Adam. B. S. Vs State by Adugodi P. S. — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Adam. B. S. Vs State by Adugodi P. S. — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

All three criminal petitions (CRL.P Nos. 10171, 9981 and 12087 of 2023) allowed; proceedings in Crime No.203/2023 of Adugodi Police Station, pending before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore, quashed insofar as the petitioners (accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5) are concerned, without prejudice to respondent No.2-complainant's civil cases against any of the petitioners.

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in Crime No.203/2023 of Adugodi Police Station (Sections 406, 417, 420 r/w 34 IPC), pending before the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5, who contend that even if the complaint contents are proved they cannot be convicted and that the matter is purely a civil transaction given a criminal colour. +1 more

Court's answer

All the Criminal Petitions are allowed; the proceedings in Crime No.203/2023, pending on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bangalore, stand quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned, and the quashing will not come in the way of respondent No.2-complainant proceeding with civil cases against any of the petitioners in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

As regards accused No.2, the complaint makes no mention of her being party to accused No.1's financial transactions with the complainant; her only alleged role is willingly accepting the gift executed in her favour. Absent specific allegations of her participation in duping the complainant, the question of continuing the criminal proceedings against her does not arise, and the complainant is at liberty to initiate appropriate civil proceedings against her.

Key takeaways

Accused No.3 appears to be a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration; there are no allegations of his involvement in duping the complainant, no allegation of criminal conspiracy against any accused other than No.1, and whatever overt acts are alleged are against accused No.1 alone; consequently, continuation of the criminal proceedings against accused No.3 does not arise.ratio¶81
Accused No.5 is only a witness to the sale deed and his name itself is not mentioned in the complaint; therefore the question of proceedings against him also does not arise.ratio¶82-83
Observation in passing: the complaint and documents prima facie reveal financial transactions between respondent No.2-complainant and accused No.1, and the allegations reveal that accused No.1 has prima facie cheated her; however, accused No.1 is dead and the proceedings against him stand abated.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (M.I. Arun, J.), 11.11.2025 — Crl.P. Nos. 10171, 9981 and 12087 of 2023 (connected) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. — Petitioners are accused Nos. 2, 3 and 5 in Crime No.203/2023 of Adugodi Police Station (Sections 406, 417, 420 r/w 34 IPC), registered on respondent No.2-complainant's complaint dated 12.08.2023 alleging that the deceased accused No.1, having bought the subject property with money paid from her account, instead of conveying it to her fraudulently gifted it to his wife (accused No.2), who sold it to accused No.3 with finance from accused No.4-Bank, accused No.5 attesting the sale deed. Held: the complaint nowhere alleged that accused No.2 was party to accused No.1's dealings, her only alleged role being willing acceptance of the gift; accused No.3 appeared to be a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and there was no allegation of criminal conspiracy against any accused other than No.1, the overt acts being attributed solely to accused No.1; accused No.5 was a mere witness whose name did not appear in the complaint; continuing the criminal proceedings against them did not arise, civil remedies remaining open. All petitions allowed and proceedings quashed qua the petitioners. Proceedings had abated against the deceased accused No.1 and been dropped against accused No.4.