Bangalore District Court
Basaveshwara Nagar vs Manjunath on 16 February, 2026
KABC090004202025
Presented on : 26-04-2025
Registered on : 26-04-2025
Decided on : 16-02-2026
Duration : 0 years, 9 months, 20 days
BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC
OFFENCES: AT BENGALURU CITY
Dated this the 16th day of February 2026
:Present:
Sri. VISHWANATH C GOWDAR., B.A.L., LL.M.,
Presiding Officer,
Special Court for Economic Offences,
Bengaluru City
C.C. No.306/2025
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka through
: Basaveshwara Nagara Police station
(Rep by Sri. MBR, Spl. PP)
V/s.
ACCUSED 1. Manjunath
: S/o. Late. Narasimhaiah,
Major,
2. Raghavendra
S/o. Late. Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at. No.04, 5th Cross
Muneshwara Layout,
2 C.C. No.306/2025
Veerasagara Road, Attur Layout,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bengaluru.
3. Narayanamma
W/o. Late. Narasimhaiah,
Aged about 64 years,
A-1 & 3 R/at. No.301, 12th Cross,
1st Block, BEL Layout,
Vidhyaranyapura,
Bengaluru.
4. R. Praveen Kumar
S/o. P. Rajendra Reddy,
Aged about 26 years,
R/at. No.102, 2nd Block,
3rd Stage, 6th Main,
Shivanagara, Basaveshwaranagar,
Bengaluru.
7. Lokesh C (Split Up)
8. Rajesh (Split Up)
(A-1 & 3 Rep. by Sri. JTV., Advocate)
(A-2 & 4 Rep. by Sri. BAS., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of : 07.03.2016 to
offense 22.02.2017
2. Date of report of offence 22.02.2017
3. Name of the complainant : Sri. M.N. Narasimha
Murthy
4. Date of commencement of : 05.09.2022
recording of evidence
5. Date of conclusion of : 10.12.2025
recording of evidence
6. Offence complained of : Offences punishable
U/s.419, 420, 465, 468,
3 C.C. No.306/2025
471, 120B & 201 of IPC.
7. Opinion of the Judge Accused Nos.1 to 4 not
found guilty
Presiding Officer,
Spl. Court for Economic Offences,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The PSI of Basaveshwaranagar Police Station has laid charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 4, 7 & 8 for the offences punishable U/s.419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201 & 120B of IPC, on complaint being referred U/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C., by dropping accused Nos.5 & 6 in the charge sheet.
2. THE PROSECUTION'S CASE IN NUTSHELL IS AS UNDER:
That, the complainant/CW-1 is the joint owner of immovable property bearing No.102, situated at Block No.2, West of Cord Road, Shivanagar, Bengaluru. The accused Nos.1 & 2 being the brothers of complainant by colluding with accused No.3 i.e., mother of the complainant as well as accused Nos.4 to 8 have conspired and fabricated the GPA dated 07.09.2016 by forging the signatures of the complainant and on the strength of the said GPA, illegally reflected the accused No.3 as the Attorney Holder in the 4 C.C. No.306/2025 Discharge Deed dated 30.08.2016, registered on 08.09.2016 whereby joint right, interest as well as title of the complainant was being involved, sold the same in favour of the accused No.4 without the consent of the complainant by deceiving the complainant/PW1 on the strength of fabricated and concocted documents. Thereby accused persons have committed offences punishable U/s.419, 420, 465, 468, 201 & 120B of IPC.
3. On receipt of private complaint by the court, Basaveshwaranagar Police have registered the case in Cr. No.84/2017 for the offences punishable U/s.415, 416, 419, 420, 463, 465, 468 & 120B of IPC and transmitted the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. After completion of investigation, the IO has filed the final report against the accused Nos.1 to 4, 7 & 8 for having committed the offence punishable U/s.415, 416, 419, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471, 201 & 120B of IPC.
4. Thereafter, my predecessor in office after careful examination of the charge sheet and prosecution papers has taken cognizance of offences U/s.415, 416, 419, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471, 201 & 120B of IPC.
5. On service of summons, the accused Nos.1 to 4 appeared through their counsel and filed bail applications. The same were considered and they have been enlarged on 5 C.C. No.306/2025 bail. The accused Nos.7 & 8 could not be secured despite coercive steps, hence, the case against them has been split up vide order dated 19.04.2022 and registered as C.C. No.15629/2022 on the file of erstwhile V ACMM Court, Bengaluru.
6. After appearance of accused Nos.1 to 4, charge sheet copy, statement of the witnesses and documents along with the charge sheet has been supplied to them in compliance of Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, my predecessor in office has heard the learned Spl. PP and the counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4 and framed charge by reading over and explaining the allegations of the prosecution to the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable U/s.415, 416, 419, 420, 463, 465, 468, 471, 201 & 120B of IPC. The accused Nos.1 o 4 have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses as PW's-1 to 11 and got marked in all 35 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-35 and closed its side of evidence. The statement of the accused Nos.1 to 4 as contemplated U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded. The accused Nos.1 to 4 denied incriminating materials appearing against them and submitted that they have no defence evidence on their behalf.
8. Heard both the sides. Perused final report, oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.
6 C.C. No.306/20259. On the basis of the above, the following points arise for consideration of this court viz.,
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused Nos.1 to 4, by virtue of GPA dated 07.09.2016 as well as discharge deed dated 30.08.2016 registered on 08.09.2016 by forging the signature of complainant/PW-1 in the said GPA, infurtherence of their criminal conspiracy cheated him and on the strength of the said GPA, the accused No.3 impersonated herself to be lawful GPA holder of complainant/PW-1 and registered the said Discharge Deed prejudicing right and interest of the complainant over the house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar and thereby accused Nos.1 to 4 committed an offence punishable U/s.419 of IPC?
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, the accused Nos.1 to 4 by having forged the GPA and got registered Discharge Deed, infurtherence of their criminal conspiracy deceived the valuable right and interest of the PW-1/complainant, which in turn was capable of being vesting absolute right to accused persons in connection to the house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar and thereby accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed offence of cheating punishable U/s.420 of IPC?
3) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, the accused Nos.1 to 4 by having forged the GPA, infurtherence of their criminal conspiracy in connection to the house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar and thereby accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed offence of forgery punishable U/s.465 of IPC?
7 C.C. No.306/20254) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, the accused Nos.1 to 4 by having forged the GPA, for the purpose of registration of Discharge Deed infurtherence of their criminal conspiracy to deceive the right of complainant/PW-1 in connection to the house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar and thereby accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed offence for purpose of cheating punishable U/s.468 of IPC?
5) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, the accused Nos.1 to 4 by having forged the GPA and used the GPA as a genuine document for the purpose of registration of Discharge Deed infurtherence of their criminal conspiracy to deceive the right of complainant/PW-1 in connection to the house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar and thereby accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed offence punishable U/s.471 of IPC?
6) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, the accused Nos.1 to 4 caused evidence of the commission of the offence i.e., original GPA dated 07.09.2016 to disappear, with intention of screening the offender, infurtherence of their criminal conspiracy in connection to the house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar and thereby accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed offence punishable U/s.201 of IPC?
7) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubts that, the accused Nos.1 to 4, forged the GPA to get the Discharge Deed registered infurtherence of their criminal conspiracy, to deceive the right of the complainant in connection to the house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar and thereby accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed 8 C.C. No.306/2025 offence punishable U/s.120-B of IPC?
8) What order?
10. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the findings of this court to the above point is as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : In the Negative
Point No.7 : In the Negative
Point No.8 : As per final order
for the following
REASONS
11. Point Nos.1 to 7: All these points are interlinked to each other and arising out of the same incident. In order to avoid repetition of facts, the said points are taken up for discussion together.
12. The prosecution burdened to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubts has got examined in all eleven witnesses as PW's-1 to 11 and got marked 35 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-35. The accused Nos.1 & 3 during the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses have got marked eight documents by way of confrontation as Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-8.
9 C.C. No.306/202513. It is the prosecution's case that, the complainant/ CW-1 is the joint owner of immovable property bearing No.102, situated at Block No.2, West of Cord Road, Shivanagar, Bengaluru. The accused Nos.1 & 2 being the brothers of complainant by colluding with accused No.3 i.e., mother of the complainant as well as accused Nos.4 to 8 have conspired and fabricated the GPA dated 07.09.2016 by forging the signatures of the complainant and on the strength of the said GPA, illegally reflected the accused No.3 as the Attorney Holder in the Discharge Deed dated 30.08.2016, registered on 08.09.2016 whereby joint right, interest as well as title of the complainant was being involved, sold the same in favour of the accused No.4 without the consent of the complainant by deceiving the complainant/PW1 on the strength of fabricated and concocted documents. Thereby accused persons have committed offences punishable U/s.419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 201 & 120-B of IPC.
