High Court declined to quash FIR in Land Fraud Case Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 though Civil Nature of Dispute and Complaint by Power of Attorney Holder is sustained

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 12
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, accused No. 8 in a land fraud case, sought quashing of FIR registered under various sections of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) for offences including impersonation, forgery, and criminal conspiracy. The dispute involved allegations of fraudulent sale deeds executed through impersonators for high-value lands. The Court found that the matter was essentially civil, with identical issues pending in civil suits O.S. No. 859/2025, O.S. No. 2146/2023, and O.S. No. 1137/2024. The complaint was lodged by a power of attorney holder, which the Court deemed impermissible. Citing the civil nature of the dispute the criminal proceedings should not be discarded the Court declined to quash the FIR, dismissing the criminal petition.

Headnote

Criminal Law-- BNSS, 2023-- Section 528 -- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, (BNS), 2023-- Sections 3(5), 335, 335(A)(iii), 337, 339, 340, 341, 323, 324, 329, 126, 351(1), 351(2), 351(4), 240, 242, 246, 314, 318, 319, 322 and 308 -- Application for quashing of complaint-- Petitioner was an original accused no.8-- Petitioner asserted that he purcahsed the land as purchaser-- Fabrication of document-- Impersonation-- Forgery and criminal conspiracy-- Large scale of misappropriation of valuable immovable property-- Complaint culminated into criminal case-- Challenged-- Prayer for quashing of complaint and proceedings-- Sets of accused-- Fraund running into Rs 15 crores-- Pivotal role of the petitioner as to bringing impersonation-- Fraudulently compensation received by impersonation in acquisition proceedings-- Plea of civil nature of dispute raised by the petitioner-- Pendency of civil suits-- Each sets of accused played a role in offence merely because a given fact would project the matter being purely civil nature, the criminal case must not be obliterated-- Cases referred-- Mere availability of a civil remedy does not by itself eclipse the jurisdiction of criminal law, where the allegations on their face disclose essential ingredients of a recognizible offence-- Parcels of lands were mutated in the name of complainant-- No interference-- Petition dismissed

Para-- 8, 9, 10.1, 11, 12

Issue of Consideration: Whether the criminal proceedings initiated based on a complaint by a power of attorney holder for offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) should be quashed when the dispute is essentially civil in nature and identical issues are pending in civil suits

Final Decision

The Court allowed the criminal petition, quashed FIR No. 446/2025 registered under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and set aside all proceedings, holding the dispute was civil and the complaint by a power of attorney holder was impermissible

2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 37

Criminal Petition No. 15776 of 2025

2026-01-30

M. Nagaprasanna J.

Sri P.S. Rajagopal, Sri P.N. Nanja Reddy for petitioner; Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah for respondent No. 1; Sri Venkatesh Dalwai for respondent No. 2

Sri Venkat Rama Naidu Kola

State of Karnataka, Sri Venkatappa K. (Special Power of Attorney of Smt. R. Radha)

Nature of Litigation: Criminal petition seeking quashing of FIR registered for offences under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) in a land fraud case

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR No. 446/2025 and costs, arguing the dispute was civil and the complaint by a power of attorney holder was invalid

Filing Reason

Petitioner challenged the criminal proceedings as an abuse of process, citing pending civil suits on identical issues

Previous Decisions

A coordinate Bench granted an interim stay of investigation on 24-11-2025, noting the dispute was purely civil and the complaint by a power of attorney holder was impermissible

Issues

Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed as the dispute is purely civil in nature with identical issues pending in civil suits Whether a complaint lodged by a power of attorney holder for offences involving impersonation and forgery is permissible in law

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued the dispute was civil, with identical issues in pending suits O.S. No. 859/2025, O.S. No. 2146/2023, and O.S. No. 1137/2024, and criminal proceedings should not continue Respondent argued there was large-scale impersonation and fraud, with multiple Radhas appearing before the Sub-Registrar, and investigation should proceed despite civil suits

Ratio Decidendi

Criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle purely civil disputes, especially when identical issues are pending in civil suits -- A power of attorney holder cannot lodge a criminal complaint for offences like impersonation and forgery -- The burden of proof lies on the prosecution, and quashing under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is appropriate when allegations do not disclose cognizable offences

Judgment Excerpts

The Court held that the dispute was purely civil in nature as identical issues were already pending in civil suits The complaint was filed by a power of attorney holder, which was impermissible in law for such criminal allegations Criminal proceedings cannot be used to settle civil disputes and that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution

Procedural History

FIR registered as Crime No. 446/2025 on 22-10-2025 -- Coordinate Bench granted interim stay of investigation on 24-11-2025 -- Criminal Petition No. 15776 of 2025 filed seeking quashing -- Heard on 20-01-2026 and reserved -- Pronounced on 30-01-2026 quashing the FIR

Related Judgement
High Court High Court declined to quash FIR in Land Fraud Case Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 though Civil Nature of Dispute and Complaint by Power of Attorney Holder is sustained
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Industrial Dispute Reference Due to Procedural Irregularity in Conciliation Initiation Under Industrial Disputes Act