Karnataka High Court
Smt Kanthamma vs Smt Lakshmidevamma on 29 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:29167
CRL.P No. 6249 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6249 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
SMT. KANTHAMMA
D/O LATE DODDATHAYAMMA,
W/O VENKATARAMANAIAH P,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
R/AT NO.33, BYATHA (V AND P)
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 089,
BANGALORE URBAN DIST.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MURALIDAR R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. SMT. LAKSHMIDEVAMMA
by
SHARADAVANI D/O LATE DODDATHAYAMMA,
B
W/O LATE B KEMPANNA,
Location: High
Court of AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
Karnataka
2. SRI ANAND N K
S/O LATE B KEMAPPAN,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
3. SMT. KALA
W/O SRI ANAND N K,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:29167
CRL.P No. 6249 of 2025
HC-KAR
RESIDING AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 064.
4. SMT SUKHANYA
D/O LATE B KEMPANNA,
W/O SRI MANJUNATH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
PRESENT ADDRESS
RESIDING AT NO.340,
OPP DONNE BIRIYANI HOME,
YELAHANKA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU,
BANGALORE NORTH - 562 149.
5. SMT. AMBUJA N K
D/O LATE B KEMPANNA,
W/O SRI RAMACHANDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
PRESENT ADDRESS NO.22/5-5,
IST CROSS, PIPELINE KALYANA MANTAPA ROAD,
MATHIKERE, NEAR LAKSHMI THEATRE,
BENGALURU - 560 054.
6. SMT. BHARATHI N K
D/O LATE B KEMPANNA,
W/O SRI KRISHNAMURTHY,
AGED BOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT NEAR RAILWAY GATE,
NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH - 560 064.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:29167
CRL.P No. 6249 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. SRI. MANJUNATH N K
S/O LATE B. KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 560 064.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2025
PASSED BY THE VII ADDL. MM BANGALORE IN
C.C.NO.20748/205 REJECTING THE APPLICATION FILED U/S
311 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE FILED BY
THE PETITIONER AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE SAME.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge on an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner, who is the complainant in the case, had sought leave of the Court to summon and examine the Village Accountant who had issued a family tree. It is the case of the petitioner that the examination of the said official witness is crucial to corroborate the contents of the family -4- NC: 2025:KHC:29167 CRL.P No. 6249 of 2025 HC-KAR tree, which forms the foundation for initiating criminal proceedings against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 199, 200, 415, 416, 417, 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioner, in support of the allegations made in the complaint, has already adduced evidence by examining herself. Subsequently, an application was filed seeking permission to examine the Village Accountant as an official witness, as the said witness had issued the family tree relied upon in the complaint. The core contention raised before the learned District Judge was that respondents No.1 to 7 (arrayed as accused No.1 to 7) had fraudulently alienated the suit schedule property by deliberately suppressing the fact that the petitioner is one of the legal heirs entitled to a share in the said property. On this basis, the complaint came to be lodged alleging the commission of the aforementioned offences. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC:29167 CRL.P No. 6249 of 2025 HC-KAR
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contends that the family tree issued by the Village Accountant is a vital and material document. It is submitted that the authenticity and contents of the said document can be effectively established only through the testimony of the official witness who issued it. Therefore, denial of permission to examine the Village Accountant has caused serious prejudice to the complainant and has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. It is further contended that the impugned order suffers from grave legal infirmities and warrants interference by this Court.
4. Upon perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds no error or irregularity warranting interference. At the outset, it must be noted that the issue in question pertains to the legal status and heirship claims over immovable property, which are inherently contentious and involve adjudication of inter se rights between parties. Such determinations can only be made by a competent -6- NC: 2025:KHC:29167 CRL.P No. 6249 of 2025 HC-KAR civil court upon proper pleadings and evidence. A family tree issued by a Village Accountant cannot form the basis for adjudicating disputed claims of legal heirship or succession.
5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the family tree issued by the Village Accountant is a material document, and that examining the official who prepared it is necessary for the just disposal of the case, this Court repeatedly queried under what legal authority or statutory provision the Village Accountant is empowered to determine or certify the legal status or familial relationships of parties when there exists a bona fide dispute. However, learned counsel was unable to point to any provision of law that vests such adjudicatory powers in a Village Accountant.
6. The core allegation of the complainant is that the accused have committed fraud and cheating by falsely representing themselves as legal heirs and thereby -7- NC: 2025:KHC:29167 CRL.P No. 6249 of 2025 HC-KAR alienating the suit schedule property. To substantiate this allegation, the complainant seeks to rely on a family tree issued by the Village Accountant to demonstrate that the accused have no familial relationship with her. However, this Court is of the view that such an assertion namely, the denial of any legal relationship or heirship cannot be proved merely on the basis of a family tree issued by a revenue official. The family tree, prepared for revenue purposes, lacks evidentiary value in criminal proceedings and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of non- relationship or used as the sole basis to establish fraudulent conduct on the part of the accused.
7. It is well-settled that a Village Accountant, being a revenue official, performs clerical and record-keeping duties and does not possess any quasi-judicial authority to conclusively determine questions of law or fact pertaining to inheritance or legal heirship. The issuance of a family tree by such an official, especially in the face of a disputed claim, cannot be treated as conclusive or even reliable -8- NC: 2025:KHC:29167 CRL.P No. 6249 of 2025 HC-KAR evidence in criminal proceedings where fraud and misrepresentation are alleged.
8. The learned District and Sessions Judge, while rejecting the application filed under Section 311 Cr.P.C., has rightly recorded that the examination of the Village Accountant as an official witness would not serve the purpose of effective adjudication in the present case. The application was therefore dismissed on the ground that it lacked merit and did not justify reopening the stage of evidence.
9. Upon examining the allegations set out in the complaint and the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge, this Court is of the considered opinion that the alleged acts of fraud attributed to respondents No.1 to 7 must be independently proved through cogent and legally admissible evidence. The family tree issued by the Village Accountant, which lacks both statutory backing and evidentiary value in the context of disputed heirship, -9- NC: 2025:KHC:29167 CRL.P No. 6249 of 2025 HC-KAR cannot be the basis to sustain or support such serious allegations.
10. In the absence of any credible legal foundation justifying the summoning of the Village Accountant, and in view of the limited probative worth of the family tree in question, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the learned Judge. Accordingly, the criminal petition stands dismissed.
However, this order will not come in the way of the complainant in substantiating the allegations relating to fraud while arguing the matter on merits.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK