IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that civil disputes can coexist with criminal allegations, and the merits of such allegations must be determined through trial, not preemptively dismissed.

ORDER :

1. The petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No. 118 of 2024 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri P. Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No. 1 and Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No. 2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:

The complainant is the 2nd respondent. A complaint comes to be registered by the 2nd respondent on 23-05-2024 alleging aforesaid offences against the petitioners. The gist of the complaint is that the parents of the complainant had four daughters. The father of the complainant had executed a Will dated 14-08-2002 in respect of all his properties and dies on 31-07-2008. After the death of the father of the complainant and one of her sister, the revenue entries were completely standing in the name of the complainant and her sisters. On 21-05-2024 when they sought to verify the records in respect of the property, they come across a Gift Deed dated 19-02-2024 executed by the 1st petitioner in favour of the 2nd petitioner in respect of property No. 12 situated at Aswathkatte Road, Karethimmanahalli, Bengaluru where the father of the complainant was running a Company by name ‘Bengaluru Silks Cloth Finishing’. On verification of records and the revenue entries, the complainant comes to know that the father of the complainant had executed a Will dated 01-10-2005 in favour of the husband of the 1st petitioner and father of the 2nd petitioner. After the death of the husband of the 1st petitioner, the 1st petitioner executed a Gift Deed in favour of the 2nd petitioner and revenue records at the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (‘BBMP’) were sought to be transferred in his favour under the signature and seal of the Assistant Revenue Officer pursuant to the said transaction. It is upon this incident, the complainant registers a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No. 118 of 2024. Even before the ink on the complaint could dry, the petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of the crime.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the issue is purely civil in nature. There is no question of cheating or forgery, as the husband of the 1st petitioner and the father of the 2nd petitioner was the recipient of the Will from the hands of one Jitendra D. Engineer, the father of the complainant. Therefore, the property having come to the hands of the 1st petitioner, execution of the gift deed by her in favour of the 2nd petitioner is no crime. He would further contend that the 2nd petitioner has preferred a suit in O.S. No. 3493 of 2024 wherein the concerned Court has granted a temporary injunction.

5. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa appearing for the complainant would refute the submissions to contend that the father of the complainant has made a Will in favour of the members of the family way back in the year 2002 and the Will that the petitioners seek to contend is on the face of it forged, as in the teeth of a Will registered, the Will that is now sought to be projected would pale into insignificance. The signatures on the two Wills also completely vary. The gift deed is executed and a forged tax paid receipt in the name of the 2nd petitioner is generated by using Adobe photo shop. Every detail of the property is the same except the name of the owner. A computerized receipt is also appended to show that the tax paid receipt is in the name of the complainant. Therefore, the earlier one is forged. In the same way, for every year forged documents are produced as tax paid receipts, may be in connivance with the officials of the BBMP. He would submit that these are matters for trial. Forgery, on the face of it, is demonstrable is his submission.

6. I have given my anxious consi