14. The complainant, who is arrayed as CW-1 is examined as PW-1. He has very much accounted regarding the relationship between himself and accused Nos.1 to 3, the role played by the accused Nos.4 to 8, wherein, accused No.5 in the PCR being Notary Public, the accused No.6 being the Manager of Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vijayanagar Branch, Bengaluru, the accused Nos. 7 & 8 10 C.C. No.306/2025 being the witnesses to fabricated and forged GPA. The complainant has further deposed regarding lodging of PCR before this court, pursuant to police officials attached to Basaveshwaranagara PS having refused to initiate legal proceedings against the accused persons on the basis of the FIS submitted by him. He has also deposed regarding the chargesheet being submitted by Basaveshwaranagara PS after the PCR being referred for investigation, so also, the accused Nos.1 to 4, 7 & 8 as referred in PCR being arrayed as accused persons and accused Nos.5 & 6 cited as witnesses in the said charge sheet/final report. It is further accounted as to the property involved in the case bearing property No.102, measuring 12 X 40 feet was purchased in the name of accused No.3 by the complainant's father late. Narasimhaiah in the year 1980. Himself and his father late. Narasimhaiah having stood as guarantors to the loan advanced by Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank Ltd., in favour of the accused No.3 to the tune of Rs.2 lakhs in the year 1996 for the construction of the residence and the construction of the two storied residential house measuring 20 X 15 Sq. Feet by demolishing the old sheet house. The complainant has also deposed regarding the loan advanced in favour of the accused No.3 being repaid by him out of his earnings and savings from his employment between 1999 and 2004, the total loan amount inclusive of the interest to the tune of Rs.3 lakhs was paid by him by transferring the 11 C.C. No.306/2025 funds to his father's SB account. It is further deposed as to after complainant having cleared the said loan in the year 2004, while he was at USA, in the year 2016, the accused persons by forging his signatures, fabricated and concocted the GPA dated 07.09.2016 and on the strength of the said document, wherein the accused No.3 was shown to be the Power of Attorney Holder of the complainant, the aforesaid property was got discharged in collusion with the officials attached to Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank Ltd., Vijayanagar Branch. It is further accounted as to the accused Nos.1 & 2 having forged his signatures on the original GPA and shown the accused No.3 as power of attorney holder of the complainant by claiming the complainant being held up in Mysuru, unable to tender himself at Bengaluru city. The witness has identified the PCR lodged by him, the same is marked as Ex.P-1 and also the true copy of the GPA dated 07.09.2016 as obtained by the Investigating Officer/PW-9 from the office of Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar is marked as Ex.P-2, subject to objections of either parties.
15. The PW-1 has accounted as to on the basis of discharge sheet dated 30.08.2016, registered on 08.09.2016, the accused No.3, who is shown to be the power of attorney holder of the complainant, got registered the said discharge deed in the office of Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar by prejudicing 12 C.C. No.306/2025 his joint right, title and interest in the said house property. On the basis of the said discharge deed, the accused No.3 executed sale deed in favour of the accused No.4 on 15.12.2016. The true copies of the discharge deed and sale deed are marked as Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4 respectively, subject to objections by the accused persons.
16. The PW-1 has also volunteered regarding himself having sent the Audio Recordings pertaining to the conversations between accused Nos.1 & 2 to Truth Labs and having obtained report from the said Truth Labs. The said Truth Lab's report, transcription pertaining to the conversation along with CD are collectively marked as Ex.P-5. The certified copy of the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed (MODT) dated 28.11.1996 executed by accused No.3 in favour of the General Manager, Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank Ltd., with complainant and his father being guarantors to the loan advanced is marked as Ex.P-6. The loan account statement in the name of accused No.3 is marked as Ex.P-7 and the bank passbook and account statement pertaining to the complainant's account are marked as Ex.P-8 collectively.
17. The complainant has deposed as to his father late. Narasimhaiah being authorized to operate his two bank accounts in his absence between 1999 and 2008, while he was in USA. Further, the PW-1 has accounted regarding the 13 C.C. No.306/2025 Investigating Officer/PW-9 having drawn spot mahazar between 04-30 pm., and 05-30 pm., at their house bearing No.102 on 20.03.2017 in the presence of witnesses i.e., CW's-2 & 3. The said spot mahazar is marked as Ex.P-9 and signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P-9(a). That apart, the complainant/PW-1 also deposed regarding himself and accused Nos.1 to 4 being summoned by the Investigating Officer/PW-9 and having obtained their specimen signatures and also his three canceled cheques by drawing seizure panchanama. The said seizure panchanama is marked as Ex.P-10 and signature of the witness on the said document is marked as Ex.P-10(a). The two canceled cheques of the PW-1 are marked as Ex.P-10(b) & (c) respectively.
18. The PW-1 has also accounted as to the accused No.4 on the basis of the illegal sale deed executed by accused No.3 as per Ex.P-4 has obtained the mortgage loan to the tune of Rs.20 lakhs from M/s. Can Fin Homes Limited. The true copy of the mortgage deed, as obtained by IO through Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar is marked as Ex.P-11.
19. The complainant/PW-1 claiming accused Nos.1 to 4 having deceived him by forging his signatures in GPA dated 07.09.2016, on the strength of said GPA, the discharge deed dated 30.08.2016 being registered in the office of Sub Registrar on 08.09.2016, thereafter, the accused No.3 14 C.C. No.306/2025 prejudicing the right, title and interest of the complainant/PW-1 having proceeded to execute the sale deed in favour of the accused No.4 so also destroyed the original GPA. Further, it is claimed as to the accused Nos.1 to 3 have conspired with each other from making unlawful gain and obtained the consideration of Rs.65 lakhs and as such inclined to lodge the PCR in the case on hand.
20. PW-1 has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 & 3, wherein, it has been elicited as to the accused No.3 is illiterate, unable to read and write. The PW-1 has specifically deposed as to the property bearing No.102 was purchased by his father in the name of his mother in the year 1980. The photocopy of the sale deed in the name of accused No.3 is marked as Ex.D-1 by way of confrontation. PW-1 has categorically deposed as to the house property bearing No.102 is in the joint ownership of himself and accused Nos.1 to 3 and the same can be gathered on the basis of the mortgage deed, bank statements. The suggestions as to the said property is the self-acquired property of the accused No.3 has been denied by the witness.
21. The PW-1 though has accounted as to himself and his father were co-applicants as well as guarantors to the loan advanced by the Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative 15 C.C. No.306/2025 Bank Ltd., in the year 1996 as per MODT at Ex.P-6, admitted as to his signature is not forthcoming in the said Ex.P-6. The certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No.9217/2019 is marked as Ex.D-2 by way of confrontation. The certified copy of the plaint in O.S. No.565/2017 is marked as Ex.D-3 by way of confrontation. The statement of objections filed by the complainant/PW-1 in the P & S.C., proceedings by the accused No.1 is marked as Ex.D-4 by way of confrontation.
22. The suggestions as to Ex.P-7 i.e., loan account statement disclosed monthly installment of Rs.2,000/- and the said repayment has been made by late. Narasimhaiah has been denied by the witness.
23. Further, the report of Truth Labs being obtained by colluding with the Truth Lab officials has been denied by the PW-1. The suggestions as to the conversations pertaining to the Ex.P-5 has been fabricated and created has been denied by the witness. The suggestions as to there is no nexus between the withdrawal and remittance from the bank statements at Ex.P-8 to the remittance to the loan statement at Ex.P-7 has been denied by the witness. The khata pertaining to the house property bearing No.102 is marked as Ex.D-5 by way of confrontation. It is specifically elicited as to as per Ex.D-5, khata is exclusively standing in the name of accused No.3.
16 C.C. No.306/202524. The complainant/PW-1 has admitted as to the witnesses to the Ex.P-9 spot mahazar are his relatives. Further, the letter dated 12.08.2016 by the accused No.3 addressed to the Manager, Sri Subramanyeswara Co- operative Bank Ltd., is marked as Ex.D-6 by way of confrontation. The PW-1 has deposed regarding the mobile number of the accused No.2 forthcoming in the said letter. The letter dated 04.11.2017 by the General Manager, Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bengaluru as identified by the PW-1 is marked as Ex.D-7 by way of confrontation. The PW-1 has admitted the contents of the said Ex.D-7.
