- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4466 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. SYED AYUB ALI @ MAHESH KUMAR S/O NUSRATH ALI AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A NO. 682, 28TH CROSS KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT, SIDEHALLI NAGASANDRA - 560 073 POST AND ALSO AT OPP G M PS, HANDANAKERE, CHIKKANAYAKARIAHALLI, TUMKUR, KARNATAKA - 572 119. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHIKKANNA Y.R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SHANKARAPURA POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. RAMANANDA.A SRI. A ANANDA RAO, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 STATE BANK OF INDIA NO.13, GROUND FLOOR, OPP. SRI.RAMAKRISHNA, ASHRAMA B.T. ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING C.C NO 10124/2023 PCR 1838/2018( CRIME NO-14/2022), WHICH IS PENDING ON FILE OF THE XXXVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU CRIME REGISTERED BY, SHANKARAPURA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 34, 420, 419, 465, 468, 471, 120 IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner/accused No.1 is before the Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.10124 of 2023, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 34, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120(B) of the IPC. 2. Heard Sri Chikkarnna Y.R. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Waheeda M.M. learned - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The State Bank of India, who is the complainant, registers a private complaint before the concerned Court in PCR No.1838 of 2018 for several offences including the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of the IPC against. The fulcrum of the allegations lies in paragraph 8 of the complaint, which reads follows: "8. The complaint submits that the Accused herein with an intention to play fraud upon the complainant herein and in collusion with each other have created documents by fabricating, forging the signatures of the various officials including the Sub-Registrar only to avail the loan from the complainant Bank to the tune of Rs.57,12,000/-. In fact the 1st and 2nd Accused with a common intention have committed a wrongful Act and also have committed a criminal conspiracy only to make an unlawful gain that both the Accused herein have with a common intention have created documents only to defraud the complainant herein and hence the Accused have committed an offence under Section 34 read with Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code." (Emphasis added) The allegation is that the accused with an intention to play fraud, have created fake documents by fabricating and forging the signatures of various officials including the Sub-Registrar to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 avail a loan with the complainant/Bank i.e., State Bank of India to the tune of Rs.57,12,000/-. The accused persons have indulged in the said act of creating documents and defraud the complainant/Bank. The concerned Court then directs the respondent - police to investigate into the matter. A crime then comes to be registered by the police in Crime No.14 of 2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 34 and 420 of the IPC. The police after investigation, file a charge sheet and arraigned the petitioner as accused No.1 therein. In the summary of the charge sheet, the allegations against the petitioner are further elaborated by drawing up a detailed seven-page narration of all the acts that are committed by the petitioner. In such circumstances, all the contentions that are advanced by the petitioner to contend that it is a matter, which is purely civil in nature, is on the face of it unacceptable. 4. In that light, it becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of C.S. PRASAD v. C. SATYAKUMAR1, wherein it is observed as follows: "….. ….. ….. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 50 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 21. The short issue that arises for our consideration is whether the High Court erred in quashing the criminal proceedings against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 2 of 2023 arising out of FIR No. 229 of 2021. 22. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. is extraordinary in nature and is to be exercised with great caution. This Court in catena of judgments has emphasised that the High Court must avoid usurping the function of a trial court or conducting a mini- trial when disputed factual questions attend the maintainability of a complaint. The only requirement is to examine whether the uncontroverted allegations, as contained in the FIR, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal5, a Division Bench of this Court had discussed about the scope of Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. as follows: “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 have given 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. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 (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 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 concerned Act (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 concerned Act, 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.” (emphasis supplied) 23. Furthermore, in Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited v. State of Maharashtra6, a three-Judge Bench of this Court had held that the power to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly, and only where the complaint, even if accepted in full, discloses no offence or continuation would amount to abuse of process. This Court had issued the following directions to the High Courts to be kept in mind while exercising the power under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C.: “Conclusions 33. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, our final conclusions on the principal/core issue, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 whether the High Court would be justified in passing an interim order of stay of investigation and/or “no coercive steps to be adopted”, during the pendency of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in what circumstances and whether the High Court would be justified in passing the order of not to arrest the accused or “no coercive steps to be adopted” during the investigation or till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while dismissing/disposing of/not entertaining/not quashing the criminal proceedings/complaint/FIR in exercise of powers under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, our final conclusions are as under: 33.1…. 33.2. Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences. 33.3. It is only in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report that the Court will not permit an investigation to go on. 33.4. The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, as it has been observed, in the “rarest of rare cases” (not to be confused with the formation in the context of death penalty). 33.5. While examining an FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR/complaint. 33.6. Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. 33.7. Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception rather than an ordinary rule. 33.8 to 33.11…. 33.12. The first information report is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. After investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure. 33.13 and 33.14…. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 33.15. When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused and the court when it exercises the power under Section 482CrPC, only has to consider whether the allegations in the FIR disclose commission of a cognizable offence or not. The court is not required to consider on merits whether or not the merits of the allegations make out a cognizable offence and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR. …..” (emphasis supplied) 24. On these lines, it is apt clear that even though the powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. are very wide, its conferment requires the High Courts to be more cautious and diligent. While examining any FIR, the High Court exercising its power under this provision cannot go embarking upon the genuineness of the allegations made. The High Court must only consider whether there exists any sufficient material to proceed against the accused or not and must not be concerned with the reliability, sufficiency, or acceptability of the evidence. 