Nagaraju B H vs State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 9745 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Nagaraju B H vs State Of Karnataka on 4 November, 2025

Author: Mohammad Nawaz

Bench: Mohammad Nawaz

                                           -1-
                                                      NC: 2025:KHC:44240
                                                 CRL.P No. 9531 of 2024


               HC-KAR




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                      DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                        BEFORE
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9531 OF 2024


               BETWEEN:

                     NAGARAJU B.H.
                     AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
                     S/O HANUMANTHAIAH,
                     R/AT BETTAHALLI VILLAGE,
                     DASANAPURA HOBLI,
                     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
                     BENGALURU-562 162.
                                                             ...PETITIONER

               (BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

               AND:

               1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                     BY ITS MADANAYAKANAHALLY
Digitally
signed by            POLICE STATION,
LAKSHMI T
Location:
                     BENGALURU,
High Court           REP: BY HIGH COURT SPP,
of Karnataka
                     BENGALURU-560 001.

               2.    K.S. KESHAVA MURTHY
                     S/O LATE SRIPATHIAH,
                     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
                     R/AT KAMMASANDRA VILLAGE,
                     DASANAPURA HOBLI,
                     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
                     BENGALURU-562 162.
                                                         ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL. SPP FOR R1;

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

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.

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:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

CAV ORDER

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

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 .

2. Petitioner is arraigned as accused no.1 in the

FIR.

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

3. Brief Facts:- The complaint was lodged on

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-1-

03787-2022-23, 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

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

fabricating documents and misusing the process of

registration, has committed offences of forgery, cheating,

and criminal breach of trust.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. It is further contended that there was an

inordinate delay of nearly two years in filing the complaint,

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

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.

7. The learned counsel further contends that the

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.

8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner

has placed reliance upon the following paras of the

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court:

a) In Usha Chakraborty v. State of West

Bengal reported in AIR 2023 SC 688, held at para no.

11 , as hereunder :

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

"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

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

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

b) In Anand Kumar Mohatta and Another v.

State ( NCT of Delhi), Department of Home and

Another reported in (2019) 11 SCC 706, held at in para

nos. 24, 25, 26 and 27 as hereunder :

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.

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.

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)

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

"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."

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

27. We find it strange that the complainant has not made any attempt 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.

c) In Vinod Natesan v. State of Kerala And

Others reported in (2019)2 SCC 401, held in para 10

and 11 as hereunder:-

"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

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

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.

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

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

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."

9. Learned Additional SPP for the respondent-

State submits that the allegations made in the complaint

clearly disclose commission of cognizable offences of

forgery, cheating, and impersonation. The materials

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

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.

10. 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

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

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.

11. 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:"

"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:

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

"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."

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:

"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

- 14 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

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."

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

"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

- 15 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

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."

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.

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................."

12. 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

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

should exercise its inherent power under Section 482

Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. The defence of petitioner that the complainant

himself appeared before the Sub-Registrar and executed

- 17 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

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.

16. 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.

17. 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.

- 18 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. This Court, exercising its jurisdiction under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot conduct a mini enquiry or

- 19 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

trial. It is the prerogative of the police to conduct

investigation on the allegations made in the respective

complaints and to file appropriate report.

22. 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.

23. 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

- 20 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

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.

24. In D. Venkatasubramaniam & Ors. v.

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

(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

laid down in the provision itself.

- 21 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44240

HC-KAR

25. 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.

26. 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.

Sd/-

(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

HB