25. The complainant/PW-1 has admitted regarding the communications dated 10.02.2004 by the Manager of Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank Ltd., to the Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar to register the release deed in favour of the borrower i.e., accused No.3 Smt. Narayanamma pursuant to clearance of the loan borrowed by her by virtue of the MODT dated 29.11.1996. The said letter dated 10.02.2004 along with discharge receipt are collectively marked as Ex.D-8 by way of confrontation.
26. It is pertinent to note that, PW-1 has categorically refused to answer regarding the suggestions as well as questions as to there was no any necessity to the accused 17 C.C. No.306/2025 Nos.1 to 3 for fabrication or creation of the GPA at Ex.P-2, in view of the Ex.D-8, which categorically disclosed the right of the accused No.3 to get the mortgage property released from the encumbrance.
27. PW-1 has pleaded ignorance regarding the individuals, who had been to the Sub Registrar office, Rajajinagar at the time of registration of Ex.P-3. The suggestions as to the audio conversations between the individuals involved in Ex.P-5 has been manipulated to suit the requirements in the case on hand has been denied by the witness. It is admitted as to there is no any mention regarding the mobile number of the accused No.1 in Ex.P-5.
28. PW-1 has been deposed as to he got to know regarding the forged GPA in the month of November 2016 on obtaining the Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the property bearing No.102. The PW-1 has failed to identify the said encumbrance certificate along with PCR, but he has claimed regarding the reference pertaining to the encumbrance certificate in the said PCR. It has been categorically deposed as to on obtaining the encumbrance certificate having got to know regarding his signature being forged in the GPA. He has also deposed as to the said encumbrance certificate being obtained on 21.11.2016. The PW-1 has pleaded ignorance regarding the signatories to the agreement of sale in favour of accused No.4.
18 C.C. No.306/202529. Further, PW-1 has admitted as to the accused No.1 is not the signatory to the Ex.P-2. He has also accounted as to he has not produced the copy of the application made by him to the office of Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar to obtain the Ex.P-2. It is categorically elicited as to the copy of the GPA as per Ex.P-2 was obtained after obtaining the Encumbrance Certificate in the month of November 2016. The suggestions as to as the accused No.3 was absolute and exclusive owner of the property bearing No.102, the accused persons, bank officials or the officials attached to Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar did not had any necessity of execution of the GPA. The suggestions as to the complaint as per Ex.P-1 has been lodged with an ulterior intention to harass the accused persons and to pressurize the accused persons to get the civil dispute compromise has been categorically denied by the witness.
30. The learned counsel for the accused Nos.2 & 4 has subjected the PW-1 for cross-examination, wherein, the suggestions as to there was conversation between PW-1 and accused No.2 in connection to the partition of the Vidhyaranyapura property and PW-1 assured the accused No.2 to execute the release deed in connection to the property bearing No.102, if the Vidhyaranyapura property is handed over or conveyed to the PW-1 has been specifically denied by the witness. The counsel has succeeded to elicit as 19 C.C. No.306/2025 to there is no any connection between accused No.4 and Ex.P-2.
31. CW's-2 & 3, who are arrayed as witnesses to the spot mahazar as well as seizure panchanama are examined as PW's-2 & 3 respectively. These witnesses have deposed as to both having affixed their signatures on the spot mahazar dated 20.03.2017 between 04-30 pm., and 05-30 pm., near house property bearing No.102, 6th Cross, Shivanagar, Bengaluru in the presence of PW-1 and three other police officials. Both the witnesses have identified their respective signatures on the spot mahazar, which is already marked as Ex.P-9, the signatures of the witnesses are marked as Ex.P- 9(b) & (c). They have also accounted as to the said spot mahazar was drawn in connection to the signatures of the CW-1/PW-1 being forged by the accused persons in connection to the property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar, Bengaluru. They have also deposed as to being conversant with the contents of Ex.P-9.
32. The said PW's-2 & 3 have also deposed as to seizure panchanama being drawn by the police officials between 10-00 am., and 11-30 am., on 26.07.2017 at Basaveshwaranagar PS, in their presence as well as PW-1 and accused Nos.1 to 4. They have also accounted as to the signatures of PW-1 and accused Nos.1 to 4 being obtained in 20 C.C. No.306/2025 the sheet of white paper so also two canceled cheques being collected by the Investigating Officer/PW-9. Both the witnesses have identified their signatures on seizure panchanama, which is already marked as Ex.P-10, their signatures are marked as Ex.P-10(b) & (e) respectively. The said witnesses have also identified the signatures of PW-1 as well as accused Nos.1 to 4 on the said seizure panchanama at Ex.P-10. Both have claimed to being conversant with the contents of the said Ex.P-10.
33. PW's-2 & 3 have been subjected to cross-
examination by the learned counsel for the accused persons, wherein, they have elicited as to no any notice or summons was issued to PW's-2 & 3 to extend their co-operation to the spot mahazar at Ex.P-9 as well as seizure panchanama at Ex.P-10. It is also elicited as to the PW's-2 & 3 having not been to the police station prior to June 2017, the police officials did not had their contact numbers. The said witnesses have also deposed as to they had been to the police station in connection to the Ex.P-10 at the request of police officials. The other suggestions as to PW's-2 & 3 had deposing falsely to help the complainant/PW-1, who is their close relative has been denied by the witness.
34. CW-4, who is arrayed as Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar is examined as PW-4. This witness has accounted as to the 21 C.C. No.306/2025 receipt of letter dated 14.06.2017 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Basaveshwaranagar PS, calling upon for the details pertaining to the house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar, Bengaluru viz., certified copy of sale deed, Encumbrance Certificate and GPA. The said letter from the PSI dated 14.06.2017 is marked as Ex.P-12. In response to the Ex.P-12, the witness has submitted the true copies of the GPA, discharge deed, sale deed and mortgage deed. The said witness PW-4 has also admitted as to the aforesaid documents were sent along with letter dated 23.06.2017. It is also volunteered as to the GPA as available and marked as Ex.P-2 is the copy, which was sent by her to the IO/PW-7, so also identified the discharge deed, sale deed and mortgage deed as per Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-11, which were sent by her along with the letter dated 23.06.2017. The letter dated 23.06.2017 is marked as Ex.P-13.
35. PW-4 has further accounted as to the receipt of another letter dated 17.01.2018 by the PSI, Basaveshwaranagar PS and calling upon to furnish the additional information in connection to the documents registered on 08.09.2016 i.e., Ex.P-3. The said letter received from PSI dated 17.01.2018 is marked as Ex.P-14. The witness has also accounted as to having given detailed explanation to the Ex.P-14 vide letter dated 22.01.2018. The said letter dated 22.01.2018 is marked as Ex.P-15 and her 22 C.C. No.306/2025 signature is marked as Ex.P-15(a). The witness has also identified the Encumbrance Certificate pertaining to the house property bearing No.102 between 01.04.2004 and 14.06.2017, which was submitted to the IO along with Ex.P-13, the Encumbrance Certificate is marked as Ex.P-16 and signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P-16(a).
36. PW-4 has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused persons, wherein, it has been specifically elicited as to the handwritten endorsement in Ex.P-3 after the name and address of PW-1/complainant stating as "represented by his GPA holder M. Narayanamma" was found on receipt of Ex.P-3 from the Bank. It is also elicited as to the contents of Ex.P-3 at paragraph No.5 of the page No.3 was typed by the officials attached to Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank Ltd.,. It is further elicited as to Ex.P-2 is the attested copy of the GPA prepared on the basis of the notarized copy of the GPA, which was available in the records. The original GPA not being available in their records.
37. CW-5, who is arrayed as the Bank Manager of Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank Ltd., is examined as PW-5. This witness has deposed as to having received the notice U/s.91 of Cr.P.C., from PSI, Basaveshwaranagara PS on 07.07.2017 calling upon to furnish the documents pertaining to the house property bearing No.102 of 23 C.C. No.306/2025 Shivanagar. The said notice is marked as Ex.P-17. In response to the said Ex.P-17 vide reply dated 12.07.2017, the photocopy of the mortgage deed dated 28.11.1996, discharge deed dated 30.08.2016 and photocopy of the letter addressed to the Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar have been submitted to the PSI, Basaveshwaranagara PS. The reply along with three enclosures are collectively marked as Ex.P-18 and signatures of the witness on the letter is marked as Ex.P-18(a). Thereafter, the PSI, Basaveshwaranagara PS again addressed a letter dated 09.09.2017 calling upon for explanation and information, the same being responded vide explanation dated 14.09.2017. The letter dated 09.09.2017, response dated 14.09.2017 are marked as Ex.P-19 collectively.
