- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29887 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3133 OF 2025 BETWEEN: PREMA VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT KONAPPANA AGRAHARA, KRISHNA REDDY LAYOUT, ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE - 560 100. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA SHEKARA GOWDA V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION, ANEKAL, KARNATAKA - 562 106, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. DHANALAKSHMI W/O M. RENUKA ARADYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO 2, 4TH CROSS, 1ST MAIN, KAVERI LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SMT. RAMYA S, ADVOCATE FOR R2) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29887 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR BEARING NO.389/2024 FILED AGAINST THE PETITIONER ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 418, 420, 464, 469 OF IPC 1860 DATED 30.11.2024 FILED BEFORE HONBLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL VIDE CASE NO. CR.NO.389/2024 ARISING OUT OF FIR NO.389/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by accused No.2, who is the purchaser of immovable property vide registered sale deed dated 12.06.2000, which is produced at Annexure-E to the writ petition is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in FIR No.0389/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 418, 420, 464 and 469 of IPC, 1860. 2. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant has lodged a complaint before Respondent No.1—the jurisdictional - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29887 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2025 police alleging that the petitioner, in collusion with accused No.1, has fraudulently created documents purporting to be a registered sale deed and thereby cheated the family of Respondent No.2. It is specifically alleged that accused No.1, who is the elder brother of Respondent No.2’s husband and thus her brother-in-law, impersonated her husband, M. Renuka Aradya, and forged his signatures to fabricate the said sale deed. Based on these allegations, the jurisdictional police have registered a case in Crime No.0389/2024. 3. The petitioner, claiming to be a bona fide purchaser under a sale transaction executed as far back as the year 2000, has approached this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. It is the petitioner’s case that Respondent No.2, along with her children, has already instituted a comprehensive civil suit seeking partition in O.S.No.327/2008, which covers the very subject matter now being alleged in the criminal complaint. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29887 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2025 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the State, and the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2/defacto complainant. 4. Before examining the merits of the present petition, it is imperative to take note of the pleadings in the plaint filed in O.S.No.327/2008. In the said suit, Respondent No.2, along with her children, has sought partition and has impleaded her husband as defendant No.4. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of the plaint are of particular relevance to the issues raised in the present criminal proceedings and may have a material bearing on their maintainability. Hence, this Court considers it necessary to extract the said paragraphs, which read as follows: "11. Respondent No;2 in O.S.No:327/2008 Partition suit, in Para 11 of the pleadings she herself admits that, "the 1st and 4th Defendant who are Veerabhadra Aradhya and Renuka Aradhya and 5th defendant mother l.e., 3rd wife of Mudumadappa Aradya have executed a registered sale deed in respect of land bearing SY No:136 2 acre 13 guntas in favour of Defendant No:9 who is my Petitioner in the above case through a registered document no:1453/2000-01 dated: 12/6/2000...The 1st and 4th defendant and 5th defendant mother have no right to sell - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29887 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2025 the share of the plaintiffs share and the same sale deed is liable to be set aside as far 10 as plaintiffs shares in the ancestral properties are having 1/3rd share in the ancestral properties." But on contrary the Respondent No:2 in the compliant states that One Veerabhadra Aradhya as forged his brother Renuka Aradhya signature and sold to one Prema Venkatesh. This itself amounts to misrepresentation which is nothing but fraud as held by the Apex court 12. The Respondent No; 2, Dhanalakshmi the complainant herself is not legal wife of Renuka Aradya because his first wife is still alive and he as not divorced his 1st wife and hence she can't maintain the criminal complaint. Hence the above fraudulent FIR which is based on the above compliant is also not maintainable." 5. On a careful reading of paragraphs 11 and 12 of the plaint filed in O.S.No.327/2008, it is evident that Respondent No.2, who is Plaintiff No.1 in the said suit, has made a categorical and unambiguous admission to the effect that her husband arrayed as Defendant No.4 along with his mother, brother (accused No.1 herein), and sisters, had alienated the ancestral property in favour of the present petitioner. More significantly, paragraph 12 of the plaint clearly discloses that Respondent No.2 has not alleged anywhere that accused No.1 (arrayed as Defendant No.1 in the suit) had forged the signature of her husband, Defendant No.4. On the contrary, specific - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29887 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2025 allegations have been made against her husband, stating that he had neglected the welfare of Respondent No.2 and their children and had colluded with his family members to sell the ancestral property with an intent to deprive them of their rightful share. This partition suit was filed as early as in the year 2008. 