- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14207 CRL.P No. 634 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 634 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ARAVIND SHENOY S/O LATE P. DEVADAS SHENOY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O MATADAKANI, MANGALURU CITY, D.K. DISTRICT-575001 2. SRI. RAMESH SHENOY S/O LATE P. DEVADAS SHENOY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O MATADAKANI, MANGALURU CITY, D.K. DISTRICT-575001 &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BARKE POLICE, CENTRAL SUB-DIVISION MANGALURU CITY, THROUGH, THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. SMT. ARCHANA SHENOY WIFE OF LATE ASHOK SHENOY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.7/2/160/1 MATADAKANI, 2ND CROSS, MANGALURU CITY, D.K. DISTRICT-575001 &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHI, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14207 CRL.P No. 634 of 2019 THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 16.07.2018 AND FIR DATED 24.07.2018 IN CRIME NO.136/2018 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BARKE POLICE (HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn.) AND CJM) MANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420, 406, 467 AND 468 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION PURSUANT THERETO: WHICH ARE PRODUCED HEREWITH AND MARKED AS DOCUMENTS 1 AND 2 RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner No.2 has filed this petition challenging registration of First Information Report (henceforth referred to as 'FIR') in Crime No.136/2018 by the respondent No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468 of the Indian Penal Code (henceforth referred to as 'IPC'). 2. The respondent No.2, who is the sister-in-law of the petitioner No.2 lodged information in writing before the respondent No.1 on 24.07.2018 that the petitioner No.2 and her husband were partners in M/s. P.D.S. Marketing. She claimed that her husband died on 24.11.2012 and that the petitioner No.2 taking advantage - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14207 CRL.P No. 634 of 2019 of the situation, had created documents to seem as if she had given up her right in M/s.P.D.S. Marketing and forged her signature thereon. In addition, she claimed that the petitioner No.2 had fraudulently created a Will of her husband in respect of a property owned by him and had sold the said property to clear the liability of the petitioner No.1 in M/s.Aravind Enterprises. She therefore prayed that suitable action be initiated against the petitioners. 3. Based on this, a case in Crime No.136/2018 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467 and 468 of IPC. The petitioners being aggrieved by the initiation of criminal action, have approached this Court. This Court had granted stay of further proceedings against the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner No.2 submits that the respondent No.2 had filed a suit in O.S.No.1129/2018 for a declaration that the Will dated 26.07.2012 allegedly executed by her husband as fraudulent and the consequent sale deed executed by the petitioner No.1 in favour of one Smt.Pushpalatha was illegal and void. 5. He contends that the trial in the suit is underway and therefore, no useful purpose would be served in exposing the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14207 CRL.P No. 634 of 2019 petitioners to a penal prosecution. He also contends that the respondent No.2 had initiated proceedings before the Commercial Court in order to Com.O.S.No.770/2020 in respect of the partnership firm, where she had specifically admitted her signatures on the release and reconstitution of partnership dated 29.11.2012. He therefore submits that the respondent No.2 has lodged a false complaint before the respondent No.1 that the signatures found on the release deed were forged. Thus, he prays that the impugned prosecution of the petitioners be set at naught. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the other hand, submitted that though a suit is filed for declaration that the Will dated 26.07.2012 is fraudulent, question whether the petitioner No.1 had fabricated the Will has to be investigated. As regards the partnership firm and the execution of the deed of discharge and reconstitution of the partnership, he submits that the suit was filed in Com.O.S.No.770/2020, where the trial Court after a detailed trial, had held that the said document was obtained forcibly. He therefore submits that an offence under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC is made out. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14207 CRL.P No. 634 of 2019 7. The learned High Court Government Pleader reiterated the submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. 9. The petitioner No.1 has expired and therefore the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner No.1 has abated. The only accusation against the petitioner No.2 is that he had forged the signature of the respondent No.2 on certain discharge deeds in respect of M/s.P.D.S. Marketing. The respondent No.2 had filed a suit in respect of M/s.P.D.S. Marketing, in Com.O.S.No.770/2020, where she candidly accepted that the petitioner No.2 had forcibly obtained her signature on the deed of discharge and reconstitution of the partnership. Therefore, her allegation in the information furnished to the respondent No.1 that the deed of release and reconstitution of partnership deed dated 29.11.2012 was fabricated and her signatures were forged thereon by the petitioner No.2 was without any basis and was apparently false. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14207 CRL.P No. 634 of 2019 10. In that view of the matter, the further investigation of Crime No.136/2018 is unwarranted. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER i. This petition is allowed; ii. The case in Crime No.136/2018 registered by the respondent No.1 against the petitioner No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 420, 467, 468 of IPC is quashed. However, this will not come in the way of the respondent No. 2 pursuing the civil suit in O.S.No.1129/2018 against the petitioner No.2. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23