38. The witness has also accounted regarding the receipt of notice U/s.91 of Cr.P.C., by the PSI, Basaveshwaranagar PS on 27.09.2017 seeking for information as to the official, who executed the registered mortgage deed in connection to the house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar, so also, reply being made vide response dated 03.10.2017. The notice dated 27.09.2017 and response dated 03.10.2017 are collectively marked as Ex.P-20. He has also volunteered as to one Mr. Kiran Kumar S., was officiating as Bank Manager at the time of registration of the discharge deed at Ex.P-3.
24 C.C. No.306/202539. The said PW-5 has been subjected to cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 & 3, wherein, it is elicited as to there is no reference pertaining to the loan account number is forthcoming in the notice U/s.91 of Cr.P.C., at Ex.P-17. It is also specifically admitted as to there was no any request by the loan borrower in the case on hand to communicate to the office of Sub Registrar for registration of the discharge deed. The other suggestions as to the witness is deposing falsely at the instance of complainant and police officials has been specifically denied by the witness.
40. The cross-examination of PW-5 conducted by the counsel for the accused Nos.1 & 3 is permitted to be adopted by the counsel for the accused Nos.2 & 4.
41. CW-6, who is also the bank official attached to Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank Ltd., is examined as PW-6. This witness has deposed as to the discharge deed dated 30.08.2016 was executed in favour of accused No.3 and identified the photocopy of the discharge deed enclosed to the communication, which is already marked as Ex.P-19. He has further volunteered as to the endorsement beneath, the name and address of the complainant/PW-1 "represented by GPA holder M. Narayanamma" was not mentioned by him at the time of typing the Discharge Deed at Ex.P-3 being 25 C.C. No.306/2025 handed over to the accused Nos.2 & 3 as well as the wife of accused No.2. The said witness has also accounted regarding the complainant/PW-1 had not been to the bank to receive the Discharge Deed and the accused Nos.2 & 3 were not carrying the GPA along with them. The witness has also accounted regarding the accused No.3 having made undated requisition addressing to thier Bank to execute the discharge deed in her favour. The said undated requisition claimed to be from accused No.3 is marked as Ex.P-23. The witness has also identified the requisition dated 12.08.2016 from the accused No.3, the same is already marked as Ex.D-6. The witness has categorically deposed as to at the time of receiving the discharge deed, the borrower of the loan who has duly cleared the loan needs to be personally present.
42. The said PW-6 has been subjected to cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 & 3 and he has succeeded to elicit as to in the earlier discharge deed, which was executed on 10.02.2004 was executed only in favour of accused No.3. The witness has also deposed as to he has personally typed and sealed the Ex.P-3 and forwarded the same to the office of Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar. It is also categorically admitted as to no any notice was issued to the accused Nos.2 & 3 by the Bank as the Ex.P-3 was duly executed in accordance with law. It is also elicited as to no any action was initiated to obtain the copy of the registered 26 C.C. No.306/2025 Discharge Deed from the office of Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar. PW-6 also conceded regarding his knowledge with respect to the Certificate at Ex.D-7. He has further deposed as to the endorsement on the letter dated 30.08.2016 accompanying Ex.P-18 is in the handwriting of accused No.2 or his wife. The other suggestions as to the witness is deposing falsely at the instance of complainant/PW-1 as well as police officials has been denied by the witness.
43. CW-9 the Police Constable attached to Basaveshwaranagar PS is examined as PW-7. This witness has accounted as to himself being deputed to handover the envelop as well as other documents to the Truth Labs on 26.04.2018. Further deposed as to the said documents along with envelop being duly handed over to the Truth Labs office situated at Dickenson Road, Bengaluru. The witness has identified the permit bearing acknowledgment of the Truth Labs, the same is marked as Ex.P-22.
44. Though PW-7 has been subjected to cross- examination by the counsel for the accused persons, nothing crucial favorable to the accused persons has been elicited.
45. CW-7, the Notary Public is examined as PW-8. This witness has accounted as to the Basaveshwaranagar Police having summoned her on 03.10.2017 and herself having tendered at Basaveshwaranagar PS on 04.11.2017 27 C.C. No.306/2025 and submitted specimen of her Notary Seal, Notary Certificate, Notary Register and also Handbook of notary. It is also volunteered as to herself having given her voluntary statement. The witness has also deposed as to the accused Nos.1 & 2 having visited her at Notary Hall of City Civil Court, Bengaluru on 07.09.2016 along with original GPA bearing signatures of the executor, attorney holder as well as witnesses. The said witness has also deposed as to herself having attested the said original GPA dated 07.09.2016 by affixing her seal and signature and also identified Ex.P-2 as the copy made from the said GPA, which was attested by her. The said witness has failed to identify the accused Nos.1 & 2 due to lapse of time.
46. PW-8 has been treated as partly hostile witness and permitted to be cross-examined by the prosecution, the prosecution succeeded to elicit as to PW-8 having given her voluntary statement to the Investigating Officer/PW-9.
47. The said PW-8 has been subjected cross-
examination by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 & 3, wherein, it has been specifically elicited as to on her visit to the Basaveshwaranagar PS twice, she has not been confronted with accused Nos.1 to 4. She has categorically admitted as to she has not personally affixed her seal and signature on the Ex.P-2 i.e., true copy of the original GPA. It 28 C.C. No.306/2025 is also elicited as to she has not verified the ID cards of the accused Nos.1 & 2 on the date of attestation, to ascertain the identification of the individuals, who had brought the original GPA. The witness has pleaded ignorance regarding possibilities of the complainant/PW-1 having brought the original GPA for the purpose of attestation. The other suggestions as to she is deposing falsely pursuant to herself being arrayed as accused No.5 in the PCR & FIR being shown as the witness in the charge sheet.
48. CW-10, who is arrayed as Investigating Officer is examined as PW-9. This witness has accounted as to having received the intimation from V ACMM Court, on 14.03.2017 and having proceeded to register the FIR in Crime No.84/2017 so also submitting the same to the court as well as his superiors. The FIR is marked as Ex.P-24 and his signature is marked as Ex.P-24(a). The witness has also accounted as to drawing of spot mahazar at Ex.P-9 between 04-30 pm., and 05-30 pm., on 20.03.2017 in the presence of independent witnesses CW's-2 & 3 as well as complainant/PW-1. The signature of the witness on Ex.P-9 i.e., spot mahazar is marked as Ex.P-9(d). It is also deposed regarding the accused Nos.1 to 4 being enlarged on bail on 16.06.2017 as per the order of the Hon'ble Sessions Court. It is also accounted regarding the seizure mahazar being drawn on 07.06.2017 between 10-00 am., and 11-00 am., in 29 C.C. No.306/2025 the presence of CW's-2 & 3 so also in the presence of accused Nos.1 to 4 and PW-1, wherein, the signatures of the PW-1 and accused Nos.1 to 4 were obtained in the sheet of white paper and also two signed canceled cheques of PW-1 being collected for the investigation. The signature of the witness on said seizure panchanama, which is already marked as Ex.P-10 is marked as Ex.P-10(c). The specimen signatures of the PW-1 as well as accused Nos.1 to 4 are marked as Ex.P-25 to Ex.P-29 respectively. The witness has also accounted regarding the communication at Ex.P-12 being made to Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar calling upon to furnish documents pertaining to the house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar. He has also deposed regarding the notarized copies of the GPA, discharge deed and sale deed being obtained from the custody of PW-1 on 20.06.2017. The response to Ex.P-12 by way of Ex.P-13 being received along with enclosed documents.
49. PW-9 has also accounted as to the communication being made to M/s. Can Fin Homes Limited vide letter dated 14.06.2017 calling upon to furnish the documents pertaining to the house property No.102 of Shivanagar and in response to the said letter having received the documents from M/s. Can Fin Homes Limited. The response dated 20.06.2017 from the M/s. Can Fin Homes Limited along with enclosed documents are collectively marked as Ex.P-30. It is also 30 C.C. No.306/2025 deposed regarding the notice as per Ex.P-17 being addressed to the Manager, Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank Ltd., and also receipt of response as per Ex.P-18 along with enclosed documents. The witness has also accounted regarding the notice U/s.91 of Cr.P.C., being issued on 13.07.2017 to accused Nos.1 to 4 to produce the original GPA. The office copy of the said notice is marked as Ex.P-32. The bank statement of late. Narasimhaiah as cleared from complainant/PW-1 on 26.06.2017 is marked as Ex.P-31. The another notice addressed to accused Nos.1 to 3 U/s.91 of Cr.P.C., calling upon to produce the original GPA is marked as Ex.P-33. He has also accounted regarding the communication to the Manager of Sri Subramanyeswara Co- operative Bank Ltd., as per Ex.P-19 and receipt of response as per Ex.P-19(a) so also, the notice being issued to the said Manager at Ex.P-20 and response by the Manager at Ex.P-20(a).
