Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a complaint dated 02.01.2023 by the 2nd respondent Ankamma Rao alleging that the petitioners, including Arjun Anjaneya Reddy and others, conspired to cheat him by forging his signatures and executing sale deeds for 13 properties that fell to his share under a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) and subsequent partition deed. The complainant had executed a JDA with M/s Mahidhara Projects Private Limited on 04.12.2014, and later a partition deed on 02.03.2021. He mortgaged these properties with SBICAP Trustee Company Limited on 07.10.2021 to secure finance. The complainant stated that he executed a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) on 06.05.2015 in favour of Chikka Kondappa, an employee of the 1st petitioner, but only for presenting documents before the Registrar, not for executing sales. The SPA was later revoked. Despite this, the SPA holder allegedly sold the properties without consent, using forged signatures, and the 1st petitioner and his children purchased them. The complainant, a director in Bhoomika Infrabuild Private Limited along with the 1st petitioner, alleged that the petitioners misused the SPA to defraud him. The complaint was registered as FIR No.3/2023 under Sections 417, 418, 420, 464, 465, 34 IPC at Anekal Police Station. The petitioners first approached the High Court in Criminal Petition No.1372/2023, which was dismissed on 16.06.2023, observing that the allegations prima facie made out offences and required investigation. The court noted that the SPA's scope was limited and the transactions occurred after the properties were mortgaged, raising suspicion. The investigation proceeded, and a charge sheet was filed. The petitioners then filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Section 528 BNSS, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings. The court reiterated that at the quashing stage, only a prima facie assessment is made, and the detailed examination of the SPA's scope and the truth of the allegations are matters for trial. The court held that the allegations of forgery, cheating, and conspiracy against the petitioners could not be brushed aside as a purely civil dispute, given the criminal intent alleged. The contention that the SPA authorized the sales was rejected as a triable issue. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, directing the investigation and prosecution to continue.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Investigation into offences of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy under Sections 417, 418, 420, 464, 465, 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - The High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the complaint and FIR, holding that the allegations prima facie disclosed cognizable offences and the investigation was necessary. The petitioners' plea that the Special Power of Attorney authorized the sales was a matter of trial and cannot be decided at the quashing stage. Held that where a prima facie case exists, further investigation and prosecution should not be thwarted (Paras 8-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings in Crime No.3/2023 against the petitioners for alleged cheating, forgery, and conspiracy should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the dispute is civil in nature and the Special Power of Attorney authorized the transactions?
Final Decision
The criminal petition is dismissed. The investigation and prosecution in Crime No.3/2023 to proceed.
Law Points
- Quashing of FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is permissible only when allegations do not disclose any offence
- where complaint prima facie discloses commission of cognizable offence
- investigation should not be stifled. Scope of Special Power of Attorney and allegations of forgery are factual determinations to be made at trial. Further investigation cannot be prohibited merely because the dispute has a civil flavor
- if allegations disclose criminal intent
- prosecution must proceed. The court must not conduct a mini-trial at the quashing stage.
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (06) 32
Criminal Petition No.5790 of 2025
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. Nagaprasanna
Sri C.V. Nagesh, Senior Advocate along with Sri Varun S., Advocate for Petitioners; Sri B.N. Jagadeesha, Additional State Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1; Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, Senior Advocate along with Sri Akash R. Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Sri Arjun Anjaneya Reddy & Others
State of Karnataka & Ankamma Rao
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of complaint and FIR for offences of cheating and forgery
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the complaint dated 02.01.2023 and FIR in Crime No.3/2023 registered under Sections 417, 418, 420, 464, 465, 34 IPC
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged that the dispute was civil in nature arising out of a Joint Development Agreement and that the Special Power of Attorney authorized the sale transactions, and hence no criminal offence was made out
Previous Decisions
Earlier petition (Crl.P.1372/2023) seeking same relief was dismissed by the High Court on 16.06.2023, holding that prima facie case existed and investigation must continue; investigation completed and charge sheet filed thereafter
Issues
Whether the complaint and FIR make out a prima facie case for the alleged offences of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy, or whether the dispute is purely civil and liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners contended that the Special Power of Attorney gave authority to the holder to execute documents, and that the complainant had knowledge and had personally executed documents, thus no forgery occurred and the matter was civil.
Respondent No.2 contended that the SPA was limited to presentation before the Registrar, that his signatures were forged, that the properties were sold without consideration while under mortgage, and that the petitioners conspired to cheat him.
Ratio Decidendi
At the stage of quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court is only to examine whether the allegations in the complaint, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence. The question of whether the Special Power of Attorney conferred full authority or was limited and whether signatures were forged or documents were validly executed are matters of evidence to be decided at trial. Where a prima facie case of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy is made out, further investigation cannot be stifled.
Judgment Excerpts
The entire submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners hinges upon a clause in the Special Power of attorney ... The afore-quoted clause ... indicates that the complainant cannot be personally present to execute any document ... It is alleged that on the strength of special power attorney, several transactions have taken place.
The sites that are sold, by accused No.1 are already mortgaged to the Bank/SBICAP for the purpose of raising of finance by the complainant. ... The complainant comes to know that despite the properties being mortgaged to the Bank, those very properties are sold by way of several registered sale deeds and the purchasers are the children of the 1st petitioner/accused No.1. It is then the complaint comes to be registered by the complainant.
The submissions of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Special Power of Attorney had conferred power on the Power of Attorney holder to present documents and every document was executed by the owner cannot be accepted at this stage, as they are all matters of trial.
Procedural History
Complaint filed by respondent No.2 on 02.01.2023; FIR No.3/2023 registered on 03.01.2023 at Anekal Police Station under Sections 417, 418, 420, 464, 465, 34 IPC. Petitioners filed first petition Crl.P.1372/2023 before Karnataka High Court, which granted interim stay of investigation on 17.02.2023. After hearing, the High Court dismissed the petition on 16.06.2023, holding a prima facie case exists and investigation must proceed. Investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed. Petitioners then filed the present petition Crl.P.5790/2025 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of entire proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 417, 418, 420, 464, 465, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 528
