Nagaraju B H Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0406/2024 REGISTER MADANAYAKANAHALLY P.S., ON PENDING FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 419, 420, 465 AND 406 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1.

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶26

CAV ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C / 528

¶28

of BNSS, seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.0406/2024 registered by Madanayakanahally Police Station, Bengaluru, for offence punishable under Sections 417, 419,420, 465, 406 of IPC which is pending on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jnr. Division) and JMFC Court, Nelamangala , Bengaluru .

¶29

Petitioner is arraigned as accused no.1 in the

¶30

FIR.

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Brief Facts:- The complaint was lodged on

¶34

12.05.2024 by one keshava Murthy s/o late Sripathiah alleging that he is the owner of vacant sites bearing Nos.131 and 132, situated at Lakshmipura Village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, which were originally part of old Assessment No.60 and presently assessed as No.60/6. It is stated that the said properties are his self-acquired properties having been purchased under a registered sale deed executed by one Sri Lalan Kumar Todi, the General Power of Attorney holder of Sri Sushil Kumar Todi. It is alleged that one B.H. Nagaraju i.e., petitioner, forged the complainant’s photograph and signature and by impersonating him got a bogus gift deed registered before the Sub-Registrar, Vasanthapura, Bengaluru, on 20.05.2022, under Document No. DSP-103787-2022-23, CD No. DSPD1073, thereby transferring the said property in his own name. It is further alleged that the complainant and the said accused have no relationship whatsoever, and that the accused, by

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

fabricating documents and misusing the process of registration, has committed offences of forgery, cheating, and criminal breach of trust.

¶39

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional SPP. for respondent no.1/State, learned senior counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant and perused the material on record.

¶40

The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner is a businessman and is personally known to the complainant for more than two decades, both residing in the same locality of Dasanapura Hobli. It is contended that the complainant himself was present at the time of registration of the gift deed dated 20.05.2022 and that his photograph, signature, and thumb impression are duly captured in the Kaveri software maintained by the Sub-Registrar’s office.

¶41

It is further contended that there was an inordinate delay of nearly two years in filing the complaint,

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

which seriously affects its credibility. According to the petitioner, the complaint is lodged due to personal vendetta, with an attempt to blackmail the petitioner. It is submitted that the dispute, if any, is purely of civil nature and the complainant, if aggrieved, has a remedy before the civil court to seek declaration and cancellation of the gift deed.

¶45

The learned counsel further contends that the

¶46

ingredients of the alleged offences are not made out, and that the FIR registered by the police is baseless and without any prima facie material. On these grounds, it is prayed that the FIR be quashed.

¶47

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following paras of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court:

¶48

a) In Usha Chakraborty v. State of West

¶49

Bengal reported in AIR 2023 SC 688, held at para no. 11 , as hereunder :

¶50

6 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

“11. In the aforesaid circumstances, coupled with the fact that in respect of the issue involved, which is of civil nature, the respondent had already approached the jurisdictional civil court by instituting a civil suit and it is pending, there can be no doubt with respect to the fact that the attempt on the part of the respondent is to use the criminal proceedings as weapon of harassment against the appellants. The indisputable facts that the respondent has filed the pending title suit in the year 2015, he got no case that he obtained an interim relief against his removal from the office of Secretary of the School Managing Committee as also the trusteeship, that he filed the stated application for an order for investigation only in April 2017 together with absence of a case that despite such removal he got a right to get informed of the affairs of the school and also the trust, would only support the said conclusion. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that this case invites invocation of the power under Section 482CrPC to quash the FIR registered based on the direction of the Magistrate Court in the afore-stated application and all further proceeding in pursuance thereof. Also, we have no hesitation to hold that permitting continuance of the criminal proceedings against the appellants in the aforesaid

¶54

7 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

circumstances would result in abuse of the process of court and also in miscarriage of justice.

¶58

b) In Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v.

¶59

State ( NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and

¶60

Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706, held at in para nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 as hereunder :

¶61

24. We do not see how it can be contended by any stretch of imagination that the appellants have misappropriated the amount or dishonestly used the amount contrary to any law or contract. In any case, we find that the dispute has the contours of a dispute of civil nature and does not constitute a criminal offence.

¶62

25. Having given our anxious consideration, we are of the view that assuming that there is a security deposit of rupees one crore and that he has misappropriated the dispute between the two parties can only be a civil dispute.

¶63

26. In Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd. [Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC (India) Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 188] , this Court observed as follows : (SCC p. 749, para 13)

¶64

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶65

HC-KAR

¶66

“13. … Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged.”

¶67

The Court noticed a growing trend in business circles to convert purely civil dispute into criminal cases.

¶68

27. We find it strange that the complainant has not made any attemp t for the recovery of the money of rupees one crore except by filing this criminal complaint. This action appears to be mala fide and unsustainable.