50. He has also accounted regarding the notice being issued to PW's-6 & 8 and their respective statements being recorded so also, the documents being collected from PW-8. Further, the witness has also accounted regarding the communication as per Ex.P-14 being made to Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar and response as per Ex.P-15 being received. It is also accounted regarding the specimen signatures of the accused Nos.1 to 4 as well as PW-1 being forwarded to Truth 31 C.C. No.306/2025 Labs, Bengaluru along with the letter addressed to the Director on 26.04.2018 and the report of Truth Labs being received by him. The letter dated 26.04.2018 and report of the Truth Labs dated 18.06.2018 are marked as Ex.P-34 & Ex.P-35 respectively. It is also specifically deposed as to as per Ex.P-35, so also, the other incriminating materials got gathered during the course of investigation, he has concluded as to the signature of PW-1 being forged on the GPA and on the strength of the said GPA, the said discharge deed at Ex.P-3 being got executed to prejudice the right of the PW-1 as such charge sheeted accused Nos.1 to 4, 7 & 8.
51. PW-9 has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.2 & 4, wherein, the suggestions as to the investigation in the case on hand has been conducted without ascertaining the original GPA has been categorically denied by the witness. The suggestions as to the voluntary statements of the accused Nos.2 & 4 have been fabricated and concocted to suite the requirements of the investigation has been denied by the witness. It is elicited as to no any notice being served upon CW's-2 & 3 i.e., the witnesses to the spot mahazar to extend their co- operation to draw mahazar at Ex.P-9. It is specifically deposed as to on the date of drawing Ex.P-9 spot mahazar, PW's-2 & 3 were available at the place of mahazar proceedings, as such, they have been requested to extend co-
32 C.C. No.306/2025operation to draw the mahazar at Ex.P-9. The suggestions as to the signatures of the accused persons have been obtained forcefully so as to resemble the signature of the PW-1, as per seizure panchanama at Ex.P-10 has been categorically denied by the witness. Further suggestions as to the accused Nos.1 to 4 had no any purpose to obtain Ex.P-2 has been specifically denied by the witness. Furthermore, the suggestions as to the report from Truth Labs as per Ex.P-35 has been obtained to falsely implicate the innocent accused persons has been denied by the witness. That apart, the suggestions as to the accused No.4 is the lawful owner of the house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar, which was conveyed by the accused No.3, who was absolute owner of the said property has been denied by the witness.
52. PW-9 has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 & 3, wherein, he has succeeded to elicit as to the Ex.P-2 is the copy of the GPA procured through Sub Registrar, Rajajinagar and not through PW-1. It is specifically elicited as to the copy of the GPA obtained by PW-1 under RTI Act has not been produced before this court. It has been categorically admitted as to the investigation in the case on hand in connection to the GPA has been conducted entirely on the basis of Ex.P-2 i.e., certified copy of the GPA as obtained from the office of Sub 33 C.C. No.306/2025 Registrar, Rajajinagar. It has been further demonstrated as to as per the version of Sri Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank Ltd., the previous discharge deed dated 10.02.2004 has been handed over to the accused No.3. It has been categorically admitted as to no any investigation being conducted with respect to the GPA, which is claimed to be obtained by the complainant/PW-1 under RTI Act. It has been categorically admitted as to he has not investigated regarding the handwriting as forthcoming in Ex.D-6. It has been categorically admitted as to as per communication from bank i.e., Ex.P-20(a), discharge deed at Ex.P-3 was handed over to the custody of accused No.3, the complainant and late. Narasimhaiah i.e., the father of the PW-1. It is also admitted as to paragraph No.5 in page No.3 of Ex.P-3, there are recitals regarding the Ex.D-3 being executed at the instance of PW-1 and accused No.3. It has been specifically admitted as to no any investigation has been conducted with respect to the endorsement beneath, the name and address of the complainant/PW-1 in Ex.P-3 "represented by GPA holder M. Narayanamma".
53. The said admissions are extracted below:
"ಸದರಿ ಕೈಬರಹದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖವನ್ನು ಯಾರು ಮಾಡಿರುತ್ತಾರೆ ಎನ್ನುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾನು ತನಿಖೆಯನ್ನು ಕೈಗೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ಸದರಿ ಕೈಬರಹದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಉಲ್ಲೇಖವನ್ನು ನಿಖರವಾಗಿ ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ತಮ್ಮ ಹಸ್ತಾಕ್ಷರದಲ್ಲಿ ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೋ ಅಥವಾ ಬ್ಯಾಂಕ್ ನವರು ತಮ್ಮ ಹಸ್ತಾಕ್ಷರದಲ್ಲಿ 34 C.C. No.306/2025 ಬರೆದಿರುತ್ತಾರೋ ಎಂಬ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಾನು ತನಿಖೆಯನ್ನು ಕೈಗೊಂಡಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ"
54. PW-9 has categorically admitted as to no any investigation being conducted to ascertain the place of purchasing non-judicial stamp paper for the purpose of execution of Ex.P-2. Further, it is elicited as to the details of the person, who typed the Ex.P-2 has not been investigated. PW-9 has deposed as to the original GPA has been attested at the office of PW-8 and not at Notary Hall of City Civil Court, Bengaluru. The suggestions as to the complainant/PW-1 by colluding with two witnesses to the GPA has fabricated the said GPA, instead of tracing the said independent witnesses viz., Rajesh and Lokesh, the innocent accused Nos.1 & 3 have been planted in the case on hand has been categorically denied by the witness.
55. CW-12 i.e., Director of Truth Labs is examined as PW-10. This witness has accounted as to one Mr. Shankarappa Mural/CW-8 was employed in their organization and report at Ex.P-35 was issued by the said employee/CW-8.
56. PW-10 has been subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused persons, except questions posing, the witness has not produced any documents to show her employment in the Truth Labs, nothing crucial has been elicited during the course of cross-examination of the said witness.
35 C.C. No.306/202557. One Mr. Manu S., the erstwhile, Scientific Officer in Truth Labs, Bengaluru is examined is examined as CW-11 with the permission of this Court on behalf of the prosecution as PW-11. This witness has accounted regarding examining the audio file of 30 minutes, claimed to be the conversation between accused Nos.1 & 2 and also analyzed the said conversation as received by the complainant/PW-1 on 15.09.2022. This witness has accounted as to having examined the audio file as received by the complaint by PW-1 by adopting various procedures and compared the transcript of conversation and opined as to the said audio file of 30 minutes did not contain any signs of editing or tampering, whereby the recording in the audio file of 30 minutes is authentic and also being in-consonance to the transcript running to 34 pages. The said report given by the witness duly signed by the Chairman of Truth Labs is already marked as Ex.P-5 along with the transcription conversation, the signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P-5(a).
58. The PW-11 has been subjected to cross-examination by the counsels for the accused persons, wherein, he has succeeded to elicit as to the date, time and other particulars with respect to audio file, can be more specifically analyzed on the submission of the source device. It is categorically deposed as to on the basis of the audio file, they cannot 36 C.C. No.306/2025 comment the individuals involved in the conversation as per Ex.P-5. As Ex. P-5 is not voice examination, it is only authentication of the audio file on the basis of transcription, provided by the complainant/PW1. The other suggestions as to the witness is deposing falsely at the instance of complainant/PW1 has been denied by the witness.
