VINOD KUMAR .K & Ors. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ANGAD KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.50533/2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE HONBLE X ADDL.C.J.M MAYO HALL AT BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking quashing of the charge sheet in C.C.No.50533/2022 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2.

2. The gist of the allegations as reflected in the charge sheet is that accused No.1, representing himself to be the absolute owner in lawful possession of the disputed property, had availed a loan of Rs.17,00,000/- from - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025 HC-KAR Cholamandalam Finance by creating a mortgage over the very same property. It is further alleged that during the subsistence of the said mortgage and without redeeming the same, accused No.1 entered into an agreement of sale in favour of C.W.1 and C.W.2 for a total sale consideration of Rs.43,00,000/- and received an advance amount of Rs.19,35,000/-. The prosecution case proceeds on the footing the existence of the mortgage was deliberately suppressed at the time of entering into the agreement of sale and receiving the substantial advance amount, thereby inducing the complainant to part with money under a false representation. On these allegations, the Investigating Agency has laid the charge sheet in C.C.No.50533/2022 for the offences invoked therein. The present petition is filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., calling in question the legality and correctness of the said charge sheet.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/accused and the learned - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025 HC-KAR counsel appearing for respondent No.2–complainant at considerable length. The records of the case, including the earlier proceedings, have also been perused.

4. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had initially filed an application seeking discharge before the learned trial Judge. The said application came to be rejected on a consideration of the material placed along with the charge sheet. Aggrieved by the rejection of the discharge application, the petitioners had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.10067/2025. This Court, while dismissing the said petition, had categorically observed that the core issue namely, whether the petitioners, despite being the absolute owners of the property, had deliberately suppressed the subsisting mortgage created in favour of Cholamandalam Finance and entered into an agreement of sale with C.W.1 and C.W.2 constitutes a matter requiring adjudication during trial upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. This Court had further held that such disputed questions of - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025 HC-KAR fact cannot be gone into in proceedings seeking discharge and must necessarily be tested during the course of full- fledged trial.

5. Despite the dismissal of the earlier criminal petition and the specific findings recorded therein, the petitioners have once again invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the very same charge sheet in C.C.No.50533/2022. The present petition, therefore, substantially seeks to reagitate issues which have already been considered and negatived at the stage of discharge as well as in the earlier round before this Court.

6. In view of the above background and having regard to the fact that this Court has already examined the scope of the allegations in the earlier proceedings, it is deemed appropriate to advert to paragraph No.7 of the findings recorded in Criminal Petition No.10067/2025. The said paragraph, being relevant the present - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025 HC-KAR controversy, is extracted herein below reference:- "7. The real issue which has to be established during the course of trial is, whether the petitioners, being the absolute owners of the property but having mortgaged the same with Cholamandal Finance, deliberately suppressed this fact and entered into an agreement to sell with C.W.1 and C.W.2. If the prosecution is able to prove that the petitioners, with dishonest intention, executed such an agreement to sell without disclosing the subsisting mortgage, then the essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC would be attracted. It is for the prosecution, by leading cogent evidence, to establish such intention and suppression. At this preliminary stage, this Court is not inclined to record any findings in favour of the petitioners nor extend any indulgence in their favour."

7. On a careful examination of the observations made by this Court while dismissing Criminal Petition No.10067/2025, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded therein squarely operate against the present petitioners. This Court had, in unequivocal terms, observed that the pivotal issue namely, whether the - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025 HC-KAR petitioners had deliberately suppressed the subsisting mortgage created in favour of Cholamandalam Finance and thereby induced the complainant to part with a substantial sum of Rs.19,35,000/- is a matter which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings. It was categorically held that such questions involve appreciation of evidence, examination of witnesses and scrutiny of surrounding circumstances, all of which necessarily fall within the domain of trial. The earlier order has thus already concluded that the allegations cannot be brushed aside at the threshold.

8. The present petition does not disclose any subsequent or supervening circumstance warranting reconsideration of the matter. No new material is placed on record. No additional legal ground is urged which was either unavailable or not considered in the earlier round of litigation. In the absence of any changed circumstance, the attempt of the petitioners is nothing but a repetition of the very same contentions which stood rejected earlier. - 8 - NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025 HC-KAR Permitting such a course would amount to allowing the petitioners to circumvent the earlier order and to seek, in substance, a review of the findings rendered by this Court.

9. It is trite and well-settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, and only to prevent abuse of process of Court or to secure the ends of justice. Such power cannot be invoked as a substitute for a discharge application, nor can it be employed as a mechanism to re- agitate issues already considered and decided. Once this Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, has examined the matter and declined to interfere with the order rejecting discharge, entertaining a second petition on identical grounds would virtually amount to sitting in review over its own order an exercise which impermissible in criminal jurisprudence in the absence of statutory provision conferring such power. - 9 - NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025 HC-KAR

10. Having regard to the foregoing discussion and the material collected during investigation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations contained in the charge sheet, if taken at their face value, prima facie disclose the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Whether the petitioners had the requisite mens rea, whether there was actual suppression, and whether the complainant was in fact induced to part with the advance amount are all matters of defence which require adjudication during trial upon appreciation of evidence.

11. In that view of the matter, this Court holds that the present petition is devoid of merits and is nothing but an attempt to re-agitate issues already considered and negatived. Consequently, no ground is made out for exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the petition is liable to be dismissed. - 10 - NC: 2026:KHC:10049 CRL.P No. 17580 of 2025 HC-KAR

12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following; ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is dismissed. (ii) The Trial Court shall proceed with trial in C.C.No.50533/2022 in accordance with law uninfluenced by any observation made herein, which are only for the purpose of deciding the petition. (iii) All contentions are kept open to be urged before the Trial Court. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10