- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27639 CRL.P No. 576 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 576 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI DAVID S. S/O. LATE STEPHEN D. AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS, R/AT NO.480, HOLA BEEDHI, BEGUR, NEAR CHURCH BEGUR, BOMMANAHALLI, KARNATAKA. 560068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. AMITH XAVIER C., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE POLICE INSPECTOR BEGUR PS REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001 2. SRI K V K REDDY S/O K R VENKAT REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT NO.90/5, 3RD CROSS, 24TH MAIN, BTM LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, BEGUR, BENGALURU-76 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1; R-2 - SERVED AND UN-REPRESENTED) *** Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27639 CRL.P No. 576 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0244/2019, ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE LEARNED 6TH ADDL. CMM AT BENGALURU, BEGUR POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 34, 420, 469, 471 AND 468 OF IPC 1860 AND TO GRANT COMPENSATION FOR CONDUCT OF FALSE LITIGATION, CAUSING MENTAL AGONY GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS CRL.P., COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioner seeks the following relief: "Wherefore, the petitioners humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition and quash the FIR in Crime No.0244/2019, on the file of the Court of the learned 6th Addl. CMM At Bengaluru, Begur Police Station, for the offences punishable under sections 34, 420, 469, 471 and 468 of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27639 CRL.P No. 576 of 2025 IPC 1860 and to grant compensation for conduct of false litigation, causing mental agony grant such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice" 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 -State. The respondent No.2 is served and un-represented. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.1 in the impugned FIR in Crime No.244/2019 dated 31.12.2019 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 34, 420, 469, 471, 468 of IPC. In the said proceeding, one Ravichandra was arraigned as accused No.3 and one Abdul Majeed was arraigned as accused No.2. The said two accused persons, i.e. Ravichandra (accused No.3) and Abdul Majeed (accused No.2) had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.6880/2021, disposed of on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27639 CRL.P No. 576 of 2025 04.04.2022 and Criminal Petition No.5348/2023 disposed of on 20.09.2023 respectively, which were allowed and the FIR was quashed by this Court. 4. The order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.6880/2021, disposed of on 04.04.2022 in respect of Ravichandra (accused No.3) reads as under: "This petition was earlier disposed on 19.11.2021 allowing the petition. At that time the second respondent did not appear before the court even though he was served with notice. Thereafter the second respondent filed an application seeking hearing on the petition and therefore the order dated 19.11.2021 was recalled and hearing was given to second respondent’s counsel as also to the petitioner’s counsel. 2. The petitioner is one of the accused in FIR.No.244/2019 which was registered in connection with offences punishable under sections 468, 469, 471, 420 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR against him. 3. The brief facts are that 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.521 of Sarjapura earlier belonged to second respondent’s father and he was cultivating it. The second respondent gave report to the police that in between the years 1995 and 2004, six persons viz., David, Abdul Majid, Ravichandra i.e., the petitioner, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27639 CRL.P No. 576 of 2025 Ramachandrappa, Rajappa and Krishnappa created a forged general power of attorney and then used it as a genuine document for transferring the land. 4. Sri. S.G.Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner purchased the land from Abdul Majid under the registered sale deed dated 25.6.2004. The petitioner had no knowledge about the forgery of documents as alleged by the second respondent. In fact the petitioner gave a representation to the Commissioner of Police on 28.01.2020 against the second respondent and that he also filed a private complaint i.e., PCR.2244/2020 against Manjunatha and the second respondent. If the FIR is read, it does not show commission of any cognizable offence. A frivolous report was made to the police. The second respondent has abused the process of court and therefore FIR needs to be quashed. 5. The Government Pleader submits that there is a case for investigation in regard to allegations of forgery and creation of false documents and hence jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised. 6. Sri. M.N.Ramesha, learned counsel for the second respondent argued that the land was granted to Kenchappa under the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act with a condition that it should not be alienated. All subsequent alienations are null and void. Section 7A of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act provides for prosecuting the transferee under the illegal transactions. The petitioner purchased the land on the basis of the forged - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27639 CRL.P No. 576 of 2025 documents. The learned counsel also referred to a legal notice dated 28.7.2020 issued to the petitioner. When forgery of document is alleged, it requires investigation and in fact accused no.1 has given confession statement and in this view, the petition cannot be allowed. 