- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2163 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. GEORGE SAMUEL, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O LATE MARGARETT WILSON, R/AT ‘SAURABHA’ GUDDEYANGADI, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-576 113. 2. PUSHPA WILSON, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, W/O LATE GODWIN P. WILSON, R/AT ‘KEDAR HOUSE’, UDYAVARA VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT-574 118. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HALEEMA AMEEN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE, BY SHO OF UDUPI TOWN POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SARA SAROJA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O WESLI WELHELM KARKADA, R/AT 4TH CROSS, SIDDAROODANAGARA, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 HALENAGARA, BHADRAVATI, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577245. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI M.V.V RAMANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C TO QUASH THE FIR AT CRIME NO.13/2024 OF UDUPI TOWN POLICE STATION DATED 24.01.2024, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, UDUPI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S/120B, 418, 420, 423, 468, 471 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 are at the doors of this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.13/2024, pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Udupi, for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 418, 420, 423, 468, 471 r/w. 34 of the IPC. 2. Heard Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri M.V.V.Ramana, learned counsel for respondent No.2. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 3. The petitioners and the complainant are members of the same family. Petitioner No.1 is the elder brother, petitioner No.2 is the wife of another deceased brother of the complainant. The family is of two brothers and five sisters. The father of the siblings passed away in the year 1989 and the mother on 06.12.2005 leaving behind some landed property. Then begins the problem between the brothers. The share in the property rendered some heartburn and the complainant institutes a suit in O.S.No.30/2017 seeking decree of partition of the property, in which the prime contention of the complainant is that, a general power of attorney so executed at an earlier point in time has been forged and on the strength of the said