IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that allegations of forgery and cheating can coexist with civil disputes, allowing for criminal proceedings to continue.

ORDER :

M. Nagaprasanna, J.

The petitioners/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.430 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC.

2. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The 2nd respondent, the complainant and petitioners 1 and 2 are members of the same family. The father of the complainant who is also the father of the 2nd petitioner had acquired a property pursuant to a registered sale deed in the year 1997 from one Dr. Latha Natarajan who acquired the land through a document executed by the Bangalore Development Authority. Thus, the father of the complainant became the absolute owner of the property. He dies. The mother who was suffering from cancer is said to have executed a mortgage deed in favour of ICICI Bank without the knowledge of the complainant by creating a mortgage for availing loan upon the property for Rs.7.10 crores. The said amount is transferred by the Bank into the account of the 1st petitioner. It is said to have been utilized by the 1st petitioner keeping the complainant in dark. Broadly on these circumstances, the complainant registered a complaint against the petitioners on 13-8- 2023. The registration of the complaint led to a crime in Crime No.430 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. The registration of the crime drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. A coordinate Bench of this Court on 25-09-2023 grants an interim order of stay of further investigation. Therefore, the investigation is stalled.

3. Heard Sri N. Vivek, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri P. Thejesh, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the issue is purely civil in nature. The complainant appears to be aggrieved by her not getting any share in the property. Instead of agitating the same before a civil Court by filing an appropriate suit, the complainant is wanting to set the criminal law in motion, only to harass the petitioners or settle her scores. He would contend that the property is mortgaged with the Bank and installments towards the loan are being paid by the petitioners. Khatha is also changed in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, there is no ground to continue the investigation against these petitioners.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri P.Prasanna Kumar representing the 2nd respondent/complainant takes this Court through the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the claim of the petitioners is on complete forged documents. The first forgery comes about when they secured a family tree excluding the complainant, the daughter of the deceased. Then begins the next fake document that is the application for khatha. The complainant has also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.26382 of 2023. But the present crime is necessary to be continued as forgery is apparent on the face of the record. He would submit that without the complainant being depicted as a member of the family, Rs.7.10 crores loan is raised by the petitioners upon the property in which the complainant is also entitled to a share. The entire property is now subject matter of mortgage.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that the matter is yet to be investigated into, as the interim order interdicted investigation.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue at this juncture lies in a narrow compass. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, a sibling or a family member of the petitioners. The complaint comes about after the death of the father of the complainant who had purchased the property in the year 1997. After his demise on 02-02-2016, accused