Chandrashekar C vs The State Of Karnataka

Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.6639 of 2023) Chandrashekar C ...Appellant Versus

The State of Karnataka & Anr. ...Respondent(s)

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The 2nd respondent in the appeal, the

complainant, alleged that a series of transactions at

the behest of persons arrayed as accused numbers 1

& 2 deprived him of the lands owned by him, the

consideration of which was syphoned off. The

allegation was not only against A-1 & A-2 but also

against the so-called purchasers who were arrayed as

accused nos. 5 to 95 and 124 to 139.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by VARSHA MENDIRATTA Date: 2025.12.22 12:07:57 IST Reason: Page 1 of 8 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. 6639 of 2023

3. Many accused jointly, and the present appellant

and another separately filed applications to quash the

complaint which was unsuccessful before the High

Court. In the present appeal, the appellant alone, who

was arrayed as A-22, impugns the order of the High

Court on the facts particular to him. Insofar as the

appellant herein is concerned, he had purchased a

site bearing Nos. 24 and 25 in Survey No. 4 of

Beretena Agrahara Village, Begur Hubli, Bengaluru

South Taluk from the 2nd respondent under a

registered sale deed dated 30.01.2020 for a total

consideration of Rs.44,40,000/- (Rupees forty four

lakhs and forty thousand) A rectification deed was

also executed to correct the boundaries, to make it in

accordance with the actual boundaries on the ground,

which was dated 16.03.2020. The appellant’s

contention is that the entire consideration has been

paid.

4. We heard Shri Siddharth Agarwal, learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Shoeb

Page 2 of 8 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. 6639 of 2023 Alam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the 2 nd

respondent. We also heard Shri Nishant Patil, learned

Senior Counsel appearing for the State.

5. This Court on being apprised of the facts relating

to the complaint against the appellant herein,

directed the State, a neutral entity insofar as the

allegations are concerned, to submit a report

regarding the allegations made especially on the

stand taken by the 2nd respondent that the signatures

in the sale deed and the rectification deed was forged

and fabricated. The report was directed to be placed

before this Court in a sealed cover by the Deputy

Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch (CCB),

Bangalore City, Karnataka. Pursuant to this Court’s

order dated 11.11.2025, on 02.12.2025, a report was

filed which was silent regarding the rectification deed.

Dissatisfied with the report, the Deputy Commissioner

of Police who conducted the enquiry, was directed to

be present.

Page 3 of 8 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. 6639 of 2023

6. Today, the Deputy Commissioner of Police is

present and a report has been filed from which paras

10, 11 and 12 are extracted:

“10. Pertaining to the said sale-deed dated 30.01.2020 of the petitioner, a rectification deed dated 16.03.2020 has been executed for rectification of schedule/boundaries of the purchased site numbers 24 and 25, between the petitioner and the Complainant/R-02. It is submitted that as the complainant/R-02 in his statement has admitted of having executed the above referred sale-deed dated 30.01.2020 and rectification deed dated 16.03.2020, including his thumb impression & presence in the office of Sub-Registrar, the said documents have not been sent for further forensic analysis. It is revealed during investigation that there is no infirmity with the execution of the sale deed dated 30.01.2020 and rectification deed dated 16.03.2020 pertaining to the petitioner.

11. Accused Naveen Kumar (A-02) who was absconding for more two years was

Page 4 of 8 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. 6639 of 2023 arrested on 08.11.2025 and the investigation is continuing in this case.

12. The investigation in the present case is partially complete and the chargesheet filed on 29.05.2025 against five accused persons is preliminary/initial chargesheet.

The investigation is still continuing as against A-1 to A-21, A-23 to A-52, A-54 to A-

141. In the present case FSL reports are awaited, investigation into money trail is continuing. Based on the investigation conducted so far, the investigation officer has informed the undersigned that he is not intending to chargesheet the Petitioner in the present case.”

7. Shri Shoeb Alam, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the 2nd respondent, however, would

point out that total sale consideration of only about

Rs.9,00,000/- (Rupees nine lakhs) paid by the

appellant herein to the mother of the 2 nd respondent

was received, the balance amounts were syphoned

off by A-1 & A-2 by opening an account in a

Cooperative Society in the name of the 2 nd

Page 5 of 8 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. 6639 of 2023 respondent without his authorization. The larger

conspiracy can be found out only after investigation

as has been stated in the earlier reports filed.

8. Shri Siddharth Agarwal, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for the appellant however points out that

the recitals in the agreement clearly indicates the

entire consideration having been paid which is also

by way of demand draft, which cannot be now resiled

from. The demand draft was dated 30.01.2020 and

was encashed on 31.01.2020, the very next day. A

rectification deed was signed by the 2 nd respondent

on 16.03.2020 after about one and a half months. In

view of the categorical statement made in the

present report filed by the Deputy Commissioner of

Police, there is no cause to further continue the

proceedings, is the compelling contention.

9. We are also of the opinion that in view of the

specific admission of the 2nd respondent, the

complainant, the vendor in the sale agreement and

Page 6 of 8 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. 6639 of 2023 who also executed rectification deed that he had put

the signatures therein; the earlier reports filed by the

police are of little consequence. As of now, the

signatures have been admitted contrary to the

allegation of forgery and fabrication. The recitals in

the deed clearly indicate the consideration, having

been received, part of which is admitted as having

been received by the mother of the 2nd respondent

and the balance by way of demand draft, which also

stood encashed. The fact that a rectification deed

was executed by the applicant much later to the

encashment of the demand draft, further puts the

matter free of any doubt regarding the specific

transaction.

10. We find absolutely no reason to sustain the

impugned order and set aside the same and quash

the proceedings qua the appellant herein; against

whom on this subject matter there shall be no further

proceeding. We make it clear that we have not made

any observation regarding the other transactions and

Page 7 of 8 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. 6639 of 2023 the prosecution or the defense with respect to the

other matters would have to be proceeded with on its

own merits based on the contentions of the parties

and the evidence led before the jurisdictional court.

11. With the above reservation, the present appeal

is allowed.

12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed

of.

…..…...…….……………………. J.

(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)

...………….……………………. J.

(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 16, 2025.

Page 8 of 8 Crl. Appeal @SLP Crl. 6639 of 2023