forged documents, certain properties are transferred to the name of the deceased brother. The suit is pending adjudication before the concerned Court and by the time when the complaint came to be registered, it was 7 years old. The complaint comes to be registered on 24.01.2024, on the score that the property is transferred to the deceased brother on a forged General Power of Attorney, which admittedly happens on 05.06.2006. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 No.13/2024 for the afore-quoted offences. The registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. Smt. Haleema Ameen, learned counsel for petitioners would vehemently contend that the issue which is purely civil in nature is projected to become a crime that too, after institution of the suit in O.S.No.30/2017 i.e., 7 years after instituting the suit. The complainant is the plaintiff. In the case at hand, the same relief is sought before the concerned civil Court. The learned counsel would seek quashment of the proceedings. 5. Per contra, Sri M.V.V.Ramana, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 – complainant would vehemently refute the submissions contending that both the civil proceedings and the criminal proceedings can go hand in hand if the allegation is of forgery. Therefore, if the document is sent to FSL, the truth would come out, as the signatures differ with the admitted signatures. Learned counsel would seek dismissal of the petition contending that investigation in the case at hand in the least is a must. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in seeking dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and the have perused the material on record. 8. The afore-narrated facts, link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. They would not require any reiteration. What brings the petitioners to this Court is the registration of the crime in Crime No.13/2024. The registration of the crime happens upon a complaint being registered by respondent No.2 - complainant. The complainant invokes Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and registers a private complaint for the afore-quoted offences. "ಾಾರರು ನ ೊಳವೇೆಂದೆ:- 1. !ಾಾರರು "ೇ#ೊಳವೇೆಂದೆ, !ಾಾರರು ಭಾ&ವ'ಯ ಹ*ೇನಗರದ ಸಾ- .-ಯ /ಾ&ಥಕ 2ಾ3ೆಯ45 ಸಹ678ಾ9 ಕತವ;ವನು 2006ೇ ಇಸ@ಯ45 Aವ.ದುB, ಪ&ಸುDತ !ಾಾರರು Aವೃ'Dಾ9ದುB Aವೃ'Dಾ9ದುB Aವೃ'Dಾ9ದುB Aವೃ'Dಾ9ದುB, ಈ GೕಲIಂಡ ಭಾ&ವ'ಯ45 @*ಾಸದ45 ತನ ಮಕI*ೆLಂMೆ NಾಸNಾ9ರುOಾDೆ. !