¶69

c) In Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala And

¶70

Others reported in (2019)2 SCC 401, held in para 10 and 11 as hereunder:-

¶71

“10. Having heard the appellant as party in person and the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the original accused as well as the State of Kerala and considering the judgment [Tomy Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 33330] and order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the learned High Court has not committed any error in quashing the criminal

¶72

9 -

¶73

NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

proceedings initiated by the complainant. Even considering the allegations and averments made in the FIR and the case on behalf of the appellant, it cannot be said that the ingredients of Sections 406 and 420 are at all satisfied. The dispute between the parties at the most can be said to be the civil dispute and it is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute. Therefore, we are also of the opinion that continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused will be an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the High Court has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings. Merely because the original accused might not have paid the amount due and payable under the agreement or might not have paid the amount in lieu of one month's notice before terminating the agreement by itself cannot be said to be a cheating and/or having committed offence under Sections 406 and 420 IPC as alleged. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the High Court.

¶76

11. Insofar as the submissions made on behalf of the appellant-party in person that initially the learned Judge dismissed the application and, thereafter when the judgment was dictated and pronounced, the learned Judge has allowed the application and, therefore, the impugned judgment [Tomy Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine

¶77

10 -

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

Ker 33330] and order passed by High Court is required to be quashed and set aside is concerned, the aforesaid has no substance. What is produced as P-45 is the docket of the file, which does not bear the signature of the learned Judge. Therefore, it cannot be said that initially the learned Judge dismissed the petition and, thereafter, when the judgment was pronounced the order was changed and the application was allowed. Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, we are more than satisfied that there was no criminality on part of the accused and a civil dispute is tried to be converted into a criminal dispute. Thus to continue the criminal proceedings against the accused would be an abuse of the process of law. Therefore, the High Court has rightly exercised the powers under Section 482 CrPC and has rightly quashed the criminal proceedings. In view of the aforesaid and for the reasons stated above, the present appeal fails and deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.”

¶81

Learned Additional SPP for the respondentState submits that the allegations made in the complaint clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences of forgery, cheating, and impersonation. The materials

¶82

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

collected during preliminary enquiry indicate that the petitioner has played an active role in getting a forged gift deed registered in his name. The question whether the complainant was actually present or whether the document was fabricated are all matters for investigation and cannot be adjudicated at this stage. It is therefore prayed that the petition be dismissed.

¶85

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that the complainant and petitioner were decree holders in a suit for specific performance relating to property situated in the same village. On the date of registration of the alleged gift deed, the complainant had visited the Sub-Registrar’s Office in connection with property registration proceedings arising out of the decree in the said suit. Taking undue advantage of this situation, the petitioner forged the photograph and signature of the complainant and got registered a fraudulent gift deed without the complainant’s knowledge or consent. It is further contended that the complainant

¶86

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

came to know about the fraudulent registration only much later, which explains the delay in lodging the complaint after two years. It is further submitted that the complainant and the petitioner are not related in any manner, and the allegations clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences requiring detailed investigation. Hence, the matter requires to be thoroughly investigated and cannot be quashed at the threshold.

¶89

Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2956 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1105 of 2024), reported in 2025 INSC 818 , in the case of Kathyayini v. Sidhharth P.S. Reddy and Ors. , wherein it has been held as under:”

¶90

“ 19…………..In the case of K. Jagadish v. Udaya Kumar G.S. and another reported in (2020) 14 SCC 552 ,this Court has reviewed its precedents which clarify the position. The relevant paragraph from the above judgment is extracted below:

¶91

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

"8. It is thus well settled that in certain cases the very same set of facts may give rise to remedies in civil as well as in criminal proceedings and even if a civil remedy is availed by a party, he is not precluded from setting in motion the proceedings in criminal law."

¶94

20. In Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar and another reported in (1985) 2 SCC 370 , this Court summed up the distinction between the two remedies as under:

¶95

"21. There are a large number of cases where criminal law and civil law can run side by side. The two remedies are not mutually exclusive but clearly coextensive and essentially differ in their content and consequence. The object of the criminal law is to punish an offender who commits an offence against a person, property or the State for which the accused, on proof of the offence, is deprived of his liberty and in some cases even his life. This does not, however, affect the civil remedies at all for suing the wrongdoer in cases like arson, accidents, etc. It is an anathema to suppose that when a civil remedy is available, a criminal prosecution is

¶96

14 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

completely barred. The two types of actions are quite different in content, scope and import. It is not at all intelligible to us to take the stand that if the husband dishonestly misappropriates stridhan property of his wife, though kept in his custody, that would bar prosecution under the Section 406 IPC or render the ingredients of Section 405 IPC nugatory or abortive. To say that because the stridhan of a married woman is kept in the custody of her husband, no action against him can be taken as no offence is committed is to override and distort the real intent of the law."

