- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47466 CRL.P No. 10225 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10225 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. VASANTHA LAKSHMI @ VASANTHALAKSHMI A.T W/O ANAND T.P, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, 2. SMT. MAMATHA @ MAMATHA R D/O K.K. RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO. 387, 5TH CROSS, MEI LAYOUT, BAGALAGUNTE, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 073. 3. SRI. ANAND TELKAR @ T.P. ANAND S/O PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 3 RESIDING AT NO. 105, 1ST FLOOR, GR ONYX APARTMENTS, RWF WEST COLONY, NEAR GOGO INTERNATIONAL, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE NORTH, BENGALURU - 560 064. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C.R. GOPALA SWAMY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. BHARGAV G, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47466 CRL.P No. 10225 of 2024 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA NEW TOWN POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. SHAKUNTHALA J. RAO W/O LATE T.S. JAGANNATH RAO, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT NO. 8/90, SECOND FLOOR, GURUPRASAD APARTMENT, SFS-407, 3RD B MAIN ROAD, 4TH PHASE, YELAHANKA, NEW TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. TOMY SEBASTIAN, SR. COUNSEL FOR; SRI. MELANIE SEBASTIAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.224/2024 REGISTERED ON 03.05.2024 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE (YELAHANKA NEW TOWN P.S.,) AT ANNEXURE-A ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AT ANNEXUE-B, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 7th ACMM COURT, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47466 CRL.P No. 10225 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.224/2024 of Yelahanka New Town Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, read with 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Senior Counsel appearing for second respondent as well as the learned HCGP for the State. Perused the material on record. 3. The second respondent herein set the law in motion, which led to registration of the FIR against the petitioners. The crux of the allegations are that, complainant/second respondent received a sum of Rs.65 Lakhs through a decree passed by the Civil Court and the accused without the complainant's knowledge, on 20.01.2024, by forging her signature opened a joint account and deposited the said amount, and thereafter, out of the said amount, kept Rs.40 Lakhs in FD in the name of first petitioner/accused No.1 on 15.04.2024. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47466 CRL.P No. 10225 of 2024 4. The genesis of the complaint would lead to a compromise decree passed in O.S.No.9697/2015 by the Court of City Civil Judge at Bangalore, which was filed by one T.S.Jagannath Rao, the husband of second respondent and father of first petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, the said T.S.Jagannatha Rao passed away. The scheduled property is a site and during pendency of the said suit, the defendants Nos.1 to 3 entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs, consequent to which the compromise petition was filed. It can be seen from the averments in the compromise petition that the third defendant in the suit issued a demand draft for a sum of Rs.65 Lakhs in the name of plaintiff No.1, i.e., the complainant/second respondent herein, towards full and final settlement. It is alleged by the second respondent that without her knowledge, the first petitioner (i.e., her third daughter), by forging her signature, opened a joint account and deposited the said amount. Thereafter, out of the said amount, the first petitioner kept Rs.40 Lakhs in a fixed deposit in her name. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that first petitioner is the third - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47466 CRL.P No. 10225 of 2024 daughter, second petitioner is the caretaker of second respondent/complainant and the third petitioner is the husband of first petitioner. He contended that as per the compromise decree, Demand Draft was admittedly issued in the name of the second respondent and therefore, the allegations that by forging the signature, the money is now transferred by opening a joint account, etc., are false. He contended that second and third petitioners have nothing to do with the transactions and they are not party to the suit. He contended that the complaint is manifestly frivolous and with an ulterior motive, false allegations are made at the instance of another daughter of the complainant. He further contended that the second respondent is suffering from Dementia, loss of memory and mental ability as per Annexure-G, certificate issued by the Government General Hospital, Yelahanka, which shows, complaint was not lodged by her, on the other hand, the complaint is at the behest of another daughter of the complainant. Therefore, seeks to allow the petition and quash the proceedings. 6. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent has vehemently contended that as per - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47466 CRL.P No. 10225 of 2024 the compromise decree, the Demand Draft was issued in favour of the complainant, however, the petitioners by colluding with each other, have opened the joint account and transferred the amount without the knowledge of the second respondent by forging her signature. 7. This Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of BNSS Act cannot conduct an inquiry or a mini trial. There are allegations that the petitioners have forged the signature of the complainant and opened a joint account and transferred a sum of Rs.40 Lakhs and kept it in the fixed deposit. When allegations of forgery are made, investigation into those allegations cannot be scuttled. 8. As per the complaint averments, on verification with the bank officials, second respondent has come to know that her signature for opening the bank account was forged by the first petitioner. The second petitioner and third petitioner are the nominees. The investigation is under progress. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the investigation. It is always open for the parties, considering the relationship, to file an appropriate petition seeking quashing, if there is settlement. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47466 CRL.P No. 10225 of 2024 Petition is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2025 is dismissed. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT: BHK