- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7733 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5802 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SYED MANZOOR AHMED S/O. MEER SANAULLA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/A. NO.43, 1ST MAIN 1ST CROSS, KOUSAR NAGARA, R.T. NAGAR BENGALURU - 32. 2. SYED MUDASSAR AHMED S/O. SYED MANZOOR AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A. NO.43, 1ST MAIN 1ST CROSS, KAUSAR NAGARA R.T. NAGARA, BENGALURU - 32 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NISHAD S.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY R.T. NAGAR POLICE, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SYEDA NOOR AFSHAN D/O. SYED MANZOOR AHMED W/O FIKDAUS PASHA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, NO.22, 5TH E CROSS, GUNDAPPA BLOCK, RAHAMATH NAGAR, R.T. NAGAR, BENGLAURU KARNATAKA - 560 032. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. H.C. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7733 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2022 THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR INITIATED IN CR.NO.110/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 (R.T NAGAR POLICE) AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 504, 120B, 406, 420, 471, 417 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE IV ACMM, BANGALORE. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLN, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.110 of 2021 registered by R.T.Nagar Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 120-B, 406, 420, 471, 417 of IPC, on the file of the learned IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information with R.T.Nagar Police against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging commission of the offences as stated above. It is the specific contention of the complainant that, accused No.1 is her father and accused No.2 is her brother. Between 15.08.2016 till 23.06.2017, she was residing in Mascot. Taking advantage of her absence in the country, accused Nos.1 and 2 conspiring together, forged her - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7733 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2022 signature and concocted the document styled as GPA Deed and thereby committed the criminal breach of trust. When the informant questioned accused Nos.1 and 2 in this regard, they abused her in filthy language and later taken her to the Sub- Registrar Office and took her signatures on various documents by misleading her and thereby concocted several documents including the Confirmation Deed and the Release Deed. Acting on the concocted GPA Deed dated 08.06.2018, accused No.1 executed a Gift Deed in respect of the disputed property in favour of the mother of informant and thereby they have committed the offences. Therefore, she requested the police to register the case against the accused. On the basis of same, a case was registered in Crime No.110/2021 for the aforesaid offences and the investigation was undertaken. 3. In the meantime, the petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 4. Heard Sri Nishad S.A., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt.Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7733 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2022 Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri H.C.Shankar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. It is the specific contention of respondent No.2 that she was residing in Mascot between 15.08.2016 till 23.06.2017. Taking advantage of her absence in the country, accused No.1 being her father and accused No.2 being her brother, concocted the GPA Deed dated 08.06.2018 and forged her signatures. She also states that by misleading her, they have taken her signatures in the Sub-Registrar Office to get Confirmation Deed and Release Deed. Copies of all these three deeds are produced before the Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7733 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2022 7. The materials on record disclose that on the basis of GPA Deed dated 08.06.2018, accused No.1 got executed the Gift Deed dated 28.12.2018, bequeathing the disputed property in favour of his wife, who is none other than the mother of respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on Annexure-F, the copy of the Registered Confirmation Deed dated 03.01.2019 executed by respondent No.2 where she confirms execution of the Gift Deed by her father accused No.1 in favour of her mother i.e. Annexure-E Gift Deed dated 28.12.2018. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, GPA Deed was concocted by forging the signatures of respondent No.2, but execution of the Confirmation Deed was disputed on the ground that the informant was mislead and her signatures were taken in the Sub-Registrar Office. Therefore, it is clear that respondent No.2 is not disputing her signatures found on the Registered Confirmation Deed dated 03.01.2019, but her signatures with regard to forgery is only with regard to the GPA Deed dated 08.06.2018. Even though it is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 have taken advantage of absence of respondent No.2 in the country concocted the documents, the GPA Deed is dated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7733 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2022 08.06.2018 which was much after the informant coming back to India. 8. It is interesting to note that Annexure-F is the Confirmation Deed dated 03.01.2019 admittedly executed by respondent No.2 confirming execution of the Gift Deed by accused No.1 on the basis of the GPA Deed referred to above bequeathing the disputed property in favour of the wife of accused No.1 and the mother of respondent No.2. The recitals in the aforesaid documents go to show that the informant asserted that her father-accused No.1 was her General Power of Attorney Holder and she refers to the Gift Deed to confirm bequeathing of the property in favour of her mother. When the informant confirmed execution of the Gift Deed by accused No.1 in favour of his wife, by executing a Registered document and when respondent No.2 does not deny the fact that the Confirmation Deed bears her signatures, there can not be any prima-facie materials regarding commission of the offence by accused No.1 regarding forgery and concoction of documents. However, it is the contention of the informant that by misleading, her signatures were taken on the Confirmation Deed and the Release Deed in respect of different property. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7733 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2022 9. It is admitted by both the parties that respondent No.2 filed suit O.S.No.396/2021 against accused Nos.1 and 2 and also against her mother only on 13.09.2021 seeking cancellation of GPA Deed, confirmation Deed and also the Release Deed. When there is no allegation of forging the documents for the purpose of executing the Confirmation Deed, it cannot be held that accused have committed the offences with regard to the Confirmation Deed. When respondent No.2 asserted regarding GPA Deed dated 08.06.2018 while executing Confirmation Deed, it cannot be said that accused are liable for criminal prosecution. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to prosecute her civil remedy in O.S.No.396/2021 which is pending consideration. But institution of criminal proceedings is in abuse of process of law. Hence, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings, is liable to be quashed. Hence, I answer above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following. ORDER i) Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No. 110 of 2021 registered by R.T.Nagar Police Station, on the file of the learned IV - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7733 CRL.P No. 5802 of 2022 Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 504, 120-B, 406, 420, 471 and 417 of IPC, is hereby quashed. The observations made above are only for the purpose of disposing of the present petition and the same shall not influence the Trial Court while deciding the rights of the parties in O.S.No.396/2021. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11