7. I have considered the arguments. It is a well established principle that whenever FIR is sought to be quashed, the petitioner must be able to point out that plain reading of the FIR should not disclose constitution of any offence and that the very initiation of the FIR should appear to be frivolous. In this case, the second respondent has alleged forgery and creation of documents in respect of 17 guntas of land which earlier belonged to his father. If the FIR is read, even according to the second respondent general power of attorney might have come into existence in between 1995 and 2004. He is not definite as to when and who created the general power of attorney. He thought of taking action in the month of December, 2019. The second respondent is a retired Asst. Commissioner of Police. He has also not stated as to how he came to know of all the documents which according to him are forged and created. The FIR is so vague and first reading of it does not inspire confidence that there is truth in it. Even in the legal notice that the second respondent’s counsel has relied upon, nothing is stated about the approximate date of forging the documents. Legal notice is as vague as the FIR. 8. Learned counsel referred to section 7A of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act. The second respondent has produced the grant order dated 29.5.71. Section 7A of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27639 CRL.P No. 576 of 2025 Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act prohibits alienation for a period of 15 years from the date of re-grant. The amendment brought to said section with effect from 9.5.2003 prohibits alienation for a period of 15 years. In this case, 15 years period expired in the year 1986. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land under the registered sale deed dated 25.6.2004 from Abdul Majid. Therefore he appears to be a purchaser. This being the factual background, still if the second respondent has got any right over the property, he must approach the Civil Court. Criminal action is not a remedy for him. Prosecuting the petitioner in these circumstances, amounts to abuse of process of court and law. In this view FIR can be quashed against the petitioner. Hence the following: ORDER Petition is allowed. Proceedings pursuant to registration of FIR in Crime No.244/2019 by the first respondent police against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed." 5. The order passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.5348/2023 disposed of 20.09.2023 in respect of Abdul Majeed (accused No.2) reads as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27639 CRL.P No. 576 of 2025 "Petitioner-accused No.2 is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 469, 471, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.521 of Sarjapura earlier belonged to second respondent's father and he was cultivating it. The second respondent lodged FIR to the Police states that, in between 1995 and 2004, six persons among whom including the petitioner created a forged general power of attorney and then used it as a genuine document for transferring the land. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Accused No.3 who is the subsequent purchaser approached this Court in Crl.P.No.6880/2021 challenging the impugned proceedings, this Court by order dated 4.01.2022 quashed the impugned proceedings by observing as follows: "7 ………..In this case, the second respondent has alleged forgery and creation of documents in respect of 17 guntas of land which earlier belonged to his father. If the FIR is read, even according to the second respondent general power of attorney might have come into existence in between 1995 and 2004. He is not definite as to when and who created the general power of attorney. He thought of taking action in the month of December, 2019. The second respondent is a retired Asst. Commissioner of Police. He has also not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27639 CRL.P No. 576 of 2025 stated as to how he came to know of all the documents which according to him are forged and created. The FIR is so vague and first reading of it does not inspire confidence that there is truth in it. Even in the legal notice that the second respondent’s counsel has relied upon, nothing is stated about the approximate date of forging the documents. Legal notice is as vague as the FIR." 5. The accused No.2 who is also the subsequent purchaser stands on the similar footing. Therefore, this petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Crl.P.No.6880/2021. Accordingly, I pass the following order: 6. The Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in crime No.244/2019 registered by Beguru Police, Bengaluru, insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused No.2 is hereby quashed." 6. The allegation made in the impugned complaint qua the petitioner - accused No.1 and the accused No.2 (Abdul Majeed) and accused No.3 (Ravichandra) are all identical and similar and consequently by applying the Doctrine of parity, the instant petition also deserves to be allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27639 CRL.P No. 576 of 2025 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed; ii. The impugned FIR in Crime No.244/2019 registered by the respondent No.1- Begur Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 471, and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC, qua the petitioner herein/accused No.1, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23