High Court of Karnataka Quashes Charges Against Accused No.3 in Cheating Case Due to Lack of Prima Facie Evidence of Forgery or Dishonest Intent. Petitioner Discharged Under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 IPC as Allegations of Fabrication of Sale Deed Not Supported by Material on Record.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 12:02:18

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Jayaprakash M.R., was arrayed as accused No.3 in C.C.No.452/2019 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Belur, Hassan, for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The case arose from a complaint filed by respondent No.2, Naveen M.S.K., alleging that the petitioner along with others fabricated a sale deed. The petitioner filed a discharge application before the trial court, which was rejected by order dated 23.12.2022. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to set aside the impugned order and discharge him from the offences. The High Court heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1 (State), and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The court examined the factual matrix and the allegations in the complaint. It noted that the petitioner was not a party to the alleged sale deed and there was no material on record to show his involvement in the fabrication or that he had any dishonest intention. The court held that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences charged. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and discharged the petitioner from the offences under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 IPC.

Headnote

A) Criminal Procedure Code - Discharge - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of Proceedings - The petitioner, accused No.3, sought discharge for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 IPC alleging fabrication of a sale deed. The trial court rejected the discharge application. The High Court held that the allegations did not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner as there was no evidence of his involvement in the alleged forgery or dishonest intention. The court quashed the proceedings against the petitioner. (Paras 1-10)

B) Indian Penal Code - Cheating and Forgery - Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 IPC - Prima Facie Case - The complainant alleged that the petitioner and others fabricated a sale deed. The court found that the petitioner was not a party to the sale deed and there was no material to show he had dishonest intention or committed forgery. The court held that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process. (Paras 5-10)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order rejecting the discharge application of the petitioner/accused No.3 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 IPC is sustainable in law.

Final Decision

Petition allowed. Impugned order dated 23.12.2022 set aside. Petitioner discharged from offences under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 IPC.

Law Points

Section 482 CrPC
discharge
prima facie case
cheating
forgery
sale deed
fabrication
dishonest intention
criminal proceedings
abuse of process

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (11) 33

Criminal Petition No.2947/2023

2024-11-23

H.P. Sandesh

Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, Senior Counsel for Sri G.S. Prasanna Kumar, Advocate for petitioner; Sri Devadas, AAG with Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Addl. SPP for R1; Sri Sree Harsha A.K., Advocate for R2

Jayaprakash M.R.

State of Karnataka, Naveen M.S.K.

Nature of Litigation

Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking discharge from offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 IPC.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought setting aside of order dated 23.12.2022 rejecting discharge application and discharge from offences.

Filing Reason

Petitioner was accused No.3 in C.C.No.452/2019 for alleged fabrication of a sale deed.

Previous Decisions

Trial court rejected discharge application on 23.12.2022.

Issues

Whether the impugned order rejecting discharge is sustainable. Whether prima facie case exists against petitioner for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 IPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued no material to show involvement in fabrication or dishonest intention. Respondents opposed discharge, submitted prima facie case exists.

Ratio Decidendi

The allegations do not make out a prima facie case against the petitioner for the offences charged; continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process of court.

Judgment Excerpts

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AAG for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. This criminal petition is filed praying this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Belur, Hassan, in C.C.No.452/2019 rejecting the discharge application filed by this petitioner.

Procedural History

Complaint filed by respondent No.2 led to registration of FIR and chargesheet. Petitioner filed discharge application before trial court which was rejected on 23.12.2022. Petitioner then filed Criminal Petition No.2947/2023 under Section 482 CrPC before High Court.