ಾಾ-Mೆ ಈಗ ಈಗ ಈಗ ಈಗ ವಯPಾ9ರುವದ-ಂದ ಮತುD. ಅಾೋಗ;ದ ಸಮPೆ; ಇರುವದ-ಂದ "ಾಗೂ ದೂರದ ಪ&ಾಣದ ಬMೆT ಬMೆT ಬMೆT ಬMೆT. ಅPಾಧ;Nಾ9ರುವದ-ಂದ ಖುದುB ಖುದುB ಖುದುB ಖುದುB - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 "ಾಜಾ9 ಈ ಪ&ಕರಣವನು ಾಖ4ಸಲು ಅPಾಧ;Nಾ9ರುವದ-ಂದ, !ಾಾರರ ಪರNಾ9 ಈ ಪ&ಕರಣವನು, ಾಖ4ಸಲು ಮತುD ಪ&ಕರಣದ ಬMೆT ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟY ಇ3ಾZೆMೆ ಇ3ಾZೆMೆ ಇ3ಾZೆMೆ ಇ3ಾZೆMೆ/ಕ[ೇ-Mೆ ಕ[ೇ-Mೆ ಕ[ೇ-Mೆ ಕ[ೇ-Mೆ "ಾಜಾ9 "ಾಜಾ9 "ಾಜಾ9 "ಾಜಾ9 !ಾಾರರ !ಾಾರರ !ಾಾರರ !ಾಾರರ ಪರNಾ9 ಪರNಾ9 ಪರNಾ9 ಪರNಾ9 ಪ&'A\ಸುವೆ ಪ&'A\ಸುವೆ ಪ&'A\ಸುವೆ ಪ&'A\ಸುವೆ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ ಾಂಕ - 06/03/2018 ರಂದು ಭಾ&ವ'ಯ ಎa. ರಂಗಾಥ, ವ8ೕಲರು, ಮತುD ೋಟ- ಇವ-ಂದ ದೃbೕಕ-ಸಲcಟY ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ವನು, !ಾಾರರ ಮಗಾದ ಓಸYe ಸುAe ಕುfಾg ಇವ-Mೆ AೕhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ದ ಪ&'ಯನು "ಾಜರುಪhಸ3ಾ9ೆ. 2. !ಾಾರರು "ೇ#ೊಳವೇೆಂದೆ, ಉಡು j3ೆ5, ಮತುD Oಾಲೂ8ನ ಉಾ;ವರ Mಾ&ಮದ kಾDಗ*ಾದ ಸNೆ ನಂಬ&-21/4ರ45, 0.47 ಎೆ&, ಸNೆ ನಂಬ&21/6ರ45 0.75 ಎೆ& ಮತುD ಮತುD ಮತುD ಮತುD ಸNೆ ನಂಬ&21/7ರ45 0.59 ಎೆ& ಆDಗಳ !ಾಾರರ ತಂೆ ಎ-q h. @ಲra ಮತುD Oಾsಾದ fಾಗೇt @ಲra ಇವರ Mೇu ಆDಗ*ಾ9ದುB, fಾನ ಭೂ-ಾ;ಯ ಮ೦ಡ#sಂದ ಅ\wೋಗದ ಹಕುI ಹಕುI ಹಕುI ಹಕುI ಮಂಜೂಾ'ಾ9ರುತDೆ. !ಾಾರರ ತಂೆಯವರು 1989ರ4., "ಾಗೂ Oಾsಾದ fಾಗೇt @ಲra ಇವರು ಾಂಕ-06/12/2005 ಮೃತಪxYರುOಾDೆ. !ಾಾರರ ತ೦ೆ-Oಾsಯವರು ಮೃತಪxYರುವದ-ಂದ, ಅವರ ಾಲ ನಂತರ ಸ& ಆDಗಳ45 !ಾಾರರು ಅವರ ಸ"ೋದರ-ಸ"ೋದ-ಯವೊ೦Mೆ ಅ@wಾjತ ಸfಾನ ಹಕುI Pಾy\ೕನOೆ ಮತುD .Oಾಸ8Dಯನು "ೊಂರುOಾDೆ. !ಯಾರರು ಸಾ- ೌಕ-ಯ45ದB ೌಕ-ಯ45ದB ೌಕ-ಯ45ದB ೌಕ-ಯ45ದB ಸಮಯದ45 ೆಲಸದ AತD {ೇೆ ಊರುಗಳ45 NಾಸDವ;@ದುB, ಆMಾಗ ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಮೆಯ45, GೕಲIಂಡ kಾDಯ45 ಒ~ಾY9ರುOಾDೆ. 3. !ಾಾರರು - "ೇ#ೊಳವೇೆಂದೆ, !ಾಾರರು ತಮ• ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಆDಗಳ ಬMೆT /ಾಲು ೋ- fಾನ; ಉಡುಯ .-ಯ "ೆಚು•ವ- @e ಾ;ಾಲಯದ45 ಅಸಲು ಾNೆ ನಂ‚ರ-30/2017ರಂOೆ Nಾ;ಜ;ವನು ಸ45ದುB, ಸ& Nಾ;ಜ;ದ45 !ಾಾರರು ತನ ಾನೂಾತ•ಕNಾದ 1/7ೇ ಅಂಶದ ಹಕುI AೕಡುವಂOೆ ಆೋತರು ಮತುD ಇತರ @ರುದ„ Nಾ;ಜ;ವನು ಸ45ರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& Nಾ;ಜ;ವನು fಾಡುವ ಪ…ವದ45. !ಾಾರರು ಆDಗಳ ಪಹuಪತ&ವನು ಪ-6ೕ4ಾಗ ಈ Gೕಲ•ಂಡ ಆDಗಳ †ೕಸಂದ ಸೃ‡Yದ @Nಾತ -4ೕಸು ಪತ&ದಂOೆ !ಾಾರ ಸ"ೋದರ ಮೃತ Mಾhya . @ಲ•a ಇವರ "ೆಸ-Mೆ !ಾಾರರ "ೆಸ-ನ45 †ೕಸಂದ ಸೃ‡Yೊಂಡ @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ದ GೕೆMೆ ೋಂಾವˆೆಾ9ರುವ @[ಾರ ಮತುD 2010ರ45 Pೆ3ೇDa ಕಕಡ ಇವರ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 "ೆಸ-Mೆ †ೕಸಂದ ಸೃ‡Yದ @Nಾತ ಕ&ಯ ಪತ&ದ ಬMೆT MೊOಾD9ದುB, !ಾಾರರು ಸ& @Nಾತ †ೕಸಂದ ಸೃ‡Yದ ಾಖ3ೆಗಳ ಬ„ಕ-ೕಸುವಲ5 ಅಂತ ‰ೂೕಷˆೆಯನು fಾಡುವಂOೆ ಸ"ಾ ಸ& Nಾ;ಜ;ದ45 ೋ-ೊಂhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& Nಾ;ಜ;ವ ಈಗ ತAZೆMೆ {ಾ8 ಇರುತDೆ. 4. !ಾಾರರು "ೇ#ೊಳವೇೆಂದೆ, !ಾಾರರು ತನ ಮಗAMೆ ಈ !ಾ‹ಂMೆ "ಾಜರು ಪhದ ಅ\ಾರಪತ& "ೊರತು ಎಂದೂ ಾ-ಗೂ ಸ"ಾ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ವನು Aೕhರುವಲ5. ಾರೂ ಸ"ಾ !