¶100

21. The aforesaid view was reiterated in Kamaladevi Agarwal v. State of W.B. and others reported in (2002) 1 SCC 555,

¶101

"17. In view of the preponderance of authorities to the contrary, we are satisfied that the High Court was not justified in quashing the proceedings initiated by the appellant against the respondents. We are also not impressed by the argument that as the civil suit was pending in the High Court, the Magistrate was not justified to proceed with the

¶102

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

criminal case either in law or on the basis of propriety. Criminal cases have to be proceeded with in accordance with the procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the pendency of a civil action in a different court even though higher in status and authority, cannot be made a basis for quashing of the proceedings."

¶105

22. After surveying the abovementioned cases, this Court in K. Jagadish (supra) set aside the holding of High Court to quash the criminal proceedings and held that criminal proceedings shall continue to its logical end.

¶106

23. The above precedents set by this Court make it crystal clear that pendency of civil proceedings on the same subject matter, involving the same parties is no justification to quash the criminal proceedings if a prima facie case exists against the accused persons…………….. ”

¶107

The principal question for determination is whether the allegations made in the complaint, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation, and whether this Court

¶108

16 -

¶109

NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

should exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

¶112

It is a settled principle that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and with caution, only where the complaint does not disclose any offence or where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law. The Court, at this stage, cannot embark upon an enquiry into the truth or otherwise of the allegations in the complaint, nor can it evaluate the evidence at the threshold.

¶113

In the instant case, the complainant has specifically alleged that the petitioner has forged his photograph and signature and, by impersonation, executed a gift deed in his own favour. The said allegations, if accepted on their face value, clearly constitute the ingredients of offences registered.

¶114

The defence of petitioner that the complainant himself appeared before the Sub-Registrar and executed

¶115

17 - NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

the document are all matters of evidence which can only be established during investigation and trial. The veracity of the document and the authenticity of the signatures cannot be determined by this Court in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶118

Even assuming that the complainant may also have a civil remedy, it is well settled that the existence of a civil dispute does not preclude the criminal law from being set in motion where the allegations disclose criminal misconduct.

¶119

The contention that the matter is civil in nature also cannot be accepted at this stage. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 , has held that where the allegations in the complaint disclose the commission of cognizable offences, the Court should not interfere with the investigation merely because the same set of facts may give rise to civil liability.

¶120

18 - NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

The delay in filing the complaint by itself cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings when serious allegations of forgery and fabrication of registered documents are made. These are all matters that require proper investigation.

¶123

In Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander and Anr., reported in (2012) 9 SCC 460 , the Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court must only see whether the uncontroverted allegations prima facie establish the ingredients of the offence; the Court cannot undertake a detailed analysis of evidence or documents.

¶124

In Rajiv Thapar and Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor , reported in (2013) 3 SCC 330 , it was held that the defence of the accused, unless supported by unimpeachable and irrefutable evidence, cannot be a ground for quashing proceedings at the initial stage.

¶125

This Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini enquiry or

¶126

19 -

¶127

NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

trial. It is the prerogative of the police to conduct investigation on the allegations made in the respective complaints and to file appropriate report.

¶130

The Hon’ble Apex Court in series of judgments has held that while exercising power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the Court has very limited jurisdiction and not required to conduct a mini trial. The power has to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Further, when the allegations made in the FIR do not prima facie constitute any offence.

¶131

In M/S Neeharika, Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.v. The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that, the power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a FIR/complaint, quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations

¶132

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶133

HC-KAR

¶134

made therein, though the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide. It is further held that the Court is required to strike between the rights of the genuine complainants and the FIRs disclosing commission of a cognizable offence and the statutory obligation/duty of the investigating agency to investigate into the cognizable offences on the one hand and on the other hand those innocent persons against whom the criminal proceedings are initiated which may be in a given case, the abuse of process of law.

¶135

In D. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. v.

¶136

M.K.Mohan Krishnamachari & Ors. reported in 2009

¶137

(10) SCC 488 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is the statutory obligation and duty of the police to investigate into the crime and the Courts normally ought not to interfere and guide the investigating agency. The jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. conferred on High Court has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution only where such exercise is justified by the test

¶138

laid down in the provision itself.

¶139

21 - NC: 2025:KHC:44240 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

The petitioner’s contentions regarding presence of the complainant at registration, delay in lodging the complaint, or civil remedies available, are matters to be examined during investigation and trial. The FIR cannot be quashed at this stage.

¶142

At this stage, it cannot be said that the allegations against the petitioner do not constitute the ingredients of the offences as alleged. This Court finds that there are prima facie materials which warrant investigation, and therefore, this is not a fit case to exercise inherent jurisdiction to quash the FIR. Hence, petition is dismissed .

¶143

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶144

HB

¶145

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Nagaraju B H v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraju B H v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. B Vidhyananda Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Syed Nasir Ahmad Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Arun Kumar R Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Akki Lakshmi Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Harshita Lingadahalli Vs Manjunath D K