- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3683 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K. PUNITHA W/O NARASIMHA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A. NO.F 302, 3RD FLOOR, ROHAN JHAROKA APARTMENTS, YEMLUR MAIN ROAD, ADJACENT TO HAL AIRPORT, YEMLUR, BENGALURU-560037. 2. SRI. DHRUVA RAMA REDDY S/O KODANDA RAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A FLAT NO.1422, PRESTIGE KEW GARDENS, 14TH BLOCK, NEAR OLD AIRPORT ROAD, YEMLUR, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560037. 3. SRI. K. N. KODANDARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O K.H. NARAYAN REDDY, R/A FLAT NO.1422, PRESTIGE KEW GARDENS, Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 14TH BLOCK, NEAR OLD AIRPORT ROAD, YEMLUR, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU-560037. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GANESHA G., ADVOCATE FOR P2; VIDE ORDER DATED 17.07.2025 PETITION AGAINST P1 AND 3 IS DISMISSED) AND: 1. STATE BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560009. 2. N.A.RAVI, S/O N.H. ABBAIA H REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.771 VISHRANTH FERNS, PARADISE OFF OUTER RING ROAD, DODDANEKKUNDI, BANGALORE-560037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ABHINAV R., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO 1. QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF FIR DATED 20.09.2024, IN CR.NO.505/2024, REGISTERED BY THE MARATHAHALLI POLICE FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 120B, 419, 420, 465, 471, 468 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC, 1860 INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER /ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3, PENDING BEFORE THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 29TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,(CMM) COURT, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE CITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is originally filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.505/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 465, 471, 468 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') on the file of the 29th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) Court, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru City. 2. During the pendency of these proceedings, accused Nos.1 and 3, who are respectively the sister and father of accused No.2, withdrew their petitions, thereby consenting to face investigation and prosecution in the event a final report is filed by the Investigating Officer. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 Consequently, the present petition survives only in respect of accused No.2. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner No.2 – accused No.2 reiterating the grounds urged submits that petitioner No.2 had no role whatsoever in the execution of the Gift Deed obtained by accused No.1 – Smt.K.Punitha. He contends that accused No.2 is merely a bona fide transferee-donee under the Gift Deed executed in his favour by his sister - accused No.1. Therefore, even if the allegations in the complaint are accepted at their face value, the essential ingredients of Sections 120B, 420, 465 and 471 of the IPC are not attracted against petitioner No.2. He further submits that civil suits concerning the subject property are already pending between the parties and thus, the complainant cannot simultaneously pursue criminal prosecution on the same cause of action. Accordingly, to prevent abuse of the process of law and since the dispute is predominantly civil in nature, this - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. 4. Per-contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2, relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S.Reddy and Others1, submits that accused No.1, the sister of petitioner No.2, had fraudulently procured the Gift Deed by impersonation. Since petitioner No.2 – accused No.2 is the ultimate beneficiary, his active role in facilitating the Gift Deed in favour of accused No.1 and subsequently deriving benefit under it, requires thorough investigation. He further points out that the jurisdictional Sub-Registrar has already taken cognizance of the matter and initiated action under Sections 82 and 83 of the Registration Act including resolving to lodge a complaint regarding the fraudulent procurement of the Gift Deed. According to him, this is a classic case of impersonation and fabrication of documents with the object of unlawfully divesting the complainant’s 1 2025 INSC 818 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 wife of valuable immovable property, which had been lawfully transferred to respondent No.2 under a registered GPA executed by accused Nos.2 and 3 on 18.06.2009. He submits that the impugned property has been illegally re-appropriated by the accused family members through dubious documents, thereby necessitating a full-fledged investigation by the Investigating Officer. It is, therefore, urged that the petition be dismissed without granting any indulgence. 5. Learned HCGP, adverting to the registration of the crime also submits that the allegations disclose serious offences requiring a detailed investigation by the Investigating Officer. According to him, this is not a case where interference is warranted at the threshold. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on careful examination of the records, particularly the title documents produced by the learned counsel for the complainant, this Court proceeds to consider the matter. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 7. On meticulous examination of the title documents placed on record, it is not in dispute that the disputed property fell to the share of accused Nos.2 and 3 under a registered family partition deed dated 26.11.2008. In terms of the said partition, accused Nos.2 and 3 became the joint owners of the disputed property. Thereafter, both accused Nos.2 and 3 executed a registered General Power of Attorney in favour of respondent No.2 – complainant on 18.06.2009. The said GPA was not merely a formal authorization but was coupled with interest. Based on the authority conferred under the said GPA, respondent No.2 – complainant, in turn, conveyed the disputed property in favour of his wife, Smt.Swetha under a registered sale deed dated 13.06.2014. 