- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31519 CRL.P No. 1765 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1765 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI JAYACHANDRA.M., S/O VENKATAPATHY NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.79, NAIDUS LAYOUT, BEHIND ABBAIAH NAIDU STUDIO, AREHALI B S K 3RD STAGE, VASANTHAPURA, SUBRAMANYAPURA, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560061 2. SMT. M.DEVAKI W/O. SRI.M.JAYACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.4-51, SIDDAMPALLI MAIN ROAD, SIDDAMPALLI, PARAMALAKANDIGA, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH-517002 PRESENTLY AT NO.79, NAIDUS LAYOUT, BEHIND ABBAIAH NAIDU STUDIO, AREHALI B S K 3RD STAGE, VASANTHAPURA, SUBRAMANYAPURA, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560061 3. SMT. SULOCHANA .B W/O SAMBASIVA NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31519 CRL.P No. 1765 of 2025 R/AT: 6/11, SIDDAM PALLE, PERUMALAKANDIGA, CHITTOOR-517002 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHESH S AND CO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001 2. SRI M.S. SATHISH KUMAR S/O SRI. M.R.SATHYANARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BUSINESSMAN, NO.129, 10TH A MAIN, 1ST BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560011 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. K.C.SUDARSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.495/2024 PENDING ON THE FIEL OF XXX ADDL. CJM COURT, BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS INITIATED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 34, 419, 420, 448, 465, 468, 470, 471 OF IPC, 1860 AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31519 CRL.P No. 1765 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This captioned petition is by accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Cr.No.495/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 419, 420, 448, 465, 468, 470 and 471 of IPC. 2. The facts leading to the case are as follows: Respondent No.2/defacto complainant lodged a complaint alleging that the present petitioners, in collusion with accused No.2, have committed forgery by fabricating documents in respect of five residential sites said to have been retained by the grandparents of accused No.2. The substance of the complaint is that the grandparents of accused No.2 had sold Survey No.9 to one T. Prakash Rao and M.P. Subramanya Naidu, who thereafter formed a residential layout comprising several sites. In the said layout, it is alleged that five sites bearing Nos.230 to 234 were conveyed to the grandparents of respondent No.2/complainant through a General Power of Attorney and an affidavit executed by the developers on 21.06.1990. According to respondent No.2/complainant, upon - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31519 CRL.P No. 1765 of 2025 the demise of his grandparents, his father continued in possession of the said five sites, and subsequently, on 11.04.2015, gifted Site Nos.231 and 232 in his favour. The complaint, lodged in 2024, alleges that petitioner No.1, with the active assistance of the other accused, orchestrated fraudulent transactions in relation to these sites and that accused No.1 is the mastermind behind the alleged acts of forgery. On the basis of this complaint, the present crime came to be registered. 3. The petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 have approached this Court seeking quashing of proceedings in Crime No.495/2024. It is their case that petitioner No.3 purchased Site No.232 under a registered sale deed dated 18.04.2005, for valuable consideration, while petitioner No.2 purchased Site No.231 on 09.08.2006, also for valuable consideration, both acquisitions being through the GPA holders of the original developers, namely M.P. Subramanya Naidu and T. Prakash Rao. Petitioners Nos.2 and 3 therefore contend that they are the lawful owners having acquired valid title under registered sale deeds executed by the original developers - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31519 CRL.P No. 1765 of 2025 through their GPA holders. They further assert that they are in physical possession of the said properties, having constructed residential houses thereon. In support of their claim, they have produced tax paid receipts, water bills, khata extracts, and also placed reliance on a judgment rendered in respect of Site No.234 to demonstrate lawful possession and enjoyment of Site Nos.231 and 232. 4. This Court has extensively heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. 5. On a deeper examination of the records placed on file by both the petitioners and respondent No.2/defacto complainant, this Court finds that the issues involved give rise to complex and disputed questions of fact touching upon title and possession. Respondent No.2/complainant seeks to trace title over the two disputed sites on the strength of an affidavit and a General Power of Attorney said to have been executed by the original developers in favour of his grandparents. On the other hand, the petitioners seek to establish their rights by producing registered sale deeds executed in their favour by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31519 CRL.P No. 1765 of 2025 GPA holders of the very same original developers. Thus, this Court is confronted with competing claims of title, one claimed through inheritance from the alleged retention of sites by the grandparents of respondent No.2, and the other through registered conveyances made by the developers’ GPA holders in the years 2005 and 2006. 