ಾಾರರ45 ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ವನು ಬೆದುೊಡುವಂOೆ ೇ#ರುವಲ5. ಾಂಕ-05/06/2006ರ45 ಆೋತರು ಮತುD Mಾhya . @ಲra ಇವರುಗಳ ಒಟುY Pೇ- ಸfಾನ ಉೆBೕಶಂದ ತೂ- ನŒೆ !ಾಾರರ ಹ8Iನ ಆDಯನು †ೕಸಂದ ದುರುೆBೕಶಂದ ಲಪ~ಾsಸುವ ಉೆBೕಶಂದ @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ವನು ಸೃ‡YೊಂhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ದಂOೆ 1ೇ ಆೋಯು !ಾಾರರ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&•ಾರಕಾ9 ಮೃತ Mಾhya  @ಲra ಇವರ "ೆಸ-Mೆ †ೕಸಂದ ಮತುD ದುರುೆBೕಶಂದ @Nಾತ -4ೕಸು ಪತ&ವನು ಸೃ‡YೊಂhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& @Nಾತ -4ೕಸು ಪತ&ೆI 3ೇ ಆೋಯು PಾŽಾರರಾ9 ಸ.ಯನು fಾhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& !ಾಾರರ ಸ"ೋದ-ಾದ 6&ೕಮ' /ೆ&ೕಮಸು•ಾ ಇವರು Zಾಯಂ ದು{ೈ ANಾಾ9ದುB, ದು{ೈಯ45 NಾಸNಾ9ರುವದ-ಂದ ಸ&ಯವರು ಸ"ಾ ಾವೇ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ವನು ಬೆದುೊಡೇ ಇದBರೂ ಸ"ಾ ಅವರ "ೆಸ-ನ45 †ೕಸಂದ ದುರುೆBೕಶಂದ ಮOೊDಂದು @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ವನು ಆೋತರು ಸೃ‡YೊಂhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ಗಳ ಬMೆT, !ಾಾರ-Mೆ @e ಾ;ಾಲಯದ45ನ ಅಸಲು ಾNೆ ನಂಬ-30/2017ರ45 1ೇ ಆೋಯು ತನ PಾŽಾರಾ9 @[ಾರˆೆಯ ಸಮಯದ45 ಅಂದೆ fಾ• 'ಂಗಳ 2023ರ45 fಾನ ಾ;ಾಲಯದ45 @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ಗಳ ಮೂಲಪ&'ಯನು "ಾಜರುಪhದುB, ಸ& ಾಖ3ೆಗಳನು fಾನ; ಾ;ಾಲಯದ45 A2ಾೆಾ9 ಗುರು'ದ ನಂತರ ಾಾರರು ತನ ವ8ೕಲರ ಮೂಲಕ ದೃbೕಕೃತ ನಕಲನು ಪŒೆದುೊಂಡು ಪ-6ೕ4ಾಗ ಸ& @Nಾತ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ವ †ೕಸಂದ ಆೋತರು ಸೃ‡Yೊ೦ಡ ಾಖ3ೆ ಅಂತ !ಾಾರ-Mೆ ಇ'Dೕ[ೆMೆ MೊOಾDsತು. 5. !ಾಾರರು "ೇ#ೊಳವೇೆಂದೆ, †ೕಸಂದ ಸೃ‡Yೊಂಡ @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ವನು ೧ೇ ಆೋಯು ತನ "ೆಸ-Mೆ ಸೃ‡YೊಂhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ&,@Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ದ ಠPೆD ಪತ&ವನು 1ೇ ಆೋಯು ತನ "ೆಸ-ನ45 ಖ-ೕರುOಾೆ. ಅೋತರು ಮತುD ಮೃತ Mಾhya  @ಲra ಎಲ5ರೂ ಸfಾನ ಉೆBೕಶಂದ ಒಟುY Pೇ- ತೂ-s೦ದ †ೕಸಂದ ಸೃ‡Yೊಂಡ @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ದ ಮೂಲಕ @Nಾತ -4ೕಸು ಪತ& ಮತುD ಕ&ಯ Pಾಧನ ಪತ&ವನು ಸೃ‡YೊಂhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ವನು ಾಂಕ-05/06/2006 ರಂದು 6&ೕ. ಮ~ಾYರು ರOಾ ಕರ "ೆMೆ“, ವ8ೕಲರು ಮತುD ೋಟ- ಇವರ ಕ[ೇ-ಯ45 ದೃbೕಕ-ಸಲcxYದುB ಸ& ಾಂಕದಂದು ಅಥNಾ ಅದರ ಪ…ವದ45 @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ದ ಾಖ3ೆMೆ ಾವೇ ಸ.ಯನು !ಾಾರರು fಾhರುವಲ5 "ಾಗೂ ಖುದುB "ಾಜಾ9ರುವಲ5. ಸ& @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ದ45 PಾŽೕಾರಾ9 ಸ.ಯನು fಾhರುವರರ ಪ-ಚಯ@ರುವಲ5. ಸ& ಾಂಕ-05/06/2006ರಂದು !ಾಾರರು ಭಾ&ವ'ಯ ಹ*ೇನಗರದ ಸಾ- .-ಯ /ಾ&ಥಕ 2ಾ3ೆಯ45 "ಾಜರು ಇದB ಬMೆT ಜೂa 'ಂಗಳ "ಾಜ- ಪಸDಕವನು "ಾಜರು ಪhಸು'DಾBೆ. ಆದB-ಂದ 1ೇ ಆೋಯು !ಾಾರರ ಸ.ಯನು ”ೕಜ-(ನಕ4) fಾh †ೕಸಂದ @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ವನು ಸೃ‡YರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ದ45ರುವ ಸ. !ಾಾರರ ಸ.ಾ9ರುವಲ5. 6. !ಾಾರರು "ೇ#ೊಳವೇೆಂದೆ, !