8. A careful scrutiny of these crucial documents clearly reveals that respondent No.2’s wife, Smt.Swetha, acquired a valid and lawful title to the disputed property under the sale deed dated 13.06.2014. However, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 allegation in the complaint and subsequent materials on record, prima facie, disclose how the family of the accused, who had earlier divested themselves of the property by executing a registered GPA in favour of respondent No.2, sought to re-acquire the same property through dubious means as per the complainant’s version. 9. Specifically, accused No.1 – K. Punitha, the daughter of accused No.3 and sister of accused No.2, is shown to have secured a Gift Deed dated 27.09.2022 by portraying herself as the sister of complainant’s wife, Swetha. Respondent No.2 - Complainant asserts that accused No.1 has no blood relation with Swetha nor is she in any manner connected to respondent No.2’s family. The execution of this Gift Deed raises a serious doubt about the legitimacy of the transaction. 10. Prima-facie, a glaring inconsistency emerges when the photographs of Swetha, as reflected in the registered sale deed dated 13.06.2014, are compared with - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 the photograph of the person, who is stated to be Swetha in the disputed Gift Deed dated 27.09.2022. The dissimilarity between the two photographs is striking and cannot be ignored. This aspect, by itself, necessitates a thorough forensic and investigative scrutiny. In this background, two crucial elements require detailed investigation: (i) Whether accused No.1 – K. Punitha and Smt. Swetha, wife of respondent No.2, are sisters, as claimed in the disputed Gift Deed, and for this purpose, the Investigating Officer must secure and examine all relevant identification documents, family records, and materials relating to their surnames and familial relationships. (ii) Whether the person who executed the disputed Gift Deed dated 27.09.2022 as Swetha is in fact the same person as respondent No.2’s wife, who had earlier acquired the property under the registered sale deed dated 13.06.2014. This issue also requires verification by a comparison of photographs, documents, and such other admissible materials. 11. The contention of petitioner No.2 – accused No.2 that he was not a party to the Gift Deed dated 27.09.2022 and hence the ingredients of Sections 120B, 420, 465 and 471 IPC., are not attracted appears, prima-facie, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 misconceived. The records reveal that petitioner No.2 is the ultimate beneficiary of the fraudulent transaction, as he subsequently obtained a Gift Deed dated 06.11.2022 from his sister, accused No.1. Thus, even though accused No.2 may not have directly executed the earlier Gift Deed dated 27.09.2022, his role as the recipient of the ultimate benefit of the alleged fraudulent transaction cannot be brushed aside at this stage. 12. This Court also cannot lose sight of another significant circumstance relating to the conduct of accused No.2. In the family partition deed dated 26.11.2008 as well as the registered GPA executed by accused Nos.2 and 3 in favour of respondent No.2 on 18.06.2009, the name of accused No.2 is consistently referred to as “K. Sunil.” However, in subsequent documents, including the impugned Gift Deed transactions, he has also described himself as “K. Sunil @ Dhruva Rama Reddy.” This introduction of an alias name post execution of the GPA assumes significance and may have a bearing on the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 allegations of impersonation, fabrication, and fraudulent execution of documents. Such conduct prima facie attracts investigation for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with Section 34 IPC. Hence, the role of accused No.2 in procuring the Gift Deed in favour of accused No.1, and thereafter securing a Gift Deed from her, requires deeper scrutiny by the Investigating Officer. 13. It is true that this Court, in a catena of decisions, has consistently held that disputes of a purely civil nature, particularly when civil suits are pending adjudication, ought not to be converted into criminal proceedings. Ordinarily, continuation of criminal prosecution in such cases is not desirable. However, those principles cannot be mechanically applied to the present case. The factual matrix here discloses prima facie material of impersonation, forgery, and fabrication of documents, which transcend a mere civil dispute. The circumstances reveal that a property lawfully conveyed by - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 accused Nos.2 and 3 through a registered GPA has been sought to be retrieved by the same family allegedly through a dubious Gift Deed obtained by accused No.1 by falsely representing herself as the sister of respondent No.2’s wife, Swetha. 14. If the disputed Gift Deed dated 27.09.2022 obtained by accused No.1 is established to be fraudulent and fabricated, then the subsequent Gift Deed dated 06.11.2022 executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.2 is also tainted. These two transactions are inseparably linked, form part of the same chain of events, and cannot be dissected or examined in isolation. At this stage, a prima-facie case exists warranting a thorough investigation into the role of accused No.2 as well as the fraudulent transactions executed through accused No.1. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegations disclose sufficient material requiring detailed investigation by the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37901 CRL.P No. 3683 of 2025 Investigating Officer. The conduct of the accused, the alleged dubious nature of the Gift Deeds and the attempt to re-acquire a property already conveyed under a valid registered document, all point towards a fraudulent design which cannot be quashed at this preliminary stage. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant indulgence to petitioner No.2. In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4