6. The documents relied upon by the petitioners prima facie indicate that they are not only purchasers for valuable consideration but are also in actual possession of the properties in question. They have placed on record tax paid receipts, water bills, khata extracts, and even passports showing their residential addresses, all of which point to their physical possession. Further, reliance is placed on a judgment rendered by a competent Civil Court concerning Site No.234, which fortifies their claim of possession and construction in respect of sites purchased by them. This Court, having perused these documents, is of the opinion that respondent No.2/complainant has attempted to adopt a shortcut by lodging a police complaint instead of approaching the competent Civil Court for adjudication of title. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31519 CRL.P No. 1765 of 2025 7. It is pertinent to record that this is the third hearing, and on each occasion, this Court has been constrained to scrutinize the title deeds, judgments, and revenue records produced. Upon such scrutiny, this Court is more than satisfied that the dispute raised by respondent No.2 is essentially a civil dispute in regard to competing claims of ownership, and that the attempt to project it as an act of forgery and fraud is wholly misconceived. Whether the grandparents of respondent No.2 had in fact retained the five sites in question, and whether such retention was valid in law, are matters that fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of a competent Civil Court. The plea of forgery, as sought to be urged by respondent No.2, is not even prima facie available in the facts and circumstances of this case. 8. It is significant to note that respondent No.2 does not allege that the signatures of his grandparents have been forged, nor does he contend that the sale deeds of 2005 and 2006 bear any falsified execution on their part. His grievance is that the GPA holders of the original developers had no right to convey the sites, and that the GPAs themselves are fabricated. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31519 CRL.P No. 1765 of 2025 In essence, therefore, the allegation of forgery, if at all, relates only to the signatures of the original developers. However, it is admitted that the original developers have never questioned these transactions, nor have they lodged any complaint alleging forgery of their signatures or misuse of the GPA. In such a situation, this Court finds no basis for respondent No.2 to raise a plea of forgery on behalf of the original developers. 9. If respondent No.2 claims title by way of inheritance from his grandparents and through a subsequent gift deed executed by his father, it is open to him to approach the competent Civil Court to establish such rights in accordance with law. He cannot, however, seek to resolve his civil disputes by invoking the criminal process and by lodging a complaint alleging offences of forgery and fraud. The lodging of the present complaint has unnecessarily resulted in the registration of a crime, thereby giving rise to proceedings which are nothing but an abuse of process of law. 10. On an overall consideration of the records, this Court is further of the view that the Investigating Officer is not competent to adjudicate upon questions of title, validity of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31519 CRL.P No. 1765 of 2025 GPAs, or possessory rights, all of which necessarily fall within the realm of civil adjudication. The continuation of criminal proceedings on the basis of such allegations, when the dispute is ex facie civil in nature, would amount to misuse of the criminal justice system. Even assuming that all the allegations in the complaint are taken at face value, no criminal offence is made out, since the substratum of the dispute relates purely to title and possession. 11. In the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, the proceedings pending in Crime No.495/2024 for the alleged offences are unsustainable. The dispute between the parties being purely civil in nature, the registration and continuation of the said crime would constitute abuse of process. Accordingly, this Court holds that the FIR registered in Crime No.495/2024 is liable to be quashed. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings pending in Cr.No.495/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 34, - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31519 CRL.P No. 1765 of 2025 419, 420, 448, 465, 468, 470 and 471 of IPC on the file of the XXX Addl. CJM Court, Bengaluru are quashed, insofar as the petitioners are concerned. iii) This order would not act as an impediment to respondent No.2 to establisher his rights in the manner known to law. The pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE VM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9