ಾಾರರು ಸ& @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ವ ಸೃ‡Yದ ನಕ4 ಾಖ3ೆ ಅಂತ MೊOಾDದ ನಂತರ ಸ& ಆೋತರ @ರುದ„ ಾನೂನು ಕ&ಮವನು ೈMೊಳವ ಉಡು ನಗರ ”ೕ4ೕಸ —ಾˆೆMೆ ಾಂಕ- 09/11/2023ರಂದು 4˜ತ ದೂರನು Aೕಡುವೇ "ೋ9ದುB, ಸ& ದೂರನು yೕಕ-ಸೇ ಇರುವದ-ಂದ ಸ& ದೂರನು ಾಂಕ 9/11/2023ರಂದು ಉಡುಯ ಅ\ೕ7ಕ-Mೆ (S.P) AೕhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& ದೂರನು ಉಡು ನಗರ ”ೕ4ೕಸು —ಾˆೆMೆ ರNಾAದುB, ಾಂಕ 9/12/2023ರಂದು ಸ& ದೂರನು yೕಕ-ದ ಬMೆT yೕಕೃ'ಯನು AೕhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 ದೂ-ನನyಯ ಆೋತರನು @[ಾರˆೆಯನು fಾಡೇ ಸ& ದೂರನು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟY /ಾ&\ಾರ Nಾ ಾ;ಾಲಯದ45 ವ;ವಹ-ಸುವಂOೆ ಸೂ› ದೂರು ಅjಯನು ಮುಾDಯMೊ#ಸ3ಾ9ೆ ಎಂದು '# ಾಂಕ-20/12/2023ರಂದು .ಂಬರಹವನು AೕhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& .ಂಬರಹದನyಯ ಈ ಾಯನು fಾನ; ಾ;ಾಲಯದ45 ಸ45ಸ3ಾ9ೆ. 7. !ಾಾರರು "ೇ#ೊಳವೇೆಂದೆ, 1 ಆೋಯು ಹಂತಹಂತNಾ9 ತನ ದುಷY ಬು„sಂದ ತನ "ೆಸ-Mೆ ಒಂದು ಾಖ3ೆಯನು ಸೃ‡Yೊಂhರುವ @[ಾರ ಬಯ4Mೆ ಬಂರುತDೆ. 1ೇ ಆೋಯು ಇತರ ಆೋಗ*ೆLಂMೆ ಅಕ&ಮNಾ9 Pೇ- ಸfಾನ ಉೆBೕಶಂದ ಪ-k'ಯ ದು3ಾಭ ಪŒೆದು, !ಾಾರರ ಅಸ"ಾಯಕOೆ "ಾಗೂ ಪ-k'ಯ ದು3ಾಭವನು ಪŒೆದು †ೕಸMಾ-ೆs೦ದ ಮತುD ತಂತ&Mಾ-ೆs೦ದಲೂ !ಾಾರರ ಹ8Iನ ಆDಯನು ಲಪ~ಾsಸುವ ದುರುೆBೕಶಂದಲೂ ಈ @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&ದ ಾಖ3ೆಯನು ಸೃ‡YೊಂಡಾB9ರುತDೆ. ಆೋತರು †ದಲೆಯಾ9 ಜನರe ಪವg ಆœ ಅ~ಾAಯನು ಸೃ‡Yೊಂಡು ಸ& @Nಾತ ಜನರe ಪವg ಆœ ಅ~ಾAಯನು ಾಂಕ-05/06/2006ರಂದು !ಾಾರರು ಅವರ ಸ"ೋದರ 1ೇ ಆೋMೆ Aೕhರುವ ಅ\ಾರ ಪತ&/ಜನರe ಪವg ಅœ ಅ~ಾA ಎನು ವಂOೆ ಾu ಸೃ‡YೊಂhರುOಾDೆ. ಸ& ಸೃ‡Yದ @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&/ಜನರe ಪವg ಆœ ಅ~ಾAಯನು ಉಪ‹ೕ9ೊಂಡು ಆೋತರು ಒಂದು @Nಾತ -4ೕಸು ಪತ& ಮತುD ಕ&ಯ Pಾಧನ ಪತ&ವನು ಸೃ‡YೊಂhರುOಾDೆ. 1ೇ ಆೋಯ "ೆಸ-Mೆ ಾವೇ -ೕ'ಯ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&/ಜನರe ಪವg ಆœ ಅ~ಾAಯನು Aೕಡುವ ಸಂದಭNಾಗ4ೕ ಮತುD ಅಗತ;Oೆಾಗ4ೕ, ಪ&GೕಯNಾಗ4ೕ, !ಾಾರ-Mೆ ಬ೦ರುವಲ5. ಸ& @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&/ಜನರe ಪವg ಆœ ಅ~ಾAಯು Gೕ3ೊ ೕಟೆI ಸೃ‡Yದ ಎಂಬುದು Oೋ-ಬರುವದಲ5ೇ ಅದು ”ೕಜ- ಾಖ3ೆಾ9ರುತDೆ. ಸ& ಾಖ3ೆಯ45 ಕಂಡು ಬರುವ ಸ.ಗಳ !ಾಾರರ ಸ.ಾ9ರುವಲ5. ಆದB-ಂದ ಆೋತರು ತಮ• ಪ&wಾವಂದ ಈ @Nಾತ - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 ಅ\ಾರಪತ&/ಜನರe ಪವg ಆœ ಅ~ಾAಯನು ಸೃ‡Yೊಂhರುವದು Zಾ'&ಾ9ರುತDೆ. 8. !ಾಾರರು "ೇ#ೊಳವೇೆಂದೆ, ಆೋತರು ಆ -ೕ' Oಾವ ಸೃ‡Yರುವ ಈ Gೕ3ೆ "ೇಳ3ಾದ @Nಾತ ಅ\ಾರಪತ&/ಜನರe ಪವg ಆœ ಅ~ಾAಯನು ಆಧ- ಇತರ ಾಖ3ೆಗಳನು ಸೃ‡YೊಂಡಾB9ರುತDೆ. ಆೋತರು ಾಂಕ-07/06/2006ರ -4ೕಸು ಪತ& ಮತುD ಾಂಕ-08/02/2010ರ ಕ&ಯ Pಾಧನ ಪತ& ಎಂಬುಾ9 ಆ -ೕ'ಯ ಾಖ3ೆಯನು ಸೃ‡YೊಂhರುOಾDೆ. !ಾಾರ-Mೆ ತಮ• ಹ8Iನ ಆDಗಳನು {ೇೆಯವ-Mೆ ಪಾ\ೕನ fಾಡುವ ಇಾೆ. ಇ›• 1 ಾವತೂD "ೊಂಲ5. ಆೋತರು !ಾಾರ-Mೆ ಸಂಬಂ\ದ ಅವರ ಹ8Iನ ಆDಗಳನು "ೇMಾದರೂ fಾh ಲಪ~ಾsಸ{ೇೆಂಬ ದುರುೆBೕಶಂದ ಈ ಆ -ೕ'ಾ9 ಾಖ3ೆಗಳ Gೕ3ೆ ಾಖ3ೆಗಳನು ಸೃ‡Yೊಂಡು ಅವಗಳ Aಜ ಾಖ3ೆಗ*ೆಂದು ಉಡು ಸ‚ -jPಾ•g ಮುಂೆ ನಂžೊಂಡು †ೕಸMಾ-ೆsಂದ ಸೃ‡YಾB9ರುತDೆ. Gೕ3ೊ ೕಟೆI ೋhಾಗ3ೇ ಇೊಂದು †ೕಸMಾ-ೆsಂದ ದು3ಾಭ ಪŒೆಯಲು ಆೋಗಳ ಪರಸcರ 2ಾೕ3ಾ9 !ಾಾರರ ಸ.