The court reinforced that police have the authority to investigate cognizable offences, and dismissal of FIRs should occur only under rare circumstances when no crime is disclosed.

ORDER :

S. Vishwajith Shetty, J.

Accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.81/2022 registered by Karwar Town Police Station, for offences punishable under Sections 420 , 465, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC, are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case registered against them.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.81/2022 was registered by Karwar Town Police Station for the aforesaid offences against Shravan Ganesh and others based on the first information dated 12.10.2022 received from respondent No.2. Allegation against the accused is that, the property bearing Survey No.206/2B and 206/4 of which the first informant is the original owner has been sold by accused no.1 on the basis of a fraudulent and forged General Power of Attorney of the first informant, in favour of the petitioners herein under three separate sale deeds. Assailing the same, the petitioners who are arraigned as accused nos.2 to 4 in the FIR are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the aforesaid land for valid sale consideration. Petitioners have paid the sale consideration under the sale deeds registered in their favour to accused no.1, which was transferred to his bank account. In the General Power of Attorney executed, it is specifically mentioned that accused no.1 is entitled to collect the sale consideration from the proposed buyers. Respondent no.2 has already filed OS No.23/2023 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court challenging the validity of the General Power of Attorney as well as the sale deeds executed by accused no.1 in favour of the petitioners based on the General Power of Attorney dated 15.07.2017.

5. In support of his arguments he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rudraswamy v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR 2022 KARNATAKA 1055.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 have opposed the petition. They submit that FIR has been registered for cognizable offences and therefore, investigation is necessary to find out the correctness and genuineness of the allegations found in the first information.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that in OS No.23/2023, the attesting witnesses of the General Power of Attorney in question have been examined and they have denied the execution of the said document and also about the signing of the said document as attesting witnesses. Undisputedly, sale consideration was not paid by the petitioners to respondent no.2, who is the undisputed owner of the property, which has been purchased by the petitioners under the disputed sale deeds. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.

8. The material on record would go to show that undisputedly, respondent no.2 is the owner of the aforesaid two items of property, which are sold in portion by accused no.1 in favour of the petitioners herein under the three separate registered sale deads based on the disputed General Power of Attorney dated 15.07.2017, said to have been executed by respondent no.2 in favour of accused no.1. It is also not in dispute that the sale consideration under three disputed sale deeds has not been paid to respondent no.2 who is the real owner of the said properties and on the other hand, sale considerations are allegedly paid by the petitioners through bank transactions in favour of accused no.1, who claims to be the General Power of Attorney holder of respondent no.2.

9. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted that the disputed Genera