IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

BEFORE:

THE HON9BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 5555/2020

BETWEEN:

1.

SMT REVAMMA

W/O LATE DODDA SHANTHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS

R/A NO. 228, AREHALLI

VILLAGE, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,

BENGALURU - 560 061.

2.

SHRI SHIVARUDRAPPA

S/O LATE DODDA SHANTHAPPA

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

R/A NO. 228/1,

AREHALLI VILLAGE

UTTARAHALLI HOBLI,

BENGALURU 3 560 061.

... PETITIONERS

[BY SRI. V. B. SHIVA KUMAR, ADV.]

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY SUBRAMANYAPURA

POLICE STATION

SUBRAMANYAPURA,

BENGALURU 3 560 061.

REP. BY SPP,

HCK, BENGALURU 3 01

2.

SMT. K.V. SATHYAVATHI

W/O LATE T.L. RAMAIAH

AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS

NO.13, VENKATASWAMAPPA LANE

LALBAGH UPPARAHALLI,

2

LALBAGH WEST GATE

BENGALURU 3 560 004.

& RESPONDENTS

[BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G, HCGP FOR R1;

SMT. RAKSHITHA D.J., ADV FOR R2]

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC,

PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE 1^ST

RESPONDENT ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY

THE

2^ND

RESPONDENT

BEFORE

THE

II

ADDL.C.M.M.,

BENGALURU IN CR. NO. 24/2020 AT ANNEXURE-C.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

O R D E R

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

3

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

4

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 absue 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.

5

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 a