- 1 - CRL.P No. 5424 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5424 OF 2018 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LEPAKSHI W/O. R. NAGARAJA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO. 90/5, 25TH MAIN, 3 "B" CROSS, B.T.M. II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 076. 2. SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY S/O. LATE BIYYA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.90/5, 25TH MAIN, 3 "B" CROSS, B.T.M. II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 076. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAINATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE. REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT, BANGALORE. 2. SRI. K.V. KODANDA RAMASWAMY REDDY S/O. K.R. VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.90/5-1, 3RD CROSS, 24TH MAIN, B.T.M. II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 076. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. RAHUL RAI, HCGP., FOR R.1; SRI S. VASU, ADVOCATE FOR R.2) Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - CRL.P No. 5424 of 2018 THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 05.08.2017, FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE IN CRIME NO.400/2017, REGISTERED UNDER SECTIONS 427, 34, 420, 468 AND 471 OF IPC MARKED AS ANNEXURES A AND B RESPECTIVELY, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 6TH A.C.M.M., AT BANGALORE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. Aggrieved by registration of FIR based on the complaint dated 05.08.2017 given by respondent No.2 in respondent No.1 - Police Station bearing Cr.No.400/2017 pending on the file of VI Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 420, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC, the present petition is filed. 2. The case of respondent No.2 - complainant is that petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is her husband. Petitioner No.1 and 2 together prepared and forged unregistered GPA dated 30.*06.1993 in respect of portion of the property situated at Door No.*90/5-1, 3rd cross, 2nd stage, 24th main road, BTM layout, Bengaluru and have got a sale deed executed on 13.12.1996. It is submitted that in respect * Corrected vide Court order dated 11.01.2023. - 3 - CRL.P No. 5424 of 2018 of the entire property a sale deed was executed by the erstwhile vendor by name Smt. Muniyamma and another person in favour of brother of complainant on 28.04.1997. In the year 2009, there was a partition in the family of the complainant and it resulted in the entire property falling into the share of complainant herein. There have been several disputes between the brother of the complainant and petitioners herein and after the complainant succeeded the property there have been dispute between the complainant and the petitioners herein regarding the property concerned. In the course of the litigation, the complainant realized that the sale deed dated *13.12.1996 based on which petitioner No.1 herein claims right in the portion of the property is based on the strength of a GPA alleged to have been executed by the predecessors in title of the property Smt.Muniyamma in favour of petitioner No.1 and the said GPA is concocted, bogus and forged and hence in the year 2017 he has lodged a complaint with respondent No.1 - Police. It is further alleged by the complainant that though the sale deed dated 13.12.1996 has been registered in favour of petitioner No.2 herein on the * Corrected vide Court order dated 11.01.2023. - 4 - CRL.P No. 5424 of 2018 strength of the GPA executed in favour of petitioner No.1, the GPA is no where to be found and the petitioners are refusing to provide the said GPA. 3. The petitioners submit that the said GPA is lost and is not available with them. However, they justify the existence of the GPA and submit that the same was given by the Muniyamma in favour of petitioner No.1 in respect of a portion of the property concerned and petitioner No.1 using the said GPA has sold the said property in favour of petitioner No.2 and the said transaction is valid. 4. The complainant submits that the schedule of the property as mentioned in the sale deed is not in existence and that itself shows that the sale deed is bogus and he has got other material to establish that the alleged transaction in favour of petitioner No.2 is bogus. 5. Learned High Court Government Pleader upon instructions submits that the complaint pertains only to forgery of the GPA and utilisation of the same. Whether the GPA is - 5 - CRL.P No. 5424 of 2018 forged or not can be examined only if the document is available. If the said document is not available then in that event no charge sheet will be registered as against the accused. 6. Admittedly, the complaint pertains to execution of a unregistered GPA and utilisation of the same. The said document is said to be in possession of petitioners and the petitioners submits that if the said document is lost they do not have said GPA or a copy of it and they are not in a position to produce it before the police or the Court. When questioned as to what action they have taken as to whether they have registered any police complaint about the missing GPA, it is stated that no action has been initiated regarding the loss of the said GPA. Under the circumstances, for the reasons stated by leaned High Court Government Pleader, there is no possibility of filing the charge sheet against the petitioners concerned. It is needless to state that the present case pertains only to forgery of GPA and not the civil dispute between the parties concerned and non production of the said GPA by the petitioners herein may result in adverse inference - 6 - CRL.P No. 5424 of 2018 being drawn against them in respect of the said documents under the given facts and circumstances of the case. However, it is for the Civil Court to decide as to the title of the property and it is not for this Court to comment on the same. Nevertheless, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, due to non availability of GPA for examining whether the same has been executed by Smt.Muniyamma in favour of petitioner No.1 herein or not, the proceedings in Cr.No.400/2017 needs to be quashed. 7. Hence, the following ORDER i. Proceeding in Cr.No.400/2017 pending on the file of VI ACMM, Bengaluru, against the petitioners herein stands quashed. SD/- JUDGE AG