- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7553 CRL.P No. 405 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 405 OF 2019 BETWEEN: 1. MR VALERIAN D'CRUS, S/O JOCREM D'CURS, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A NEAR OLD CUSTOM OFFICE, CHITRAP VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK - 575 003. 2. MR. SANJAY PAWAR S/O DATTU NARAYAN PAWER, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A BATTAKODI HOUSE, KEMRAL VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK - 575 003. 3. PHILOMINA MENEZES, W/O LORENCE MENEZES, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT GODS GIFT HOUSE, BEHIND TAURO COMPOUND, BETTAKODI, KINNIGOLI POST, MANGALORE - 574 150. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. DEEPTHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MOODABIDRI POLICE STATION, MANGALORE TALUK, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7553 CRL.P No. 405 of 2019 2. SRI. IGNATIUS ARANHA S/O SYLVESTER ARANHA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS PRINCE HOUSE, MANNABETTU VILLAGE, KINNIGOLI POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DIST - 574 150. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. NATARAJ BALLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.421/2017 IN PC.NO.28/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN C.C.NO.421/2017 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFNECE P/U/S 379, 420, 425, 427, 447, 463, 464 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MOODABIDRI, D.K. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC.No.421/2017 (arising out of PC.No.28/2013) on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri, D.K., registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 425, 427, 447, 463, 464 of IPC, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Heard Smt. Deepthi Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Rangaswamy. R, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Sri. Nataraj - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7553 CRL.P No. 405 of 2019 Ballal, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 4. It is the contention of the complaint - respondent No.2 that the petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offences under Sections 379, 420, 425, 427, 447, 463, 464 of IPC. It is stated that accused No.1 placing reliance on General Power of Attorney Deed executed by one Mrs. Rejina Tawro, executed the registered sale deed in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3 on 14.06.2004 in respect of a property. It is stated that the said power of attorney deed and the sale deed were executed on the basis of a fabricated document. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7553 CRL.P No. 405 of 2019 Learned counsel for respondent No.2 specifically contends that those documents came into existence on the basis of a forged survey sketch prepared by the Revenue Officials who are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5. 5. It is brought to the notice of the Court that, respondent No.2 had filed a suit for injunction and it is stated that the same is decreed in his favour. However, the fact remains that even though the General Power of Attorney Deed and the sale deed are of the year 2004, respondent No.2 had never sought for any relief in respect of those documents, nor even in respect of the so called forged survey sketch. There is absolutely no reason assigned by respondent No.2 as to why he has not sought for any relief in respect of these documents in a Civil Court. Under such circumstances, alleging that the petitioners have committed the offences as stated above by concocting the document cannot be accepted. Just because, the suit for mandatory injunction filed by respondent No.2 was came to be decreed, the same cannot be a ground to launch criminal proceedings against the petitioners. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7553 CRL.P No. 405 of 2019 6. It is pertinent to note that, when respondent No.2 had filed the private complaint in PC.No.28/2013 against the accused, the matter was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of CrPC. The police after investigation filed the 'B' report stating that the dispute is purely of civil nature. Later respondent No.2 filed the protest petition, examined himself as CW1 and got marked several documents. It is on the basis of these materials the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence as per order dated 29.01.2013. But however, the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration, the conduct of respondent No.2 in not challenging any of the documents by filing a proper suit before a Civil Court having jurisdiction. Even according to the learned counsel for respondent No.2, the General Power of Attorney Deed and the sale deed of the year 2004 were not either fabricated or concocted documents, but those documents were executed on the basis of a fabricated survey sketch prepared by the Revenue Officials. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2, contends that there is dispute with regard to identity of the property. When there is dispute regarding identity of the property, when the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7553 CRL.P No. 405 of 2019 survey sketch itself is in dispute, it is for the Civil Court to decide the matter if the parties approach the Court. Unfortunately, no such attempt is made by respondent No.2. But he has chosen to file a private complaint in the year 2013. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that initiation of criminal proceedings is in abuse of process law. Even though, the dispute is purely of civil nature, the learned Magistrate ignoring the 'B' report filed by the Investigating Officer proceeded to take cognizance without any basis. Hence, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings against the petitioners is liable to be quashed as the same is instituted in abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Affirmative' and proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner - accused Nos.1 to 3 herein in CC No.421/2017 (arising out of PC.No.28/2013) on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri, D.K., registered for the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7553 CRL.P No. 405 of 2019 offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 425, 427, 447, 463, 464 of IPC, is hereby quashed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE PNV CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2