1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5068 OF 2020

Between:

Sri. C.Lakshminarayan,

S/o. Late T.Chikkamuniyappa,

Aged about 58 years

No.41, 1^st Main Road, 1^st Cross,

Shivashankar Block,

Hebbal, Bengaluru-560024.

… Petitioner

(By Sri. Mohan Kumar H.G., Advocate)

And:

1.

The State of Karnataka

Through Vishwanathapura Police Station,

Bengaluru Rural, Represented by

State Public Prosecutor,

High Court of Karnataka,

Bengaluru.

2.

Sri. C.A.Chikkanna,

S/o. Anjinappa,

Aged about 50 years,

R/o. No.137, Agrahara Layout,

Yelhanka Hobli,

Bengaluru North Taluk-560064.

3.

M.Shiva Kumar

S/o. Late M.S.Mahadevaiah,

Aged about 50 years,

R/o. Np.109, H.V.S. Layout,

2

Magadi Main Road,

Benglauru-5600079.

… Respondents

(By Sri.K.S.Abhijith, HCGP for R1,

Sri. K.S.Mallikarjunaiah, Advocate for R2

R3 is served )

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of

CR.P.C. praying to quash the impugned complaint dated

23.02.2016 given by the respondent No.2 (Annexure-D)

and impugned first information report dated 25.02.2016 in

Cr.No.55/2016 registered by the respondent No.1 Police

(Annexure-E) the petitioner herein accused No.1 and all

further proceedings pending on the file of the Hon’ble Civil

Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli Bengaluru Rural District of

the Respondent No.1 Police and etc.,

This Criminal 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 Cr.P.C.

praying to quash the FIR registered against this petitioner

for the offences punishable under Section 465, 467, 468,

471 and 420 of IPC and Section 34 of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that based on the

complaint of respondent no.2 making the allegation that

this petitioner has created the General Power of Attorney

(‘GPA’ for short) and the said GPA does not bear the

signature of the respondent no.2. On the strength of the

3

fabricated GPA, sale deed was executed in favour of

respondent No.3. The police based on the complaint

registered the case against this petitioner and the

investigation report is yet to be filed. The petitioner’s

counsel in his argument vehemently contended that

respondent no.2 has executed the power of attorney on

20.1.2007 and while executing the power of attorney he

has signed the said document in Kannada and in an

ingenious method while giving the complaint he has signed

the complaint in English. The counsel would submit that

based on power of attorney sale deed was executed. The

counsel would also submit that respondent no.2 also filed a

civil suit which is pending before the court for adjudication.

A similar issue was raised in the said suit also. The counsel

in support of his argument has relied

RAJESHBHAI

MULJIBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND

ANOTHER reported in (2020) 3 SCC 794, wherein the Apex

Court has held that when the civil suit is pending in respect

of the same issue, in view of the same, the court can

exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

4

3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2

and also the counsel for the State would submit that the

disputed document is sent for FSL. The FSL report is

received and prima facie disclose that the alleged GPA is

forged one and there is prima facie material with regard to

the forgery is concerned. The complaint averment is

specific that alleged GPA does not bear the signature of

respondent no.2 and the same is created. When the

investigation is going on and the same cannot be quashed

and prima facie disclose the offence of forgery.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and also the learned counsel for the respondent,

the document which is pr