Karnataka High Court
Anilkumar vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 January, 2026
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:766
WP No. 202575 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.202575 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
ANILKUMAR
S/O VAIJANATAPPA RAGTE,
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O RAGTE COMPLEX,
AMBEDKAR CHOWK,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585327.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN M.MAHAJAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
BIDAR,
DIST.BIDAR-585401
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:766
WP No. 202575 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
BASAVAKALYAN TOWN
POLICE STATION,
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585327.
4. THE CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585327.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
COMMISSIONER.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.GOURISH S.KHASHAMPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT
RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 TO REGISTER CRIMINAL CASE
BASED ON THE COMPLAINT DATED 21.06.2025 SUBMITTED TO
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND THE
REPRESENTATION DATED 19.08.2025 SUBMITTED TO THE
RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-K.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:766
WP No. 202575 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Gourish S.Khashampur, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
2. This petition is filed seeking following relief:
"WHEREFORE, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus, thereby directing the respondent No.2 and 3 to register criminal case based on the complaint dated 21.06.2025 submitted to the respondent No.2 and
3 vide Annexure-H and the representation dated 19.08.2025 submitted to the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-K, in ends of justice."
3. It is a contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner is the owner in possession of commercial properties of various dimensions situated in the main road of Basavakalyan in Survey No.3/4 of Tripurant, Basavakalyan. Along with him, one person by name Ayyub Khan has purchased another portion of the property in the -4- NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR very same survey number under a registered sale deed dated 23.11.1994. Petitioner is the owner by virtue of a sale deed dated 05.01.2009. This being the state of affairs, one Shafiuddin, who is a total stranger to the property of the petitioner, is making efforts to assert his right over the property purchased by the petitioner and said Ayyub Khan.
4. It is further contended that said Shafiuddin filed O.S.No.29/2019 before the Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Basavakalyan against certain persons in which the petitioner was not made a party. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the guise of filing O.S.No.29/2019 against one person by name Kumar S/o Lingoji Trimukhe and others, the said Shafiuddin was trying to illegally take possession and interfere with the lawful ownership and possession in the property of the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner filed an impleading application along with one Ayyub Khan and his brother Hameed Khan under Order I Rule 10 of CPC to implead -5- NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR themselves as defendants in the said case as their property was involved and their rights were affected. However, the said application came to be rejected by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved by which the petitioner and said Ayyub Khan and Hameed Khan filed W.P.No.203256/2022 before this Court. When the matter was pending before this Court, the said Shafiuddin has filed a memo on 09.02.2023 along with certain documents in W.P.No.203256/2022 claiming certain documents have been not issued by CMC Basavakalyan in his favour which according to the petitioner is concocted, fabricated and forged. Upon consideration of the writ petition, this Court did not interfere with the order of rejection of the impleadment application. The said writ petition came to be disposed on 23.07.2024, without interfering with the order of the learned trial Judge. However, this Court passed an order holding that any order that would be passed by the learned Civil Judge, Basavakalyan, would not be binding on the petitioners therein.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR
5. This being the state of affairs, the petitioner has approached this Court for the reason that the said Shafiuddin filed a memo along with documents which according to the petitioner are forged, fabricated, concocted and created documents which are not issued by the CMC Basavakalyan. A complaint came to be filed before the jurisdictional police station on 21.06.2025 against said Shafiuddin S/o Basheeruddin. According to the petitioner, a cognizable offence has been made out by the petitioner in view of the said concocted, fabricated documents produced. As no action was taken by the jurisdictional police, petitioner approached respondent No.3 on 23.06.2025 with a request to accept the complaint, conduct an investigation with regard to the documents produced regarding fabrication and creation of documents, despite which no action is taken by the respondents. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.
6. In view of the memo filed by the said Shafiuddin, petitioner also made a representation to CMC -7- NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR Basavakalyan as to whether those documents produced by said Shafiuddin were actually issued by CMC Basavakalyan. In reply respondent No.4 has issued an endorsement dated 16.01.2023 vide Annexure-G stating that no such endorsement has been issued by respondent No.4 and neither issued any such mutation from the authorities i.e., CMC, Basavakalyan. Being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent police in initiating any action against the said Shafiuddin, despite the endorsement issued by respondent No.4 CMC, Basavakalyan, the petitioner has approached this Court.
7. The present facts of the case reveal that in the earlier petition before this Court in W.P.No.203256/2022, a memo came to be filed with the following documents dated 09.02.2023:
01. The certified copy of the endorsement dated 07.02.2023.
02. The copy of Note sheet maintained by the office of CMC Basavakalyan.
03. The copy of Khata Extract.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR
04. The copy of assessment extract for the year 2022-23.
05. Tax paid receipts.
06. The copy of representation made to Director of Municipal Administration dated 08.02.2023.
8. The copies of the documents are also annexed along with this writ petition. Apparently, respondent No.4 vide Annexure-G dated 16.01.2023 has clearly given a reply stating that they have not issued any mutation to said Shafiuddin, which certifies the contention of the petitioner that the documents produced by the petitioner in the earlier petition by way of a document dated 05.07.2019 which was produced as Annexure-F2 is not an authenticated document of respondent No.4.
