AND:

Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by DEVIKA M BY ASHOKPURAM POLICE STATION, MYSURU,
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE,
COURT OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001.

               2.    MAHESH R.C.,
                     S/O RAMACHANDRAIAH,
                     AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
                     R/AT NO.2084, 4TH CROSS,
                     ASHOKAPURAM, MYSURU CITY,
                     MYSURU-570008.
                                                          ...RESPONDENTS

                           (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1)
                        -2-
                                   NC: 2026:KHC:15846
                              CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025

HC-KAR

 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482

OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.432/2023, REGISTERED BY
THE 1ST RESPONDENT-POLICE ASHOKPURAM POLICE STATION
PURSUANT TO THE FILING OF THE CHARGESHEET DATED
10.05.2022 (ANNEXURE-C) IN CC NO.432/2023 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 406, 420,
465, 467, 468, 471 R/W SECTION 34 OF THE IPC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

                  ORAL ORDER 1.   Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and

the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for

respondent No.1-State. This petition is filed praying this

Court to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.432/2023

registered by the 1st respondent - Ashokpuram Police

Station pursuant to the filing of the charge sheet dated

10.05.2022, (Annexure-C) in C.C.No.432/2023 for the

offences punishable under Section 120B, 406, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code

pending on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge

and CJM Court, Mysuru.

-3-

NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. The learned counsel for the petitioner in his

argument would vehemently contend that there are no

material against the present petitioner and only allegation

is made in the private complaint at page No.6 of the

complaint that this petitioner with an intention to cheat,

prepared fake forged documents by impersonating

Smt.M.V.Shamala and Smt.R.Indiramma and availed loan

of Rs.65,00,000/- from M/s Navanagara Urban Co-

operative Bank, Hottagally Branch, Mysore by mortgaging

the fake title deeds and forged documents of properties

prepared in the name of both of them and coming to know

the about the above fraud, they again obtained the

encumbrance certificate from the Sub-Registrar of South

Mysore and the above loan of Rs.65,00,000/- was

encumbered in the name of Smt.R.Indiramma and

Smt.M.V.Shamala along with their property situated in

Sy.No.102/1A which was converted into Sy.No.1864/c

New No.CH 44/3, measuring 1,25,509 square feet. -4-

NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. The counsel also would submits that only

allegation is made in page No.6 against this petitioner and

while filing the charge sheet as per Annexure-C, no

material is collected against this petitioner that he had

indulged in committing the fraud or conspiracy and Trial

Court ought not to have taken the cognizance and

proceeded against this petitioner. The counsel also would

submits that cognizance is taken for both the offences

under Section 406 and 420 of IPC as well as other

offences and ought not to have been done. If it is

allegation of cheating would have invoked Section 420 and

not 406 of IPC.

1. The counsel in support of his argument, relies

upon the judgment of Apex Court (2024) 10 Supreme

Court Cases 690 in case of Delhi Race Club (1940)

940 Ltd., and others V/s State of Uttar Pradesh and

another and brought to notice of this Court paragraph

No.43 wherein distinction is made with regard to the

offence under Section 420 as well as 406 of IPC. -5-

NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025 HC-KAR

1. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of

Apex Court reported in (2025) SCC Online SC 2058 in

case of Arshad Neyaz Khan V/s State of Jharkhand

and another and brought to notice of this Court

paragraph No.16 wherein discussed with regard to [Section

406](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/988620/) of IPC punishment for criminal breach of trust and so

also the offence under Section 420 of IPC and also brought

to notice of this Court paragraph No.21 wherein the above

judgment of Delhi Race Club case was also referred in

paragraph No.21 and hence, counsel would submits that

this is a case for remand the matter to the Trial Court with

regard to the offence under Section 406 of IPC is

concerned and simultaneously there cannot be a

proceedings for both the offences under Section 406 and 420 of IPC.

1. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 would submits

that the private complaint was filed and specific allegations

are made against this petitioner with regard to the -6- NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025 HC-KAR

conspiracy as well as fraud and so also taking up the

property from the vendors who are not the owners of the

property and indulged in creation of fake documents and

taking the loan. When such allegation is made, counsel

would submits that specific allegation against this

petitioner is that he has purchased the property from

accused No.19 and there was no any title to his Vendor,

but he had purchased and involvement of this petitioner in

purchasing the property and creation of document is a

matter of trial. The counsel also would submits that even

though the petitioner comes to know about that there was

a fraud and cheating, no action is taken against his Vendor

till date. When such being the case, matter requires trial.

1. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and also the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1 and also taking

note of the averments made in the private complaint and

when the matter was referred to the I.O and I.O also

investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet. -7-

NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025 HC-KAR

Admittedly, it is not in dispute that this petitioner had

purchased the property from accused No.19 and specific

allegation is made against creation of document and when

the involvement of this petitioner is also stated in the

complaint with regard to the fraud and creation of other

document and pledging of fake documents and availing the

loan and also the document is obtained from the Vendor

who is not having any title and rightly pointed out by the

counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/State that no

action is taken against the Vendor. If really Vendor had

committed the fraud on the petitioner, he would have

initiated the proceedings against the Vendor about the

fraud and indulging in creation of documents and the same

has not been done. When such being the case, matter

requires trial. However, the counsel brought to notice of

this Court the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Delhi

Race Club is concerned and brought to notice of this Court

paragraph No.43 with regard to the distinction of both the

offences of 420 as well as 406 of IPC are concerned, the -8- NC: 2026:KHC:15846 CRL.P No. 12200 of 2025 HC-KAR

petitioner can file an application before the Trial Court for

discharge in respect of the offence under Section 406 of

IPC if no ingredients are made out against the petitioner

and question of quashing the order and remanding the

matter does not arise. The petitioner is having a remedy of

seeking of discharge before the Court in respect of the

offence under Section 406 of IPC. With this observation

petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE

RHS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14