IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 405 OF 2019 BETWEEN:

1. MR VALERIAN D'CRUS, S/O JOCREM D'CURS, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/A NEAR OLD CUSTOM OFFICE, CHITRAP VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK - 575 003.

2. MR. SANJAY PAWAR S/O DATTU NARAYAN PAWER, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A BATTAKODI HOUSE, KEMRAL VILLAGE, MANGALORE TALUK - 575 003.

3. PHILOMINA MENEZES, W/O LORENCE MENEZES, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT GODS GIFT HOUSE, Digitally signed by PRASHANTH BEHIND TAURO COMPOUND, N V Location: High BETTAKODI, KINNIGOLI POST, Court of MANGALORE - 574 150.

Karnataka …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. DEEPTHI SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MOODABIDRI POLICE STATION, MANGALORE TALUK, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

2. SRI. IGNATIUS ARANHA S/O SYLVESTER ARANHA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS PRINCE HOUSE, MANNABETTU VILLAGE, KINNIGOLI POST, MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. DIST - 574 150.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1 SRI. NATARAJ BALLAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.421/2017 IN PC.NO.28/2013 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN C.C.NO.421/2017 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFNECE P/U/S 379, 420, 425, 427, 447, 463, 464 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT MOODABIDRI, D.K.

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 in CC.No.421/2017 (arising out of PC.No.28/2013) on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Moodabidri, D.K., registered for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 420, 425, 427, 447, 463, 464 of IPC, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

2. Heard Smt. Deepthi Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Rangaswamy. R, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 and Sri. Nataraj Ballal, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

3. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

4. It is the contention of the complaint - respondent No.2 that the petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 3 have committed the offences under Sections 379, 420, 425, 427, 447, 463, 464 of IPC. It is stated that accused No.1 placing reliance on General Power of Attorney Deed executed by one Mrs. Rejina Tawro, executed the registered sale deed in favour of accused Nos.2 and 3 on 14.06.2004 in respect of a property. It is stated that the said power of attorney deed and the sale deed were executed on the basis of a fabricated document.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 specifically contends that those documents came into existence on the basis of a forged survey sketch prepared by the Revenue Officials who are arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5.

5. It is brought to the notice of the Court that, respondent No.2 had filed a suit for injunction and it is stated that the same is decreed in his favour. However, the fact remains that even though the General Power of Attorney Deed and the sale deed are of the year 2004, respondent No.2 had never sought for any relief in respect of those documents, nor even in respect of the so called forged survey sketch. There is absolutely no reason assigned by respondent No.2 as to why he has not sought for any relief in respect of these documents in a Civil Court. Under such circumstances, alleging that the petitioners have committed the offences as stated above by concocting the document cannot be accepted. Just because, the suit for mandatory injunction filed by respondent No.2 was came to be decreed,