9. Under the circumstances, once there is a categorical statement given by respondent No.4 with regard to the document relied by said Shafiuddin produced by the petitioner herein as Annexure-F2 being not an authenticated copy, the same cannot be believed. Therefore, it appears that all is not well in the documents -9- NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR produced by said Shafiuddin, in the earlier petition, in W.P.No.203256/2022, respondent No.1 was represented by a counsel which is a matter of record.
10. The question that arises for consideration is what would be the process for action on any document that is alleged to be fabricated, forged or tampered outside the custody of the Court and presented to the Court.
11. This aspect of the matter has been decided by several judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court including the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt.Lakshmidevi and others vs. State of Karnataka and others in Criminal Petition No.5075/2020 disposed of on 24.02.2021 wherein at paragraph-12.31 held as under:
"12. Whether merely because a document is used in a Court proceeding, Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would come into operation or could a complaint be filed before the police station alleging fabrication and forgery of documents, or could both the remedies be availed of by the aggrieved party?
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR 12.1 to 12.30 xxxxxxxxx 12.31 As aforesaid, the distinction that is required to be drawn to invoke the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is that primarily the Court is to be the aggrieved party requiring the Court to initiate criminal proceedings. If the aggrieved party is a third party private citizen then the third party private citizen would essentially have a right to file a complaint either in a police station or a private complaint before the Court of law under Section 200 of Cr. P.C, which right cannot be taken away. A private party cannot file a complaint before the police for abuse of process of law, giving false evidence before a court of law or using forged documents in a court, that would have to be done only by a Court."
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and Another [(2005) 4 SCC 370] at paragraph Nos.25, 33, and 36 held as under:
"25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the Court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of society at large.
26 to 32. xxxxxx
33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
35. xxxxxx
36. This appeal has been preferred by the complainant against the judgment and order dated 6.2.1998 of the Madras High Court by which the criminal revision petition preferred by the second respondent Ramaraj was allowed and he was acquitted of the charges under Section 467 and 471 IPC on the ground that in view of the bar created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR could not have taken cognizance on the police report. According to the case of the prosecution, the sale deed had been forged earlier and thereafter the same was filed in the Civil Court. For the reasons already discussed, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The criminal revision petition filed by the second respondent shall be heard and decided by the High Court afresh and in accordance with law."
13. In the case of M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni Etc.,[(2020) 20 SCC 1] at paragraph Nos.19 and 33 held as under:
"19. At this stage, it is important to understand the difference between the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC. Where the facts mentioned in a complaint attracts the provisions of Section 191 to 193 of the IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC applies. What is important is that once these sections of the IPC are attracted, the offence should be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court. Thus, what is clear is that the offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR
20. to 32. xxxxx
33. The aforesaid judgments clearly lay down that when Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC is attracted, the ratio of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), which approved Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 493, is not attracted, and that therefore, if false evidence is created outside the Court premises attracting Sections 191/192 of the IPC, the aforesaid ratio would not apply so as to validate a private complaint filed for offences made out under these sections."
14. Therefore, distinction drawn is that where false evidence, tampering, concoction or fabrication of documents is made outside the Court, a private complaint would be maintainable, as such acts are not barred under section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C.,
15. Under these circumstances, when the petitioner made a complaint/representation alleging fabrication, forgery and concoction of documents and submitted copies thereof to the Sub-Inspector of Police, the respondent- police were duty-bound to consider the said representation
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR and initiate appropriate action by conducting an inquiry. However, no such enquiry has been undertaken.
16. Hence, the petitioner is rightfully before this Court for the inaction on the part of the respondent-police. It clearly appears that there are few documents that are alleged to be fabricated and produced before this Court by said Shafiuddin, who is not a party to this petition. Therefore, it becomes a duty of the respondent-police to initiate action on the basis of the complaint so registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code/Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. It is for the jurisdictional police to conduct an investigation in accordance with law. Therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider his representation requires to be allowed.
17. Hence, the answer to the question raised above is there would not be a bar for the petitioner to file a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate or a
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:766 WP No. 202575 of 2025 HC-KAR police complaint before the jurisdictional police as the document is not tampered in the custody of the Court.
18. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER a. Writ petition is allowed.
b. A writ of mandamus is issued directing respondent No.3 to consider the complaint/ representation dated 21.06.2025, in accordance with law and pass suitable orders within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE NB/VNR LIST NO.: 4 SL NO.: 6 CT:SI