59. The learned Spl. PP, representing the complainant, vehemently argued as to the allegations put-forth in the complaint at Ex.P-1 has very much been established through cogent, oral and documentary evidence. It is emphasized as to the evidence on record, is sufficient to gather the signature of complainant/PW-1 being forged by the accused Nos.1 to 4. It is highlighted as to the report of the FSL at Ex.P-35, very much sufficient to hold the accused No.4 having forged the signature of PW-1 in Ex.P-2. It is also stressed as to the PW-1 having contributed the money during his avocation at USA. By transferring the funds to the father's account is also corroborated by the bank account statements at Ex.P-7 and Ex.P-8. The learned Spl. PP has emphatically argued as to the endorsement beneath the name of PW-1 in Ex.P-3, very much discloses the intention of the accused persons being to deceive and prejudice the right of the complainant/PW-1. In this connection, the testimonies of PW-6, Investigating Officer/PW-9, so also the Sub Registrar PW-4, has been highlighted to bring home his 37 C.C. No.306/2025 arguments. It is also argued as to the report by Truth Labs as per Ex.P-5, very much sufficient to appreciate the conspiracy hatched between accused Nos.1 & 2 to deceive PW-1 in connection to house property bearing No. 102 of Shivanagar. In this regard, the testimony of PW-11, i.e., Expert, who has authored Ex.P-5, also the testimony of PW-10, i.e., the current Director of Truth Labs, to bring home the arguments as to the complainant having discharged the burden of proving his case to the satisfaction of this Court. It is also envisaged as to there is no scope or room for the ambiguity in the complainant's case and accused Nos.1 to 4 have been involved in the case on hand and are liable to be punished for the offences put forth in the final report and sought for conviction of accused Nos.1 to 4.
60. The learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 & 3 vehemently argued as to the instant case has been falsely lodged against innocent accused Nos.1 & 3 and stressed as to the oral and documentary evidence on record on behalf of the complainant is not at all incriminating the accused Nos.1 &
3. The testimony of PW-1/complainant is submitted to be deposed only with ulterior intention to get the accused persons yielded for the proposal to compromise in the Civil Suit, which is pending before the Hon'ble City Civil Court, Bengaluru. It is highlighted as to the entire evidence of the prosecution fails to convince this court as to how did the 38 C.C. No.306/2025 Ex.P-2 came to the possession of the complainant/PW-1. It is also stressed as to the version of PW-1 insofar as having got to know regarding the forgery of a signature in Ex.P-2, i.e., in the original GPA, being got to know on the basis of the Encumbrance Certificate, in absence of the Encumbrance Certificate, which was applied and obtained by the PW-1 cannot be accepted by this court. The counsel has highlighted as to the versions of PW-1 as well as IO/PW-9 are contrary insofar as who obtained Ex.P-2 on record, so also the Encumbrance Certificate as claimed by PW-1 is not at all forthcoming in the case of hand. It is emphasized by the counsel for the accused Nos.1 & 3 as to the Encumbrance Certificate on the record is the document, which was obtained by the Investigating Officer by addressing a letter to the Sub Registrar and it is altogether different from the Encumbrance Certificate, which is claimed by PW-1. It is empathically argued as to the Encumbrance Certificate, which was obtained by PW-1 before lodging of a complaint before this court at Ex.P-1 is not forthcoming and the claim by the complainant on the basis of assumptions cannot be accepted as proof before this court. The learned counsel has also highlighted the testimony of Investigating Officer/PW9 insofar as having not investigated regarding the endorsement, as forthcoming beneath the name and address of PW-1 in the discharge deed at Ex.P-3, in absence of necessary investigation, in connection to the said 39 C.C. No.306/2025 handwriting, as pointed above, the allegations put-forth in the complaint at Ex.P-1 as well as the final report cannot be attributed any significance. It is also emphasized as to the testimonies of witnesses to the spot mahazar PW's-2 & 3 is contrary to the testimony of Investigating Officer/PW-9, insofar as the summoning of the said PW's-2 & 3 at the place of drawing a spot mahazar. It is highlighted as to PW's-2 & 3 being relatives of complainant/PW-1 are planted to suit the requirements of the complainant in the case on hand. The Ex.P-35 is argued to be based upon the concocted and fabricated conversation and in absence of necessary proof regarding the said conversation was between accused Nos.1 & 2. It is further vehemently argued as to the genuinity of Ex.P-5 and Ex.P-35 cannot be appreciated and given necessary weightage as they are only the Expert evidence, which needs necessary corroboration from the other prosecution evidence. It is also highlighted by the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 & 3 as to in absence of the original GPA dated 07.09.2016, the report as per Ex.P-35 and also the incriminating testimonies against the accused persons is of no any value and use. It is categorically urged that the offences unleashed in the final report are unable to be gathered and the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The accused Nos.1 & 3 have contended as to the necessary defence by way of Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-8 has been put-
40 C.C. No.306/2025forth before this court so as to defeat the entire prosecution's case. The prosecution's case, in absence of specific and incriminating evidence, only on the basis of assumptions will not be sufficient to hold accused persons as guilty of offences alleged in the final report. Amongst these grounds, it has been sought to acquit the accused Nos.1 & 3.
61. The learned counsel for accused Nos.2 & 4 has vehemently argued as to the instant case lacks corroboration. It is stressed that the accused No.4 being the purchaser of the house property No.102 involved in the case on hand has very much acted diligently and he has no any role in the allegations put-forth in the final report. The report as per Ex.P-5, Ex.P-35 in itself cannot be considered as a conclusive proof and to hold accused No.4 as a guilty of commission of offence alleged in the final report, the said report at Ex.P-35 as it is based upon the questioned signatures which is forthcoming in the photocopy of GPA, cannot be construed to hold the Ex.P-35 binding upon accused No.4. The accused No.4's role needs to be demonstrated before this court as to having been active in connection to the transactions with respect to house property No.102. It is highlighted as to there is no any document on record or oral evidence on record to demonstrate the accused No.4 being actively involved in the case. Transaction in connection to house property bearing No.102 of Shivanagar 41 C.C. No.306/2025 and the criminal case requires full corroboration and the absence of documents to incriminate the accused, also the oral evidence, as well as the mitigating circumstances, deserves the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused persons from the hands of this court. The Ex.P-5 has been argued to be the document, which is manipulated by the complainant/PW-1 and the report at Ex.P-5 in absence of necessary connection with respect to the voice involved in Ex.P-5 cannot be used as an incriminating evidence against accused No.2. It is also emphasized as to the evidence of Investigating Officer/PW-9 is very vague and it does not throw any light upon the investigation with respect to original GPA and the voice record at Ex.P-5. The testimony of PW-9 more particularly, cross-examination has been highlighted to bring home the argument as to the investigation being conducted with a sole purpose to plant the accused persons in the case on hand. Amongst these arguments, it has been sought to acquit the accused Nos.2 & 4 in the interest of justice.
"Evaluation & Analysis of the Claims as well as Contentions of the Parties"
62. The prosecution in the case on hand is bound to establish complainant/PW-1 being subjected for cheating by personation, dishonest induce to deliver property, subjected for cheating by forged document, pursuant to the forged 42 C.C. No.306/2025 document being used to play fraud upon him, so also the accused persons having committed criminal conspiracy and caused disappearance of evidence of offence, thereby PW-1 has been put to hardship and prejudice.
63. It is pertinent to note that, it is the specific allegation as to the original GPA dated 07.09.2016 has been forged by the accused persons by conspiring with each other. Firstly, the prosecution in order to bring home the said allegation has placed reliance upon Ex.P-35, the report of Truth Labs. The said report of Truth Labs at Ex.P-35 is very much based upon the questioned signatures as appearing in Ex.P-2 i.e., the true copy of GPA, which was made available to the Truth Labs by the Investigating Officer as well as the admitted signatures as made available by the Investigating Officer by drawing the seizure panchanama at Ex.P-10. It is relevant to note that, the Expert i.e. Truth Labs, only on the basis of the true copy of the document, which is not being the original document, having analyzed the strokes, as well as other scientific aspects involved in the signature in question and having proceeded to issue the report as per Ex.P-35, in absence of necessary corroboration by other cogent evidence, in itself cannot be held to be conclusive proof. It is relevant to note that, the accused persons have raised a specific defence as to the GPA has not at all been forged or fabricated by the 43 C.C. No.306/2025 accused persons, there was no any necessity neither to the accused No.3 nor to the other accused persons to fabricate and concoct the GPA as well as the discharge deed. The overall examination of the prosecution papers as well as the testimonies of the witnesses on record, the house property No.102 of Shivanagar, is the absolute property held by the woman, which per se during the lifetime of the woman, irrespective of mode of acquisition of the said property, cannot be attributed any ownership right to the other family members. This being the position of law with respect to the house property involved in the case, the concoction of the discharge deed on the strength of the GPA certainly lacks the requirement. This court is bound to consider the requirement or necessity of the concoction of the forged GPA and discharge deed as the same is very much relevant to consider the mens rea, which is essential part in commission of any offence.
