Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 24322
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
SNEHA. R and ARAVIND GREGORY – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA and DIVYA PURUSHOTHAM – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7312 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MS. RACHANA P. PISE
For the Respondents: SRI. RAHUL RAI K, SRI. SHARATH S. GOGI
Court can quash criminal proceedings if the same issues are under adjudication in civil cases, preventing abuse of legal process.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 407, 420, 465, 467 and 34 - Quashing of FIR - Petitioners alleged to have forged documents and committed fraud involving substantial investment in developmental property - Criminal proceedings initiated parallel to civil suit for specific performance and recovery of investment - Court highlighted the principle that pendency of civil proceedings does not preclude criminal prosecution, yet found that criminal proceedings were unwarranted when core issues of forgery were being adjudicated in the commercial court - Continuation of criminal proceedings held to be an abuse of process. (Paras 1, 16, 21, and 25)
(B) Judicial Approach - The court emphasized that complex issues regarding investment, property rights, and alleged forgery should be primarily adjudicated in the commercial suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. (Paras 18, 22, and 23)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of criminal proceedings while civil suit is ongoing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. allegations and the dispute concerning authenticity. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. need for comprehensive adjudication in civil court. (Para 16 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. court's decision not to proceed with criminal action. (Para 22 , 23 , 24) |
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No. 51/2024 for the offence punishable under Sections 407 , 420, 465 and 467 read with Section 34 of the IPC .
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
The second respondent/defacto complainant filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C ., alleging that the petitioners forged her signatures and created fabricated documents styled as a rental agreement dated 16.12.2023 and an addendum to the memorandum of understanding dated 25.03.2022. It is further alleged that in the said forged documents, the petitioners have also forged the signature of the complainant’s husband, showing him as a witness to the addendum dated 25.03.2022 and also on a consent letter. Having noticed these forged documents, the complainant states that she approached one Shri Naveen S. Kosti, a handwriting and fingerprint expert, and obtained an opinion report in respect of the disputed signatures appearing on the alleged documents.
3. The complainant further alleged that despite the expiry of the rental agreement dated 08.12.2021 and after having delivered vacant possession of the schedule property, the petitioners, in collusion with her husband, have fabricated the above-said documents and committed fraud. On this basis, the present private complaint came to be filed.
4. Pursuant to the filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate referred the matter under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C . to the jurisdictional police, which culminated in registration of Crime No.51/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 407 , 420, 465, 467 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The petitioners, however, assert that possession of the schedule property was delivered to them pursuant to the memorandum of understanding dated 08.12.2021, followed by the rental agreement of even date. They contend that respondent no.2 is attempting to subvert civil proceedings, more particularly the commercial suit filed by the petitioners seeking specific performance of the memorandum of understanding, under which they are entitled to utilise the developed property for 20 years. It is their contention that respondent no.2 has voluntarily executed the addendum dated 25.03.2022, since the petitioners made investments far in excess of what was originally agreed. The petitioners dispute the bald allegation of forgery, contending that respondent no.2 is attempting to wriggle out of voluntarily executed documents by resorting to criminal prosecution as an arm- twisting tactic.
6. Placing reliance on the photographs and documents produced, petitioners submit that, acting bona fide and believing their rights under the memorandum of understanding and subsequent rental agreement, they have invested close to `6,78,16,549/-. They therefore assert that their rights must first be adjudicated in Commercial O.S.No.11/2025, where enforcement of the memorandum of understanding dated 08.12.2021 is under consideration. The launching of parallel criminal prosecution, according to them, is unwarranted. It is further urged that earlier litigation shows respondent no.2 had attempted to dispossess them, compelling the petitioners to file O.S.No.42/2023 seeking injunction. In retaliation, respondent no.2 filed an eviction suit disputing subsequent transactions, which led to the comprehensive suit for enforcement. In such circumstances, continuation of the criminal case amounts to abuse of process. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Delhi Race Club Ltd. v. Union of India (2012) 8 SCC 680, to contend that the offences alleged are covered by the princip