ಗಳನು OಾNೇ ”ೕಜ- fಾh ಸೃ‡Yದ ಾಖ3ೆಗಳ ಎಂದು ರುಜುNಾತುNಾಗುತDೆ. ಆದB-ಂದ ಎ3ಾ5 ಆೋಗಳ: 2ಾೕ3ಾ9 8&ನe ಅಪಾಧವನು ಎಸ9ರುOಾDೆ. 9. !ಾಾರರು "ೇ#ೊಳವೇೆಂದೆ, ಆೋಗಳ ŸೊOೆಾ9 Pೇ-ೊ೦ಡು, ಏಕ ಮನrAಂದ, ದುರುೆBೕಶಂದ, ಅಕ&ಮ 3ಾಭಗ#ಸುವ ಉೆBೕಶಂದ !ಾಾರ-Mೆ †ೕಸ, ವಂಚೆ fಾಡುವ ಸಲುNಾ9 ೈŸೋhೊಂಡು, ಸುಳ, ಅ\ಾರಪತ&/ಜನರe ಪವg ಆœ ಆ~ಾA ಮತುD -j• -4ೕ¡ hೕ¢ ಮತುD ಕ&ಯ Pಾಧನ ಪತ&ವನು ಸೃ‡YೊಂhರುOಾDೆ ಆದB-ಂದ ಆೋಗಳ wಾರ'ೕಯ ಾ;ಯ ಸಂ.Oೆಯ ಕಲಂ-120B, 418, 419, 420, 468, 423, 471 ಕೂŒಾ 34 -ೕOಾ; 6¤ಾಹ ಅಪಾಧವನು ಎಸ9ರುOಾDೆ. ಆದುದ-ಂದ fಾನ ಾ;ಯಲಯವ ಈ ಬMೆT ಆೋಗಳ @ರುದ„ ಪ&ಕರಣವನು ಾಖಲು fಾh, ತAZೆಯ ಪ&8&¥ಯನು ಮುಂದುವ-ಸಲು wಾರ'ೕಯ ಾಗ-ೕಕ ಸುರ¤ಾ ಸ೦.Oೆಯ ಕಲಂ-156(3)ರ -ೕOಾ; ಉಡು ನಗರ ”ೕ4ೕಸು —ಾˆೆಯ ಆರ7ಕ —ಾˆಾ\ಾ-ಯವ-Mೆ ರNಾAಸ{ೇಾ9 /ಾ&ಥೆ." - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 The private complaint is registered on 18.01.2024. The matter is referred for investigation and becomes a crime on 24.01.2024, for the aforesaid offences. On the same cause of action, the complainant had already instituted a suit in O.S.No.30/2017. The allegation of the offence of forgery of a general power of attorney is even taken in the civil suit. The suit is pending adjudication since 7 years and after instituting the suit on the same cause of action, the criminal law is set into motion, on the plea that there is forgery in the case at hand. If this would be permitted, it would be permitting embellishments into a complaint to be given credence and while setting the criminal law into motion, would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL1, wherein it is held as follows: “…. …. …. 14. It is again pertinent to note that, even as per the case of the complainant, the alleged incident of bus theft had taken place in the year 2001, and it was only in 2009 that the substantial complaint was made in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore. It is just not believable that the Ballygunge Police Station concerned, Kolkata would not have taken any action on the report made in 2002 on 1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 650 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 behalf of the powerful body like ISKCON, Kolkata, or on the letter dated 30-9-2006 written by the Branch Manager of ISKCON, Kolkata. Respondent 2 complainant also did not take any concrete action for getting the said complaint registered with regard to the alleged theft of bus for a long period of eight years, till the complaint in the court was filed in the year 2009. 