- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:779 CRL.P No. 102139 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102139 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. KOLLI GANGADHAR RAO S/O. KOLLI RAMACHANDRARAO, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/O. KESAKKI HANCHINALA, BEHIND HRG HOME, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. 2. KOLLI RAMCHANDRA RAO S/O. GANGAYYA AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. HRG HOUSE NEAR KOLLI NAGESHWAR RAO HOME, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH GANGAVATHI TOWN POLICE STATION, R/BY IT’S STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT. DAHRWAD-580011. 2. LACHAMAPPA S/O. LACHAMAPPA NAYAK AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. FARMER, R/O. BHATTAR NARSAPURA VILLAGE, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1; SRI. K.ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, QUASH FIR CRIME NO.20/2022 DATED 31.01.2022 REGISTERED BY GANGAVATHI TOWN P.S. AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 472, 504 AND 506 OF IPC AND ALL B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.22 15:00:44 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:779 CRL.P No. 102139 of 2022 FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN PCR NO.230/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, GANGAVATHI, KOPPAL, AND ALL THE PROCEEDINGS ARISING OUT OF IT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., alleging that the petitioners/accused forged the signatures of Respondent No.2 and his brother, Hanumanthappa, to create a sale deed dated 21.01.1999 for Sy. No. 32/A measuring 1 acre and another sale deed dated 05.05.2001 for Sy. No. 32/A measuring 2 acres. The jurisdictional Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged sale deeds were executed in 1999 and 2001, respectively, and the complaint was filed only on 31.07.2021, after an inordinate delay of over 20 years, without offering any plausible explanation. He argued that Respondent No.2 and one Huligemma, wife of Hanumanthappa (brother of Respondent No.2), had earlier filed a suit in O.S. No.151/2018 for a permanent injunction against the petitioners regarding property in Sy. No. 32/A, including the properties covered under the subject sale deeds. After the suit was dismissed, the complaint was filed, suppressing the decree passed in O.S. No.151/2018. He contended that the dispute is civil in nature but has been given a criminal texture. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:779 CRL.P No. 102139 of 2022 3. In response, the learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel for Respondent No.2 argued that the allegations in the complaint clearly disclose that the petitioners forged the signatures of Respondent No.2 and his brother, Hanumanthappa, to create the subject sale deeds. They contended that the veracity of these allegations can only be determined at the stage of trial, and interference at this stage is unwarranted. Thus, they sought dismissal of the petition. 4. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the following points emerge: 5. The total extent of land in Sy. No. 32 is 26 acres and 7 guntas, situated in Guladal village, Gangavathi Taluk, Koppal District. The complainant admits that an extent of 8 acres and 7 guntas was sold to the wife of petitioner No.2 in 1986. Despite this, the complainant alleges that the petitioners/accused, in connivance with each other, forged the subject sale deeds by fabricating his signature and that of his brother, Hanumanthappa. 6. A perusal of the judgment and decree in O.S. No.151/2018, filed by Respondent No.2 and Huligemma (wife of Hanumanthappa), for permanent injunction reveals that the petitioners/defendants specifically contended that Respondent No.2 and his brother executed the sale deed dated 21.01.1999 for 1 acre in Sy. No. 32/A, and another sale deed dated 05.05.2001 for 2 acres in Sy. No. 32/A. Only after the dismissal of the suit did Respondent No.2 file the private complaint in 2021, challenging the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:779 CRL.P No. 102139 of 2022 registration of these sale deeds. No plausible explanation has been offered for the inordinate delay of over 20 years in filing the complaint, especially when the petitioners’ names were mutated in the revenue records following the registration of the sale deeds in 1999 and 2001. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao [(2008) 15 SCC 582] has observed: “30. The object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report have been highlighted time and again. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which are products of afterthought. A delayed report not only loses the advantage of spontaneity, but also risks introducing a coloured version, an exaggerated account, or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, casting serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that any delay in lodging the report be satisfactorily explained.” 8. It is evident that Respondent No.2, as an afterthought, filed the complaint after suffering an adverse decree in O.S. No.151/2018 concerning Sy. No. 32/A measuring 2 acres and 7 guntas, suppressing the decree passed in the said suit. In O.S. No.151/2018, the petitioners categorically contended that the complainant and his brother, Hanumanthappa, had executed the subject sale deeds. After the dismissal of the earlier suit, Respondent No.2 filed O.S. No.224/2021 for declaration and permanent injunction concerning the subject sale deeds, which is currently pending before the jurisdictional civil court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:779 CRL.P No. 102139 of 2022 9. The private complaint, lodged after a delay of over 20 years without any plausible explanation, indicates that it was filed by Respondent No.2 to harass the petitioners with whom he has a pending civil dispute concerning the subject sale deeds. 10. In light of the above, it is clear that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature but has been given a criminal color. Continuation of the criminal proceedings in this case would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, the proceedings are quashed. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned registration of FIR in Crime No.20/2022 registered by Gangavathi Town Police Station and entire proceedings in PCR No.230/2021 pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavathi, are hereby quashed. 12. All contentions of the parties in the pending suit OS No.224/2021 are kept open. The Trial Court to adjudicate the rights of the parties therein without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order, and the observations made if any , is only for the present petition , and strictly on the available material on record. JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54 Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE