Sri K S Samiulla v. State by Hulimavu Ps

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2025CRL.P/3376/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.P 3376 & 1591/2025 (Karnataka HC, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, 21-08-2025) allowed; FIR Crime No.485/2024 Hulimavu PS (Ss.420/465/467/468/471/506 r/w 34 IPC) quashed; forged-GPA allegation held civil title dispute; 2007 gift deeds divested complainant of title; no locus standi; cheating ingredients absent; abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal petitions (CRL.P No. 3376/2025 and CRL.P No. 1591/2025) allowed; the proceedings in Crime No.485/2024 of Hulimavu P.S. for offences under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending before the IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶¶100

Sri K S Samiulla Vs State by Hulimavu Ps — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶100

Issue for consideration

Whether the alleged General Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2020, even assuming it to be a fraudulent or fabricated document, would by itself attract the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. +2 more

¶¶67

Court's answer

Even assuming the GPA dated 13.02.2020 to be a forged document, once it is admitted that respondent No.2 had already gifted the subject properties (Sy.Nos.335/1 and 335/8) in 2007, the essential ingredients of cheating as defined under Section 415 IPC and punishable under Section 420 IPC are not attracted.

¶¶85

Ratio / Principle

The complaint lodged by respondent No.2 partakes the character of a civil dispute over ownership and title rather than constituting a cognizable criminal offence; at best the controversy relates to recital errors and flow of title, which cannot sustain a criminal prosecution.

¶¶85

Key takeaways

Issues pertaining to interpretation and rectification of registered documents (the GPA being used only to rectify recitals/flow of title in the 2007 gift deeds, not the extent of land) fall within the realm of civil law.ratio¶¶81
The extents in the rectification deed dated 15.02.2020 (Sy.No.335/1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas and Sy.No.335/8 measuring 35 guntas) are consistent with the registered sale deeds of 1996 and 2003 and the gift deeds of 2007; the contention that the rectification deed was used to usurp a larger extent of land does not prima facie find support from the document itself.ratio¶¶84

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Quashing — S.482 Cr.P.C. (S.528 BNSS transition filing): FIR Crime No.485/2024 of Hulimavu P.S. under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w 34 IPC, founded on a complaint that the petitioners fabricated a General Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2020 and executed a rectification deed thereon over Sy.No.335/1 (2 acres 8 guntas) and Sy.No.335/8 (35 guntas), quashed in full. The Court found that the complainant (respondent No.2) had conveyed the self-same properties to his sister (petitioner No.2) by registered gift deeds dated 02.07.2007 and had never challenged or sought cancellation of those gift deeds in a civil forum, so he had no locus standi or subsisting right to complain in 2024. Even if the GPA were forged, the ingredients of cheating under Sections 415/420 IPC were absent; the extents in the rectification deed of 15.02.2020 matched the 1996 and 2003 sale deeds and the 2007 gift deeds; rectification of recitals and flow of title is a matter of civil law; and a criminal complaint lodged some 17 years later merely clothed a family property dispute — already the subject of a pending comprehensive civil suit — in criminal colour, amounting to abuse of process.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3376 OF 2025 C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1591 OF 2025

¶9

IN CRL.P No. 3376/2025

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI. K. S. SAMIULLA S/O LATE KAMTEDAR, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,

¶12

SRI. K. S. GULAB JAB W/O K. S. SAMIULLA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

ALL RESIDING AT NO.1096, 7^TH A MAIN, NEAR SAIBABA ASRAMA, B T M LAYOUT, 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH, DHARMARAM COLLEGE, BANGALORE-560029.

¶15

SRI. AMJAD KHAN, S/O BABJAN, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.316, 31^ST B CROSS, 26TH MAIN,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

TILAK NAGAR, JAYANAGAR,

¶19

BANGALORE-560041.

¶20

…PETITIONERS

¶21

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN S., ADVOCATE)

¶22

AND:

¶23

STATE BY HULIMAVU P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶24

SRI. SYED MUSTAFA, S/O LATE SYED RASOOL SAB, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.53, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR INDIAN SCHOOL, KANAKANAGARA YELACHENAHALLI, JP NAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560078.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. A.S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R2)

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., (FILED U/S 528 OF BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.485/2024 AT HULIMAVU P.S., ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE IXTH ADDL. CHIEF MAGISTRATE, BANGALORE CITY FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC.

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

IN CRL.P NO. 1591/2025

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

SRI. K. S. SUNA MIANDAD, S/O K. S. SAMIULLA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶33

SRI. K. S. SALMAN, S/O K. S. SAMIULLA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶34

SMT. K. S. SHABNUM, D/O K. S. SAMIULLA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶35

ALL RESIDING AT NO.1096, 7^TH A MAIN, NEAR SAIBABA ASRAMA, BTM LAYOUT, 1^ST STAGE, BANGALORE SOUTH, DHARMARAM COLLEGE, BANGALORE - 560 029.

¶36

...PETITIONERS

¶37

(BY SRI. PRAVEEN S.,ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

STATE BY HULIMAVU P.S., REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE- 560 001.

¶40

SRI. SYED MUSTAFA, S/O LATE SYED RASOOL SAB,

¶41

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 53, 4^TH CROSS, NEAR INDIAN SCHOOL, KANAKANAGARA, YELACHENAHALLI,

¶44

JP NAGAR POST, BANGALORE - 560 078.

¶45

...RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S.N. HAJIRA, ADV. FOR R2)

¶47

¶48

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶49

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

ORAL ORDER

¶53

These two captioned petitions are taken up together.

¶54

These two petitions are filed by the petitioners / accused Nos.1 to 6 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.485/2024 of Hulimavu P.S., for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶55

The facts leading to this case are as under:

¶56

Respondent No.2/complainant lodged a complaint

¶57

before the jurisdictional police alleging that the present petitioners had fabricated a General Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 13.02.2020. It is further alleged that on the basis of the said forged GPA, the petitioners executed a rectification deed. Acting upon this complaint, respondent No.1/police registered a case in Crime No.485/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶58

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

The substance of the complaint is that the complainant, after returning to Bangalore, has been carrying on silk trade business jointly with his father for over two decades, and thereafter also ventured into real estate transactions. According to the complainant, his sister, Smt. K.S. Gulab Jan (arrayed as accused No.2), in collusion with her husband (petitioner No.1) and their three children, hatched a plan with malafide intent to usurp his valuable properties. It is alleged that they created a forged GPA dated 13.02.2020 without his knowledge and, on the strength of the same, dealt with and transferred property bearing Sy.No.335/1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas and Sy.No.335/8 measuring 35 guntas in their favour. Alleging fraud, cheating and forgery, the complainant lodged the present complaint which culminated in the registration of the aforesaid crime.

¶61

The matter has been heard on at least three occasions. Both learned counsel have addressed detailed

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

arguments and placed reliance on counter-documents in support of their respective contentions.

¶65

Heard the counsels on record and the learned

¶66

High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.

¶67

This Court has given its anxious consideration to the rival contentions and to the voluminous documents produced by both the petitioners as well as respondent No.2/complainant. The short point that arises for consideration at this stage is whether the alleged General Power of Attorney dated 13.02.2020, even assuming it to be a fraudulent or fabricated document, would by itself attract the ingredients of an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC. In other words, the limited issue before this Court is whether registration of the crime and consequent investigation by the police into such allegations is justified when the underlying dispute essentially turns upon the validity and effect of title documents.

¶68

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

This Court has carefully perused the documents

¶71

placed on record by both sides. At the outset, it is necessary to note the inter se relationship between the parties. Respondent No.2/complainant and petitioner No.2 are siblings, while petitioner No.1 is the husband of petitioner No.2, and thereby the brother-in-law of respondent No.2. The records reveal that respondent No.2 purchased three items of agricultural lands, namely Sy.Nos.335/1, 335/7 and 335/8, under a registered sale deed dated 11.01.1996. It further transpires from the record that petitioner No.1 had, at one point of time, acted as the General Power of Attorney holder of respondent No.2. According to petitioner No.1, though the properties were purchased in the name of respondent No.2, part of the sale consideration was in fact contributed by him. This assertion, however, pertains to disputed facts relating to source of funds and cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Be that as it may, on examining the sale deed dated 11.01.1996, it is clear that respondent No.2 was the purchaser and acquired title thereunder. The records further show that under a subsequent registered sale deed dated 21.07.2003, respondent No.2 purchased the remaining portions in Sy.Nos.335/1 and 335/8. Thus, as on 2003, respondent No.2 had become the owner of the entire extent of Sy.No.335/1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas and Sy.No.335/8 measuring 35 guntas, which are the very properties forming the subject-matter of the present criminal complaint.

¶75

The next document of significance is the pair of registered gift deeds executed by respondent No.2 himself in favour of his sister, petitioner No.2, on 02.07.2007. Under these two gift deeds, the complainant gifted away Sy.No.335/1 and Sy.No.335/8 in favour of petitioner No.2.

¶76

If this admitted factual matrix is taken into account, the inevitable consequence is that respondent No.2 divested himself of title and ownership in respect of the said

¶77

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

properties in 2007 itself, and the donee, i.e., petitioner No.2, became the absolute owner. This aspect assumes central importance in deciding whether the subsequent rectification deed executed on the strength of the disputed GPA dated 13.02.2020 could be said to constitute cheating or fraud attracting Section 420 of IPC.

¶80

Once respondent No.2/complainant executed

¶81

the two gift deeds in 2007, he lost all right, title and interest over Sy.Nos.335/1 and 335/8. The petitioners contend that the GPA dated 13.02.2020 was only utilized to enable rectification of the said gift deeds and that the rectification was not with respect to extent of land, but only to properly narrate the flow of title, which according to them was not correctly reflected in the recitals of the earlier gift deeds. This Court finds merit in the contention that such issues essentially pertain to interpretation and rectification of registered documents, which is within the realm of civil law.

¶82

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

On perusal of the rectification deed dated 15.02.2020 (executed on the strength of the disputed GPA), this Court finds that the extent mentioned therein, Sy.No.335/1 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas and Sy.No.335/8 measuring 35 guntas is consistent with the very extents that were reflected in the registered sale deeds of 1996 and 2003, as well as in the gift deeds executed in 2007 by respondent No.2. The contention of respondent No.2 that the rectification deed was utilized to usurp a larger extent of land does not prima facie find support from the contents of the document itself.

¶85

Viewed in this background, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 partakes the character of a civil dispute over ownership and title rather than constituting a cognizable criminal offence. Even assuming the GPA of 13.02.2020 to be a forged document, once it is admitted that respondent No.2 had already gifted the subject properties in 2007, the essential ingredients of cheating as

¶86

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

defined under Section 415 IPC and punishable under Section 420 IPC are not attracted. At best, the controversy relates to recital errors and flow of title in documents, which cannot be stretched to sustain a criminal prosecution.

¶89

It is further brought to the notice of this Court that disputes between the parties in respect of other items of property are already pending in a comprehensive civil suit filed before the competent Civil Court. Respondent No.2 has not challenged the validity of the gift deeds executed by him in 2007 in favour of petitioner No.2, nor has he sought their cancellation in a civil forum. In such circumstances, he had no locus standi to lodge a criminal complaint in 2024 alleging cheating and fraud in respect of properties of which he himself had divested title long back. The police, before registering the crime, ought to have considered the complexity of the matter and relegated respondent No.2 to seek his remedies before the Civil Court.

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶91

13 -

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

Having heard the matter on multiple occasions and having examined the documents, this Court finds that the present dispute is a continuation of civil disputes between close family members over property, which are already the subject-matter of pending civil proceedings. The criminal complaint filed after nearly 17 years of execution of the gift deeds is nothing but an attempt to give a colour of criminality to a civil dispute. Permitting such prosecution to continue would amount to abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value, the fact remains that petitioner No.2 had become the absolute owner of Sy.No.335/1 and Sy.No.335/8 pursuant to the gift deeds of 2007, and hence respondent No.2 had no subsisting right to lodge a complaint. Consequently, the proceedings initiated in Crime No.485/2024 are liable to be quashed.

¶94

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the following:

¶95

14 -

¶96

NC: 2025:KHC:32644 CRL.P No. 3376 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 1591 of 2025

¶97

HC-KAR

¶98

ORDER

¶99

i. Both criminal petitions are allowed ;

¶100

ii. The proceedings pending in Crime No.485/2024, registered by Hulimavu Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, pending on the file of IX Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, are hereby quashed.

¶101

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶102

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶103

MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18

Sri K S Samiulla v. State by Hulimavu Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Samiulla v. State by Hulimavu Ps

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Caroline Kasper Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Galaxy Fashion Showroom Vs Sri Umesh G B

Khalid Ur Rehman Alias Khalid Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sathish Vs State of Karnataka

Sridhara Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Damodar Shenoy Vs M/S Gurupur Narasimha Hanumanth Kini @