25. Testing on the aforesaid parameters, we find that the complaint dated 08.01.2020 made by the appellant contains categorical allegations that respondent Nos. 1 to 3, by abusing the advanced age and medical vulnerability of the executants, caused the execution and registration of the three settlement deeds to their unlawful advantage, and thereafter used such documents as genuine for the purpose of deriving proprietary benefits. The allegations in the complaint also disclose dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction as well as fabrication and wrongful use of documents. At this stage, we must note that the High Court in its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is bound to take the allegations on its face value. Whether these allegations can ultimately be proved is a matter strictly within the province of the Trial Court. 26. In the impugned order, the High Court has quashed the proceedings primarily on the ground that the validity of the settlement deeds has been upheld in the proceedings before - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 the Civil Court. We are of the view that this approach adopted by the High Court is not correct. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that civil liability and criminal liability may arise from the same set of facts and that the pendency or conclusion of civil proceedings does not bar prosecution where the ingredients of a criminal offence are disclosed. In Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy7, this Court had made it crystal clear that “pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons.” 27. Adjudication in civil matters and criminal prosecution proceed on different principles. The decree passed by the Civil Court neither records findings on criminal intent nor on the existence of offences such as forgery, cheating, or use of forged documents. Therefore, civil adjudication cannot always be treated as determinative of criminal culpability at the stage of quashment. Moreover, in the case at hand, the civil proceedings have not attained finality. 28. Adjudication of forgery, cheating or use of forged documents in relation to a settlement deed will always carry a civil element. Therefore, there cannot be any general proposition that whenever dispute involves a civil element, a criminal proceeding cannot go on. Criminal liability must be examined independently. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were entitled to acquittal only upon failure of proof in the trial and not at the threshold jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. To permit quashing on the sole ground of a civil suit would encourage unscrupulous litigants to defeat criminal prosecution by instituting civil proceedings. 29. A further perusal of the impugned order would show that the High Court has also attached significance to the conduct of the appellant and the delay of almost 6 years on his part in initiation of criminal proceedings without any plausible explanation. The High Court had noted that the appellant remained ex parte instead of participating in the civil proceedings in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 of which he was already a party. Instead, the appellant had preferred a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 private complaint suppressing the fact that the settlement deeds are already a subject matter of the said suit. The High Court had found this conduct of the appellant to be in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and had proceeded to quash the proceedings against them. Before we express our opinion on this, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant observations of the High Court on this aspect: “8. ……. In the said suit O.S. No. 2190 of 2014, the defacto complainant C.S. Prasad was arrayed as 2nd defendant. He had entered appearance through a counsel, but had not contested the suit neither he filed statement or adduced evidence challenging the validity of the registered documents. He remained exparte. If really he had any material to establish that he was cheated by his elder brother by making false documents and forgery, he should have participated in the suit proceedings or atleast filed complaint immediately. He had filed a complaint to the Commissioner of Police only on 08.01.2020 and the same after enquiry was closed on 17.03.2020 as civil dispute. When his complaint was closed as dispute is civil in nature, the suit O.S. No. 2190 of 2014 was pending. Hence, he had all opportunities to file application to set aside the exparte order passed against him on 08.06.2015 and participate in the suit where the validity of the 3 settlements deeds were one of the issues under consideration. 9. Instead of participating in the civil proceeding, the private complaint filed on 12.10.2021 under Section 156(3) of Cr. P.C., suppressing the fact that settlement deeds are subject matter in the pending suit. In this regard it can be safely presumed that the 2nd respondent herein had knowledge about the settlement deeds if not earlier at least on the date of receipt of suit summons in O.S. No. 2190 of 2014. Whereas no plausible explanation placed by him in his complaint for delay of 6 years in filing the complaint.” (emphasis supplied) 30. We are not impressed with the above findings reached by the High Court. In Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited (supra), this Court had made it clear that while exercising the powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., the High Court cannot undertake a roving inquiry into the disputed questions of fact or record findings on the merits of the allegations. On perusal of the above observations of the High Court, we find that the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 High Court has erred in law by embarking upon an inquiry with regard to the conduct of the appellant and credibility or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint and the FIR. Delay in filing a complaint, by itself, is never a ground for quashing criminal proceedings at the threshold. Whether the delay stands satisfactorily explained or whether it impacts the credibility of the prosecution, is a matter of appreciation of evidence before the Trial Court and not for summary determination by the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. 31. It is a settled proposition that when a factual foundation for prosecution exists, criminal law cannot be short-circuited by invoking inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Where allegations require adjudication on evidence, the proper course is to permit the trial to proceed in accordance with law. In the present case, the issues relating to the state of mind of the executants at the time of execution of the settlement deeds, the role of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the execution and the use of the settlement deeds, the existence of fraudulent intent, and the manner in which proprietary advantage was obtained by them, all require a full-fledged trial on evidence." (Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the aforesaid case observes that adjudication of forgery, cheating, or use of forged documents in relation to any document may carry a civil element. However, there can be no general proposition that the existence of a civil remedy bars the continuation of criminal proceedings. Criminal liability must be examined independently. Where a factual foundation for prosecution exists and the allegations require adjudication - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31511 CRL.P No. 4466 of 2026 of evidence, criminal proceedings cannot be short-circuited by invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., and instead the trial must be permitted to proceed in accordance with law. 5. If the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment is applied to the facts of this case, what would unmistakably emerge is that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner do not warrant any interference by this Court do not deserve to be quashed. 6. Therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioner to avail of such remedy, as is available in law, the petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3