- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5399 CRL.P No. 8197 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8197 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K LALITHA W/O K. LAKSHMINARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.248, 3RD FLOOR 6TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 011 2. SRI K. BALAKRISHNA S/O LATE N. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. K. LAKSHMINARASIMHAMURTHY 3. SRI B NAVEEN KRISHNA S/O K BALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS REP. BY HIS GPA HOLDER SRI. K. LAKSHMINARASIMHAMURTHY 4. SMT. B YASHODA W/O KIRAN KUMAR AGED BOUT 35 YEARS REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER SRI K LAKSHMINARASIMHAMURTHY 5. SMT. K. JAYANTHI W/O K BALAKRISHNA Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5399 CRL.P No. 8197 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS REP. BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT. K LALITHA PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO.151/2, 26TH CROSS 6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BENGALURU - 560 041 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI MARILINGE GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANASHANKARI POLICE STATION REPTD BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001 2. SRI SRIMURHTY S/O NARASIMHAMURHTY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.2, SAI CONSTRUCTION 1ST FLOOR, MARUTHI COMPLEX KUMBARAPET MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI B SOMASHEKAR NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 [ABSENT]) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING TO C.C.NO.15554/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AT BENGALURU AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5399 CRL.P No. 8197 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER These petitioners are accused Nos.2 to 6. Inspite of respondent No.2-complainant is represented through the counsel, the counsel is not pursuing the matter. Hence, this Court in the previous occasion, made it clear that if counsel for respondent No.2 does not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter will be heard in his absence. Today, heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1/State. 2. Now, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners while seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.15554/2020 would contend that this Court already allowed the Crl.P.No.10341/2023 connected with Crl.P.No.10708/2023 vide order dated 12.07.2024 in respect of some of the accused. The counsel also would vehemently contend that if there is any dispute with regard to the execution of sale agreement or any document of GPA and also when the suit is filed for the relief of specific performance, question of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5399 CRL.P No. 8197 of 2024 continuing the criminal proceedings at the instance of an agreement holder who entered into an agreement with the accused does not arise since already civil suit is pending. The counsel also would contend that the material discloses that bank has taken steps to recover the money which was advanced. If there is any such violation, there cannot be any criminal prosecution. Apart from that the counsel would contend that at the instance of the agreement holder, there cannot be any criminal prosecution against the petitioners. 3. The counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the allegation made against these petitioners is that they are the parties to the agreement. The counsel would submit that accused No.2 is a stranger to the complainant and he is not known to the complainant and not executed any document. But the complainant has created the document. The counsel also submits that the complainant has filed the W.P.No.29089/2024 wherein the very petitioners have filed an application to produce the original document allegedly executed by the petitioners. Inspite of the said application, the complainant has not produced any document. Even if any - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5399 CRL.P No. 8197 of 2024 document is executed, the complainant cannot initiate any criminal prosecution since the same is a civil dispute between the parties and cannot give criminal colour to the dispute. Without any intention to cheat the complainant, if any document is executed, there must be at the inception of the transaction, there must be cheating, cannot make use of the alleged execution of document for the criminal prosecution. Hence, there cannot be any abuse of process against these petitioners based on alleged execution of power of attorney and any sale agreement. The counsel also would submit that these petitioners are the strangers and no way done any transaction with the complainant. The counsel also would submit that against this complainant, there are 114 cases and as per the information, he had indulged in filing such cases. 4. Per contra, the counsel appearing for the State would submit that petitioner No.2 and also his family members who are also the parties have executed the document in terms of the allegation made in the complaint and cognizance is also taken in PCR No.10377/2018. The case is also numbered as C.C.No.15554/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5399 CRL.P No. 8197 of 2024 417, 418, 420, 421, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120B and 201 of IPC. Hence, not entitled for the relief. 5. The factual matrix of the case of complainant before the Trial Court who is respondent No.2 in this petition that it is the allegation that these petitioners have indulged in creation of documents with an intention to cheat the prospective purchasers. The petitioners are also being the land owners, joined hands along with one Lakshminarasimha Murthy and entered into the Joint Development Agreement with Archana Jayaprasad. The same was registered on 29.10.2014. The registered GPA came to be executed by Archana Jayaprasad in favour of Lakshminarasimha Murthy and K. Lalitha on the very same day and all of them joined together in executing the registered sale agreement in favour of Archana Jayaprasad and hence, all of them have indulged in creating the depositing of Memorandum of Title Deed with the co-operative bank. Thus, the case of the complainant that these petitioners have indulged in executing the document with an intention to cheat the prospective purchasers. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5399 CRL.P No. 8197 of 2024 6. Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the counsel appearing for the State, the points that would arise for the consideration of this petition are: 1. Whether the petitioners have made out the ground to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.? 2. Whether the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners is amounts to an abuse of process? 3. What order? Point Nos.1 and 2 7. Having heard the petitioners’ counsel and also the counsel appearing for the State and also considering the material available on record, it discloses that a private complaint is filed and learned Magistrate invoking Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. referred the matter to the police and after investigating the matter, the police have filed the charge sheet. The Court has to take note of the factual matrix of the case that the petitioners have entered into an agreement with the complainant but they categorically denies that they have not - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5399 CRL.P No. 8197 of 2024 executed any such document either the sale agreement or any Power of Attorney and contend that the complainant is a stranger to them. The counsel also would submit that already writ petition is filed by the complainant wherein the petitioners have filed an application for summoning of document allegedly executed by the petitioners. This Court has to take note of the fact that when there was a dispute between the parties with regard to the execution of sale agreement and if such transaction is not completed and suit is also filed for the relief of specific performance as observed by this Court in the earlier order dated 12.07.2024 while considering the petition and when the criminal case is also initiated against the bank officials and based on the said sale agreement as well as the alleged power of attorney, there cannot be any criminal prosecution. When civil suit is pending, the same has to be proved in a suit for specific performance with regard to the execution of sale agreement and also the power of attorney are concerned. Unless the cheating is proved prima facie alleging that at the inception of entering into an agreement having an intention to cheat, there cannot be any criminal proceedings. Continuing of the proceedings against the petitioners for the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5399 CRL.P No. 8197 of 2024 offences invoked against the petitioners referred supra cannot be invoked against these petitioners making a general allegation against them for the act of execution of document. If there is any such execution of document, the same has to be decided in a civil case and not in the criminal proceedings as contented by the counsel appearing for the petitioners. Hence, there is a force in the contention of counsel appearing for the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners also vehemently contends that no such agreement also executed. Even assuming that such agreement is executed and power of attorneys is also executed, then, the same has to be decided in civil dispute and not in criminal case. thus, the petitioners have made out a grounds to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings which has been initiated against them and cannot give criminal colour to civil dispute. Hence, I answer the above points as affirmative. Point No.3: 8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5399 CRL.P No. 8197 of 2024 ORDER The Criminal petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings initiated against these petitioners in C.C.No.15554/2020 on the file of CMM Court, Bengaluru is hereby quashed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN