- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23635 CRL.P No. 9870 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9870 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT ANITA DORINE FERNANDES W/O LAWRENCE PAUL AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT THE LAUREL VAILANKANNI COTTAGE, MUGARODY ROAD PADAVINANGADY, KONCHADY POST MANGALORE TALUK - 575002 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHANANJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANGALORE EAST POLICE STATION MANGALORE REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001 2. PRASHOBHA W/O PRAVEEN KUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS DOOR NO: 15-22-1388/1, NAMMANE, NEAR ESI HOSPITAL Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23635 CRL.P No. 9870 of 2022 BENDOOR MANGALORE-575003 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.113/2021 IN PCR NO.107/2015 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL Sr.CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MANGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.417,465,467,468,471,420 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against her in C.C.No.113/2021 (PCR.No.107/2015) on the file of II Addl.Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23635 CRL.P No. 9870 of 2022 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that based on the complaint in PCR.No.107/2015 filed by respondent No.2, the trial Court referred it to the jurisdictional police for investigation. After the investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 including the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC. 3. It is alleged that complainant is the owner of the property and petitioner has purchased the same from accused No.1, as PA holder of the complainant and that the said GPA is forged and fabricated. There are no allegations that petitioner is involved in the forging and fabrication of the GPA. Complainant has already filed suit in O.S.No.851/2022 and summons is issued and it is pending for consideration. Already temporary injunction is granted in favour of respondent No.2. Having regard to the fact that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23635 CRL.P No. 9870 of 2022 process of the Court and the trial Court without following the procedure has referred the matter for investigation. Along with complaint affidavit of the complainant was not filed and directions in Priyanka Srivastava Vs. State of U.P (Priyanka Srivastava)1 are not followed and hence, the petition. 4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon by the decision in Mohammed Ibrahim and Ors Vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (Mohammed Ibrahim)2. 5. On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader representing the respondent No.1 State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit that petitioner is no other than the sister-in-law of accused No.1. They are colluding together. In fact petitioner has not initiated any proceedings against accused No.1. The FSL report support the allegations that the GPA is forged. Though 1 (2015) 6 SCC 287 2 (2009) 8 SCC 751 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23635 CRL.P No. 9870 of 2022 the dispute regarding the property is civil in nature, the specific allegations that petitioner and accused No.1 are colluding and that the GPA is forged and concocted attracts criminal liability. In the light of charge sheet, there is a prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner. The disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C and it requires a full fledged trial and pray to dismiss the petition. 6. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon by the decision in Prasad M R and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. (Prasad M R)3. 7. Heard arguments and perused the record. 8. Respondent No.2 filed a complaint alleging that when she was in need of finance in a sum of Rs.31 lakhs, accused No.1 offered to lend the same subject to deposit of title deeds of her property measuring of 10 cents of land in 3 Crl.P.No.101175/2022 Dt: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23635 CRL.P No. 9870 of 2022 Sy.No.121/10A consisting of two storied residential house. Accordingly, she deposited title deeds and secured loan of Rs.31 lakhs. 8.1 In order to pay off the said loan, she sold first floor of her house in March 2014 and repaid Rs.31 lakhs with interest of Rs.1,86,000/- to accused No.1 and requested him to return of her title deeds. However, he went on postponing the same. In order to secure education loan for her daughter when she took RTC of her land, she found the name of accused No.2 and on enquiry with the Sub-registrar, she came to know that accused No.1 has sold the said property to accused No.2 by concocting a General Power of Attorney. 9. The trial Court referred the complaint to the jurisdictional police for investigation. After detailed investigation, including examination of the General Power of Attorney in question by the FSL, the investigating officer filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23635 CRL.P No. 9870 of 2022 punishable under Sections 417, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 IPC. 10. Now, the petitioner who is accused No.2 has come up with this petition with a prayer to quashing on the ground that she is bonafide purchaser and suit in O.S.No.851/2022 filed by the complainant is pending. 11. It is pertinent to note that petitioner is no other than the sister-in-law of accused No.1. When accused No.1 allegedly sold the property belonging to the complainant based on General Power of Attorney, allegedly executed by the complainant, she was expected to enquire with the complainant as to whether she has executed the General Power of Attorney and whether the property is available for sale. In the light of the fact that the FSL report prove that the General Power of Attorney is concocted and forged document, there are prima facie material to proceed against the accused persons including the petitioner. It may be true that the complainant is seeking civil remedy for recovery of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23635 CRL.P No. 9870 of 2022 property. At the same time the allegations made against the accused persons including the petitioner also attract criminal liability. 12. So far as Mohammed Ibrahim, referred to supra relied upon by petitioner is concerned, in that case purchaser was also cheated. However, in the present case petitioner who is accused No.2 and purchaser is beneficiary of the sale made by accused No.1 on the basis of forged General Power of Attorney. The sale consideration has not reached respondent No.2, who is the owner. In the facts and circumstances, the above decision is not applicable to the case on hand. 13. For the above reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a case for quashing criminal proceedings against the petitioner and accordingly, the following: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:23635 CRL.P No. 9870 of 2022 ORDER Petition filed by the accused No.2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48