15. In the opinion of the Court such an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the complaint in the court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash the proceedings. If the luxury bus owned by ISKCON, Kolkata Branch in 1998 was so precious to them, they would not have sat silent for such a long time of eight years. In our opinion, the criminal machinery set into motion by filing the complaint for the alleged incident which had taken place eight years ago, that act itself was nothing but a sheer misuse and abuse of the process of the court. 16. That apart, from the bare perusal of the complaint filed before the Court, on the basis of which the FIR was registered at Ballygunge Police Station on 20-2-2009, it is discernible that except bald allegations made in the complaint with regard to the theft of bus in question there was no material or document produced by the complainant to substantiate the allegations against the appellants. Even after the investigation of the said complaint, there was no evidence collected by the investigating officer to prima facie satisfy the ingredients constituting the alleged offences under Sections 468, 471, 406 and 120-BIPC. Even if the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge-sheet are taken at their face value none of the ingredients constituting the alleged offences are culled out. The learned Senior Counsel Mr Shyam Divan for the appellants had strenuously urged relying upon the documents pertaining to the transfer of ownership and registration of the said bus, that the said - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 documents were executed by the then authorised persons of ISKCON, Kolkata, in our opinion, the said documents could not be considered in these proceedings, the same being not the part of the charge-sheet papers. 17. In any case, there is nothing to suggest from the other documents on record of the instant appeals that the investigating officer had even bothered to collect any cogent or substantive evidence against the appellants to prosecute them for the alleged offences. There was no expert opinion obtained or scientific evidence collected on the documents allegedly forged to show as to by whom, when and how the theft of vehicle and forgery of documents were committed. Under the circumstances, allowing such prosecution to continue would not only be an empty formality but would be gross wastage of court's precious time. 18. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have power to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised and with great caution, the said powers ought to be exercised if a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out by the accused. In State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy [State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, (1977) 2 SCC 699 : 1977 SCC (Cri) 404] the Supreme Court had held that the criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 if the court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed. 19. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark decision State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , after considering relevant provisions more particularly Section 482CrPC and the principles of law enunciated by this Court relating to the exercise of extraordinary powers under Article 226, had laid down - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 certain guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing, which have been followed in umpteen number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads as under : (SCC pp. 378-79, para 102) “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.” 20. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy [State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1805] this Court had observed that the court would be justified to quash the proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of court. 21. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N. [Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of T.N., (2022) 15 SCC 164 : (2024) 2 SCC (Cri) 632] that though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 22. In the light of the aforestated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the charge-sheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants- accused.” (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court and the facts obtaining in the case at hand, further investigation if permitted to continue, would undoubtedly become an abuse of the process of the law. Therefore, I find this case to be one such which would require obliteration of the crime in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned crime in Crime No.13/2024 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28302 CRL.P No. 2163 of 2024 and CJM, Udupi, qua the petitioners, stands quashed. (iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 528 of the BNSS and the same would not bind any other proceedings pending between the parties before any other fora. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2 Sl No.: 55