64. It is the specific allegation as to accused No.1 & 2 have been the mastermind in having obtained the property. GPA so also getting attested the GPA before the notary public, PW-8. The overall, evaluation of the testimony of the PW-8/ Notary Public does not bring home the role of accused No.1 & 2 in having obtained the said document attested from her. The testimony of PW-8 in having not identified the accused No.1 & 2 and also in absence of necessary 44 C.C. No.306/2025 documents maintained by PW-8 in connection to the accused Nos.1 & 2 are the individuals, who had consulted her in connection to attestation of the GPA, the defence put-forth by the accused persons as to the possibilities of complainant/PW-1 having personated accused Nos.1 & 2 to create the GPA cannot be ruled out. The Ex.D-7 issued by the General Manager of the Sri Subramanyeswara Co- operative Bank, strengthens and justifies the view of this court to hold that prosecution has failed to prove the mens rea on the part of accused Nos.1 to 4.
65. It is imperative to note that, the Investigating Officer/PW-9 having not investigated regarding original GPA, the testimony of PW-9 in having issued the notices U/s.91 of Cr.P.C., to the accused persons, so also to the Sub Registrar as well as Bank officials in itself. In absence of positive evidence regarding the destruction of GPA by way of corroborating evidence, such as the financial institution from which non judicial stamp paper was purchased, the typewriter in charge or computer in charge who typed the said GPA involved, or any other piece of evidence, to bring home the existence of GPA is very much requirement in the case on hand.
66. It is relevant to point out at this juncture, unlike other cases, the criminal case needs proof beyond reasonable doubts, the entire investigation revolving upon the true 45 C.C. No.306/2025 copy/certified copy of GPA with an allegation as to the original GPA being forged by accused persons, cannot be accepted and held to be the compliance of the mandate prescribed under law. The provisions of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, it is also significant to note that during the course of cross examination of IO/PW-9, it is categorically elicited as to he is unable to account the date and time as well as other particulars regarding the forged GPA. Prosecution is certainly bound to establish the chain of events so as to connect the entire eventuality of commission of offence. The IO/PW9 has not at all accounted regarding the date of concoction of GPA. The said investigation is very much necessary in order to appreciate the aspect of the discharge deed dated 30.08.2016 being registered in the Office of Sub Registrar on 08.09.2016. The date of concoction of GPA and the aspects as to acquisition of the e-stamp paper and other relevant aspects would be necessary, to gather the essential aspects of actus reus and mens rea.
67. Insofar as the discharge deed at Ex.P-3 is concerned, the Investigating Officer/PW9 has categorically admitted as to having not investigated regarding the handwriting as forthcoming in the discharge deed after the name and address of a complainant/PW1 "represented by GPA Holder M. Narayanamma". It is the prosecution's case that, as per the testimony of PW-6, i.e., the Bank Manager, 46 C.C. No.306/2025 there was no any said endorsement beneath the name and address of PW-1. Per contra, as per the testimony of Sub Registrar/PW-4, the handwritten endorsement was found in the discharge deed at the time of receipt of the said document. In absence of the necessary investigation by the Investigating Agency regarding the handwritten endorsement, which is a crucial aspect in the case on hand, the criminal liability cannot be fixed upon the accused persons, solely on the basis of allegations in absence of cogent and incrementing evidence. The said IO/PW-9, having not investigated regarding the handwriting i.e. handwritten endorsement and the author of the said handwritten endorsement, is a crucial setback to the prosecution's case.
68. The testimony of Investigating Officer/PW-9 as well as Notary Public/PW-8 are contrary to each other insofar as the place of attestation of GPA. This contradiction in the versions as to GPA being notarized in Notary Hall of City Civil Court as deposed by PW-8 and the GPA being notarized/attested at the Office of Notary Public as per IO/PW-9, inclines the Court to hold that prosecution's case is tainted with Substantial contradictions.
69. The signatures of accused Nos.1 to 4 as per Ex.P-25 to Ex.P-29, resembling the signature of PW-1 is very much a strange aspect to accept and believe, the Investigating 47 C.C. No.306/2025 Officer is bound to investigate regarding the involvement of accused persons in forging the signature of PW-1. In the case on hand, The IO/PW-9 has obtained the signatures of accused Nos.1 to 4 resembling to that of PW-1/complainant, on the assumption as to either of the accused persons have forged the signature of complainant/PW-1, even prior to the conclusion of the entire investigation. It is relevant to note that, the handwriting expert will consider the stroke, pressure and other scientific aspects during the course of examination of handwriting and not the identical signatures of those involved in connection to the questioned signature. The entire exercise of obtaining signatures of accused Nos.1 to 4 resembling the signatures of PW-1 appears to be unnecessary exercise and unwarranted, the said exercise of obtaining the resembling signatures create cloud of doubt regarding the investigation being conducted to benefit the complainant/PW-1, as rightly contented by the accused persons.
70. The further claim of the prosecution as to the audio recording pertaining to the conversation between accused Nos.1 & 2 in connection to the house property No.102 of Shivanagar, along with the transcript pertaining to the said conversation which is collectively marked as Ex.P-5 is corroboration of the intention on the part of accused Nos.1 & 2 to deceive the complainant/PW-1 cannot be accepted. The 48 C.C. No.306/2025 very report as per Ex.P-5 can only be considered to examine the authenticity of the conversation on record, but there is no any iota of corroborating and clinching evidence on record to show the conversation as per Ex.P-5 and the transcript on record which is part of Ex.P-5 was between accused Nos.1 & 2, certainly the prosecution is bound to establish the link, between the Ex.P-5 as well as the conversation involved in Ex.P-5 as pertaining to have taken place between accused Nos.1 & 2. The report of Truth Labs as per Ex.P-5 can only be considered to gather the conversation being authentic and without any editing or other fabrication. In view of the specific defence put-forth by the accused Nos.1 & 2 as to themselves having not been involved in the said conversation and the conversation at Ex.P-5 is the result of mimic by the PW-1 or other individual, cannot be ruled out by this court. It is the bounden duty of prosecution to bring home the said claim as to the conversation as per Ex.P-5 is pertaining to accused Nos.1 & 2. Unless this aspect has been demonstrated and established, the Ex.P-5 in itself cannot be accepted as gospel truth, more particularly as a conversation between accused Nos.1 & 2.
71. It is also incumbent to note that the Ex.P-2 on record was not at all available with the IO/PW-9 between 14.03.2017 and 20.06.2017. It is difficult to accept as to in absence of original GPA, so also in absence of certified copy 49 C.C. No.306/2025 of GPA at Ex.P-2, the IO/PW-9 has proceeded and conducted investigation, registered FIR on 14.03.2017 and also examined the witnesses and the very investigation appears to be to only proceeded on the basis of the complaint averments as referred U/s.156(3) of Cr.P.C. There is altogether no investigation forthcoming regarding the aspects, more particularly material aspects, in connection to the person, who is in custody of original GPA, so also the manner in which the complainant/PW-1 got to know regarding the fabrication of GPA.
72. It is pertinent to note that, according to complainant/PW-1, he got to know on applying the Encumbrance Certificate regarding the alleged fabrication of GPA. But, the Encumbrance Certificate as obtained by PW-1 is not at all forthcoming in the case records. It is difficult to accept as to PW-1/complainant having got to know regarding fabrication of unregistered GPA on obtaining the Encumbrance Certificate. The things would have been different if the complainant/PW-1 has claimed regarding having got to know regarding the existence of forged GPA on obtaining the certified copy of registered discharge deed as per Ex.P-3. The entire prosecution's case regarding fabrication of GPA and on the strength of the said GPA Ex.P-3 being created and concocted is unable to be accepted by this court.
