- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7988 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7994 OF 2024 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7988 OF 2024 IN CRL.P NO.7994/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI.M.RAVI SON OF LATE A N MURTHY AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT LAKSHMI NILAYA ADARSHANAGAR OPP GJC, MALUR KOLAR - 563 130 2. SRI.S.VASU SON OF T.SEENAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.18, MARUTHI NILAYA ADARSHA NAGAR MALUR, KOLAR - 563 130 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.SHREERAM TIMMAPPA NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY MALUR POLICE MALUR POLICE STATION Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7988 of 2024 KOLAR REP BY THE SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SRI.VENKATAMOHAN N SON OF LATE T.NARYANA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT THIRUMALA NILAYA NEHARU EXTENSION MALUR KOLAR - 563 130 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.AJAY KADKOL, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.69/2024 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC.506, 34, 504, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 MALUR POLICE BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND J.M.F.C COURT AT MALUR KOLAR DISTRICT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. IN CRL.P NO.7988/2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SRINIVAS REDDY M K S/O LATE M.A.KRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.227/1020 D RAILWAY FEEDER ROAD MALUR, KOLAR-563 130 - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7988 of 2024 2. SRI.R.VASUDEVAN S/O G. RAMACHANDRAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.32, CHOKKANDAHALLI, MALUR, KOLAR-563 130 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHREERAM TIMMAPPA NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY MALUR POLICE KOLAR REP BY THE SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001 2. SRI. VENKATAMOHAN N S/O LATE T.NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT THIRUMALA NILAYA NEHARU EXTENSION MALUR, KOLAR-536 130 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.AJAY KADKOL, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.69/2024 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SEC.506, 34, 504, 419, 420, 465, 468 AND 471 OF IPC FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 I.E., MALUR POLICE BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR. DN.) AND JMFC COURT, AT MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7988 of 2024 THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER DICTATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners—Accused Nos.1 to 4 in both matters—have filed the present petitions challenging the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 201, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”). 2. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No.2, who alleged that Accused No.1, by forging his signature, created an Agreement of Sale with the purported intent to falsely show that the complainant had agreed to convey the subject property in favour of the accused. It is further alleged that Accused No.2 threatened the complainant, and that Accused Nos.3 and 4 are attesting witnesses to the said forged Agreement of Sale. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the FIR was lodged by Respondent No.2 while suppressing the fact that Accused No.1 had already instituted a civil suit for specific performance in respect of the same Agreement of Sale. It was contended that the dispute between the parties arises out of alleged breach of contractual obligations under the Agreement of Sale, but - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7988 of 2024 the complainant has attempted to give a criminal colour to what is essentially a civil dispute. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 argued that the allegations made in the FIR, together with the material collected during the investigation and reflected in the charge sheet, prima facie disclose the commission of cognizable offences. He further contended that the veracity and reliability of such allegations are matters to be adjudicated during trial, and cannot be delved into at the stage of quashing the FIR. It was also submitted that although the allegation of forgery was initially made, the investigating agency, upon concluding that the original document was allegedly destroyed by the accused, did not proceed with the forgery-related offences under Sections 465, 468, and 471 IPC. 5. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record. 6. It is not in dispute that Accused Nos.1 and 3 have instituted a civil suit in O.S. No. 59/2024 seeking relief in relation to a Joint Development Agreement, while Accused No.1 has independently filed O.S. No. 134/2024 seeking specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 03.01.2024. According to the petitioners, both the Joint - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7988 of 2024 Development Agreement and the Agreement of Sale were executed voluntarily by the complainant, and based on these documents, civil suits were filed. It is only after the institution of these civil suits that Respondent No.2 lodged the impugned FIR, alleging fabrication of the Agreement of Sale and its misuse in the civil proceedings. 7. The police, after conducting the investigation, filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 419, 420, 201, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. However, the police did not proceed with offences under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of IPC, citing that the original alleged forged Agreement of Sale was not available, as it was destroyed by the accused. Accused No.1 has only produced a photocopy of the Agreement of Sale in O.S. No. 134/2024. There is no material in the charge sheet nor in the statements of the prosecution witnesses to substantiate that the petitioners had either forged or destroyed the original document to prevent forensic verification of the signatures. Furthermore, the charge sheet does not disclose that the petitioners had fraudulently or dishonestly induced Respondent No.2 or his family members into executing the Agreement of Sale, which is a fundamental requirement to attract the ingredients of Section 420 IPC. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7988 of 2024 8. With respect to Accused No.2, the only allegation is that he is purported to have executed the Agreement of Sale, and as regards Accused Nos.3 and 4, their role is confined to being attesting witnesses to the said document. 9. The mere use of abusive or intemperate language by the petitioners, in the absence of any resultant breach of public peace or any overt act indicating an imminent threat of harm, does not satisfy the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under Sections 504 or 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. To attract the offence under Section 504 IPC, the prosecution must establish that: • The accused intentionally insulted the complainant; • The insult was intended to provoke the complainant; and • The provocation was such that it was likely to cause the complainant to break the public peace or commit any other offence. 11. In the present case, although it is alleged that the petitioners used abusive language, there is no material on record to suggest that such language was used with the deliberate intent to provoke the complainant into committing an act likely to disturb public tranquility or - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7988 of 2024 cause a breach of peace. In the absence of any such intention or resultant consequence, the invocation of Section 504 IPC is unsustainable. 12. Similarly, to invoke Section 506 IPC, the essential ingredients are: • A threat must have been made; • The threat must be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause destruction of property, or to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life; and • The threat must be intended to cause alarm to the person threatened. 13. In the instant case, there is no cogent material to establish that the petitioners issued any criminal threat capable of causing alarm to the complainant, nor is there any allegation of a threat to life, person, or property. Mere verbal altercation or abusive expression, unaccompanied by any specific threat or act creating alarm, does not fall within the ambit of criminal intimidation under Section 506 IPC. 14. Thus, the allegations, even if taken at face value, fail to meet the threshold required to attract the penal consequences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC, and - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7988 of 2024 accordingly, no prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the said offences. 15. The core dispute between the parties revolves around the execution and enforceability of contractual documents, which is civil in nature, though it has been dressed in criminal allegations. 16. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the FIR and the subsequent charge sheet do not disclose the commission of cognizable offences against the petitioners so as to justify continuation of criminal proceedings. Permitting the continuation of criminal prosecution in the given facts and circumstances would amount to an abuse of the process of law and would unnecessarily subject the petitioners to the rigours of criminal trial for what is essentially a civil dispute. 17. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER (i) Criminal Petitions are allowed. (ii) The impugned First Information Report and the criminal proceedings pending in C.C.No.711/2024 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, at Malur, Kolar in - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 7988 of 2024 Crime No.69/2024 is hereby quashed insofar as petitioners are concerned in both matters. (iii) The Trial Court shall adjudicate the pending suits without being influenced any observations made in this order. The observations made above is only confined to the present petitions. (iv) The contention of respondent No.2 that the Agreement of Sale was created by forging the signatures is kept open for the Trial Court. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM/NBM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 73