6. Despite having taken a clear and consistent stand in the partition suit filed in 2008, Respondent No.2 has now set up a completely new and contradictory narrative in the criminal complaint lodged in 2024. In the said complaint, she now contends that her husband was not a party to the sale deed and that accused No.1 had forged his signature. This version is in direct conflict with her own pleadings in the civil suit and is clearly an afterthought. The law is well-settled that once parties have approached a civil court for resolution of their inter se disputes, especially with respect to immovable property, they ought not to misuse the criminal machinery to gain an undue advantage or to exert pressure on the opposite party. The - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29887 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2025 filing of the present criminal complaint, after nearly 16 years of pendency of the civil suit, appears to be motivated by malice and is a gross abuse of the legal process. 7. The records further reveal that the petitioner had purchased the property in question not only from accused No.1 but also from other family members, including the husband of Respondent No.2, the mother-in-law, and sister-in-law, all of whom had joined in executing the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. The said transaction dates back to the year 2000 and has attained finality through the efflux of time. No challenge appears to have been made to the sale deed within any reasonable period thereafter. 8. The question as to whether Respondent No.2 and her children are entitled to a share in the suit schedule property is a matter exclusively within the domain of the competent civil court and is already the subject matter of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29887 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2025 adjudication in O.S.No.327/2008. Having specifically pleaded in the civil suit that her husband (Defendant No.4) had actively participated in the sale transaction and was a signatory to the same, it is not open for Respondent No.2 at this belated stage to resile from her pleadings and now allege that her husband’s signatures were forged by his brother, accused No.1. Such contradictory pleadings cast serious doubt on the veracity and bona fides of the complaint lodged in Crime No.0389/2024. 9. It is also pertinent to note that the husband of Respondent No.2, i.e., Defendant No.4 in the civil suit and the person whose signature is now alleged to have been forged, has not made any complaint or allegation of forgery. The present complaint has been lodged solely by Respondent No.2, who is the plaintiff in the civil suit, and no material is placed before this Court to suggest that Defendant No.4 is disputing his role in the execution of the sale deed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29887 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2025 10. It is pertinent to note that both Respondent No.2 and her husband – Defendant No.4 are present before this Court. This fact cannot be overlooked, as it has a direct and material bearing on the credibility of the allegations made by Respondent No.2. While Respondent No.2 has, in the pending partition suit, levelled serious allegations against her husband with regard to the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, it is rather telling that both Respondent No.2 and her husband are now jointly prosecuting the present criminal proceedings. Such conduct clearly indicates that the criminal process is being misused as a tool to pressurize and harass the petitioner, rather than to genuinely seek redress for any cognizable offence. The coordinated action by Respondent No.2 and her husband, despite being at loggerheads in civil litigation, casts serious doubt on the bona fides of the criminal complaint. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29887 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2025 11. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that Respondent No.2 is required to pursue her remedies before the competent civil court in the pending partition suit and cannot be permitted to circumvent that process by initiating criminal proceedings based on inconsistent and belated allegations. The filing of the present complaint in Crime No.0389/2024, nearly two decades after the execution of the sale deed and in the face of clear admissions made in a long-pending civil suit, amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law. 12. Accordingly, this Court is satisfied that this is a fit case where the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ought to be exercised to prevent the abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice. ORDER i. The criminal petition is allowed; - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:29887 CRL.P No. 3133 of 2025 ii. The proceedings pending in FIR No.0389/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 42, 464 and 469 of IPC, 1860, are hereby quashed. iii. Any observation made by this Court shall not influence the Court where the partition suit is pending consideration. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT: BHK