50 C.C. No.306/202573. The specific defence urged by the accused Nos.1 & 3, the Encumbrance Certificate on record at Ex.P-16 dated 20.06.2017, is claimed by IO to be procured by the IO himself, but in absence of other corroborating documents by the complainant/PW-1 regarding having made an application for Encumbrance and the Encumbrance Certificate was obtained. Prior to the lodging of complaint at Ex.P-1, it is unable to gather and accept. It is vehemently argued that as per bank statement Ex.P-31 as well as Ex.P-8 total amount transferred by PW-1 is claimed to be Rs.33,34,872/-. The said amount being transferred by PW-1 during his avocation at United States of America and the said amount being utilized for the purpose of repayment of the loan borrowed by PW-1 at Subramanyeswara Co-operative Bank and the loan being cleared by PW-1's father out of the proceeds transferred by PW-1 lacks the corroboration. It is relevant to consider as to admittedly, the loan borrowed by Subramanyeswara Co- operative Bank was for sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, the amount transferred by PW-1 amounts to Rs.33,34,872/-. There is altogether a huge difference pertaining to the amount transferred by the PW-1 and the amount really repaid towards the loan borrowed at the aforesaid bank. At this juncture, in view of a significant difference between the amount transferred and amount paid at the bank, the defence put-forth by the accused persons as to there is no any connection with respect to Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-31 to the 51 C.C. No.306/2025 repayment of subject loan in the case on hand, assumes significance and deserves to be accepted pursuant to presumption as contemplated under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
74. The other arguments of the learned Spl. PP as to the significance cannot be given to the minor discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence in entirety needs to be construed in order to hold prosecution having discharged the burden of establishing its case in itself cannot be appreciated as the burden of proof at the initial stage is fully placed upon the prosecution to bring home the case to the satisfaction of this Court, without ambiguity or suspicion in the mind of court. The accused Nos.1 to 4 have very much probabilized their defence by cogent defence put-forth during the course of cross- examination of prosecution witnesses, so also by confronting Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-8, the evaluation and assessment of the prosecution evidence as well as the defence put-forth by the accused Nos.1 to 4 on record, the weightage of the defence appears to be more probable than that of the allegations which have been failed to be established beyond the reasonable doubts.
"CONCLUSION"
75. The overall assessment and evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence placed before this court by the 52 C.C. No.306/2025 prosecution in the background of the defence put-forth by the accused persons, will not inspire the confidence of this court to accept and believe the allegations leveled against accused Nos.1 to 4 in connection to fabrication/concoction of GPA and the said GPA being used for the purpose of execution of the Discharge Deed at Ex.P-3, allegation of forgery, criminal conspiracy as well as the forged GPA being used as a genuine for deceiving the complainant/ PW-1 by hatching deep criminal conspiracy and subsequent destruction of evidence. As discussed supra, the claim put-forth by the prosecution lacks necessary corroboration and the clinching as well as incriminating evidence, to accept the prosecution's claim. It is imperative to point out at the cost of repeatation that, the accused Nos.1 to 4 have established their defence by probabilising their defence to the satisfaction of this Court as per Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-8.
76. It is pertinent to note that, the expert report at Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-35 i.e. reports by the Truth Labs, in absence of necessary corroboration and also the evidence to bring home the very purpose/necessity, on the part of accused Nos.1 to 4, to having been involved in fabrication/concoction of Ex.P-2 & Ex.P-3 cannot be accepted and considered. The specific arguments of the learned Spl. PP as to Ex.P-35, reporting the signature of accused No. 4 resembling the signature of complainant/PW-1, in itself cannot be accepted 53 C.C. No.306/2025 unless the cloud of suspicion being removed by way of positive and corroborating piece of evidence by the complainant, i.e., the modus hatched by the accused No.4 by way of other independent evidences. It is settled position of law that, the report of the Expert cannot be the whole and sole basis to accept the claim put-forth by the prosecution. The said report should always be assessed and evaluated in the backdrop of the other cardinal principles, enunciated in the provisions of Indian Evidence Act at the cost of repeatation, this Court is justified to hold that the prosecution's case is tainted with substantial omissions, improvements and contradictions. The accused Nos.1 to 4 have established their defence to the satisfaction of this court and have very much established the investigation in the case on hand being vague and investigation in the case on hand unable to bring home the guilt/involvement of accused Nos.1 to 4 beyond shadows of doubt.
77. The investigation in the case on hand, does not inspire the confidence of this court to gather the allegations put-forth against the accused persons. The degree of proof mandated is that of a prudent man, under the Indian Evidence Act, the investigation discloses severe lapse insofar as connecting the chain of eventualities.
54 C.C. No.306/202578. Furthermore, the very ingredients of the alleged offences, such as impersonation, cheating, forgery, disappearance of evidence so also, the criminal conspiracy are unable to be gathered from the testimonies of the material prosecution witnesses. It is justifiable to note that, the prosecution has failed to establish the vital aspects to constitute the offence viz., actus-reus and mens rea to implicate the accused Nos.1 to 4 in the case on hand.
79. For the reasons discussed supra, this court without hesitation proceeds to answer Point Nos.1 to 7 in the Negative.
80. Point No.8: For the foregoing reasons assigned in arriving at conclusion with respect to point Nos.1 to 7, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B & 201 of IPC.
Consequently, accused Nos.1 to 4 are set at liberty.
Corresponding bail bonds and surety bond of the accused Nos.1 to 4 stands canceled.55 C.C. No.306/2025
The office is directed to place the entire records along with split up C.C. No.537/2025 (Old C.C. No.15629/2022).
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him directly through computer, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 16 th day of February 2026) (VISHWANATH C GOWDAR ) Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.56 C.C. No.306/2025
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW-1 : Sri. Narasimha Murthy
PW-2 : Sri. Srinivasa
PW-3 : Sri. Pradeep V
PW-4 : Smt. Sumithra K.H.
PW-5 : Sri. S.H. Prakash
PW-6 : Sri. Kiran Kumar
PW-7 : Sri. Surendra
PW-8 : Smt. Varija
PW-9 : Sri. Govindaraju
PW-10 : Smt. Anupama Kilaru
PW-11 : Sri. Manu S.
List of documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P-1 : Complaint
Ex.P-2 : True copy of GPA
Ex.P-3 : True copy of Discharge Deed
Ex.P-4 : True copy of Sale Deed
Ex.P-5 : Truth Lab's Report along with CD
Ex.P-6 : Certified copy of MODT dated 28.11.1996
Ex.P-7 & 8 : Bank Statements
Ex.P-9 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P-10 : Seizure Panchanama
Ex.P-10(b)& (c): Original canceled Cheques Ex.P-11 : Certified copy of MODT dated 15.12.2016 Ex.P-12 : Letter dated 14.06.2017 Ex.P-13 : Reply dated 23.06.2017 Ex.P-14 : Letter dated 17.01.2018 Ex.P-15 : Reply dated 22.01.2018 Ex.P-16 : Encumbrance Certificate Ex.P-17 : Notice U/s.91 of Cr.P.C., dated 07.07.2017 Ex.P-18 : Reply along with Enclosures dated 12.07.2017 Ex.P-19 : Letter dated 09.09.2017 Ex.P-19(a) : Reply dated 14.09.2017 Ex.P-20 : Notice U/s.91 of Cr.P.C., dated 27.09.2017 Ex.P-21 : Undated letter by Accused No.3 57 C.C. No.306/2025 Ex.P-22 : Pass/Permit Ex.P-23 : Letter dated 03.10.2017 Ex.P-24 : FIR Ex.P-25 to 29: Specimen Signatures of PW-1, Accused Nos.1 to 4 Ex.P-30 : Letter from M/s. Can Fin Homes Ltd., dated 20.06.2017 Ex.P-31 : Bank Statement of late. Narasimhaih Ex.P-32 & 33: Notices to accused Nos.1 to 4 U/s.91 of Cr.P.C., dated 13.07.2017 & 13.08.2017 respectively.
Ex.P-34 : Letter to Truth Labs dated 26.04.2018
Ex.P-35 : Report of Truth Labs
List of witnesses examined for the accused:
-Nil-
List of documents marked for the accused:
Ex.D-1 : Photocopy of Sale Deed dated 14.04.1978
(by confrontation)
Ex.D-2 & 3: Photocopy of Plaint in O.S. No.9217/2019
& O.S. No.1824/2021 (by confrontation)
Ex.D-4 : Certified copy of Objections in
P & S.C. 88/2017
Ex.D-5 : Photocopy of Khata Certificate (by confrontation)
Ex.D-6 : Photocopy of Letter dated 12.08.2016
(by confrontation)
Ex.D-7 : Certificate dated 04.11.2017
Ex.D-8 : Photocopy of letter dater 10.02.2004
(by confrontation)
List of material objects marked for the Prosecution:
-Nil-
Presiding Officer, Spl. Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru.58 C.C. No.306/2025
16-02-2026 Complt.: Spl. PP/MBR A1 & 3: JTV A2 & 4: BAS For Judgment Accused Nos.1 to 4 present. Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separate order) ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. the accused Nos.1 to 4 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 120B & 201 of IPC.
Consequently, accused Nos.1 to 4 are set at liberty.
Corresponding bail bonds and surety bond of the accused Nos.1 to 4 stands canceled.
The office is directed to place the entire
records along with split up C.C.
No.537/2025 (Old C.C. No.15629/2022).
PRESIDING OFFICER
Spl. Court for E.O.