The main legal point established is that if the allegations in the complaint disclose the offence of forgery, the High Court should not interfere with the investigation and that the pendency of civil proceedings does not warrant quashing criminal proceedings.

ORDER :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

1. This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.PC, praying this Court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein in Crime No. 24/2020 pending on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru and pass such other order as deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the Respondent No. 2 had lodged a complaint with the Respondent No. 1 vide complaint dated 3.2.2020 making allegation against these petitioners that they have created a power of attorney and forged the signature of the complainant and making use of the power of attorney executed gift deed and also sale deeds in respect of property bearing Nos. 1/1A, 1/1B to the extent of 1 acre 32 guntas situated at Arehalli Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. Based on the complaint, the Police have registered the case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the alleged power of attorney dated 6.7.1995 and the same is executed by the complainant/Respondent No. 2 and only in the year 2020, notice was issued and also filed a civil suit. When the civil suit is pending before the trial Court with regard to the alleged offence of forgery and fabrication of documents and there is presumption under Section 85 of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of execution of the document, the complaint is nothing but an abuse of process, giving criminal colour to the civil dispute between the parties. Learned Counsel also brought to the notice of this Court with regard to exchange of notice between the parties and also brought to the notice of this Court the original suit in O.S. No. 3747/2020 and also averments made in the complaint. Learned Counsel also relied upon the power of attorney which is marked as Annexure-G. When the civil suit is pending between the parties and allegation has to be proved in the said case and after conclusion of the said case, the Respondent No. 2 can initiate criminal proceedings and there cannot be two parallel proceedings against the petitioners both in civil and criminal proceedings.

4. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the petitioners are not assisting the Investigating Officer in conducting the investigation and they have not produced the original power of attorney and notice has been issued under Section 41[a] of Cr.PC to produce the original and the same is not produced. When serious allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents are alleged against the petitioners herein, the Investigating Officer has to get FSL report with regard to the forgery and hence this Court cannot invoke Section 482 of Cr.PC to stop the investigation and crime has to be unearthed by conducting the probe.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 would vehemently contend that the land originally belonged to late Patel Dodda Shanthappa and the same was purchased by the complainant/respondent and even portion of the land was acquired and the same has been quashed and the matter was taken to the Supreme Court and ultimately the acquisition was cancelled. Learned Counsel would vehemently contend that out of 2 acres 13 guntas of land, 1 acre 32 guntas which has been retained by the Respondent No. 2 is the subject matter of fabrication and forgery and no such power of attorney was executed and it is the specific case of the complainant that signature found on the power of attorney does not belong to her. She also contends that based on the forged power of attorney, gift deeds are created in favour of children of the petitioner No. 2 herein and the documents they are relying upon, they have not produced the original before the Investigating Officer and the very contention of civil suit pending is not a ground to quash the proceedings.

6. Learned C