Karnataka High Court

Shivakumar S/O Bhimappa Vaddar /Waddar vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2025

Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty

Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty

                                                   -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184
                                                         CRL.P No. 104153 of 2022


                     HC-KAR



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                          DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
                                            BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
                         CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104153 OF 2022
                               (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
                    BETWEEN:
                    1.    SHIVAKUMAR S/O BHIMAPPA VADDAR/WADDAR,
                          AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESSMAN,
                          R/O. MASIDI ROAD, KARWAR,
                          UTTAR KANNADA-581 301.

                    2.    BHANUMATI W/O SONU HARIKANTRA,
                          AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
                          R/O. BEHIND HEAD POST OFFICE,
                          KARWAR, UTTAR KANNADA-581 301.

                    3.    DENIS ABRAHAM,
                          AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
                          R/O. NARAGERI SHIRAWAD, KARWAR,
                          UTTAR KANNADA-581 301.
                                                                       ... PETITIONERS
                    (BY SRI. VENKATESH M. KHARVI, ADVOCATE)

                    AND:
                    1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                          BY KARWAR TOWN P.S.,
        Digitally
        signed by
                          REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
        RAKESH S
RAKESH HARIHAR
        Location:
                          HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-581 301.
S       HIGH
HARIHAR COURT OF
        KARNATAKA
        DHARWAD
        BENCH       2.    SMT. ROOPA RANGANATH SUNKSALKAR,
                          AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
                          R/O. SHASTRI NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590 001.
                                                                   ... RESPONDENTS
                    (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
                        SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

                          THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
                    CR.PC., PRAYING TO QUASHED THE REGISTRATION FIR AND COMPLAINT
                    DATED 12.10.2022 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4 ON
                    THE FILE OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE KARWAR IN KARWAR TOWN
                    P.S. CRIME NO.81/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465,
                    468, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860 VIDE ANNEXURE D AND E BY ALLOWING
                    THE PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                                -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184
                                       CRL.P No. 104153 of 2022


HC-KAR




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                           ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

Accused Nos.2 to 4 in Crime No.81/2022 registered by

Karwar Town Police Station, for offences punishable under

Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of IPC, are before

this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to

quash the entire proceedings in the aforesaid case

registered against them.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. FIR in Crime No.81/2022 was registered by

Karwar Town Police Station for the aforesaid offences

against Shravan Ganesh and others based on the first

information dated 12.10.2022 received from respondent

No.2. Allegation against the accused is that, the property

bearing Survey No.206/2B and 206/4 of which the first

informant is the original owner has been sold by accused

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184

HC-KAR

no.1 on the basis of a fraudulent and forged General Power

of Attorney of the first informant, in favour of the

petitioners herein under three separate sale deeds.

Assailing the same, the petitioners who are arraigned as

accused nos.2 to 4 in the FIR are before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners are bonafide purchasers of the aforesaid land

for valid sale consideration. Petitioners have paid the sale

consideration under the sale deeds registered in their favour

to accused no.1, which was transferred to his bank account.

In the General Power of Attorney executed, it is specifically

mentioned that accused no.1 is entitled to collect the sale

consideration from the proposed buyers. Respondent no.2

has already filed OS No.23/2023 before the Jurisdictional

Civil Court challenging the validity of the General Power of

Attorney as well as the sale deeds executed by accused

no.1 in favour of the petitioners based on the General

Power of Attorney dated 15.07.2017.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184

HC-KAR

5. In support of his arguments he has placed

reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of

Rudraswamy v. State of Karnataka reported in ILR

2022 KARNATAKA 1055.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP and learned counsel for

the respondent no.2 have opposed the petition. They

submit that FIR has been registered for cognizable offences

and therefore, investigation is necessary to find out the

correctness and genuineness of the allegations found in the

first information.

7. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits

that in OS No.23/2023, the attesting witnesses of the

General Power of Attorney in question have been examined

and they have denied the execution of the said document

and also about the signing of the said document as

attesting witnesses. Undisputedly, sale consideration was

not paid by the petitioners to respondent no.2, who is the

undisputed owner of the property, which has been

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184

HC-KAR

purchased by the petitioners under the disputed sale deeds.

Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.

8. The material on record would go to show that

undisputedly, respondent no.2 is the owner of the aforesaid

two items of property, which are sold in portion by accused

no.1 in favour of the petitioners herein under the three

separate registered sale deads based on the disputed

General Power of Attorney dated 15.07.2017, said to have

been executed by respondent no.2 in favour of accused

no.1. It is also not in dispute that the sale consideration

under three disputed sale deeds has not been paid to

respondent no.2 who is the real owner of the said properties

and on the other hand, sale considerations are allegedly

paid by the petitioners through bank transactions in favour

of accused no.1, who claims to be the General Power of

Attorney holder of respondent no.2.

9. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has

submitted that the disputed General Power of Attorney

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184

HC-KAR

dated 15.07.2017 is signed by two attesting witnesses and

the said attesting witnesses have been now examined

before the Jurisdictional Civil Court in O.S No.23/2023

which is filed by respondent no.2 against the accused in the

present challenging the disputed General Power of Attorney

and sale deeds.

10. The attesting witnesses have deposed before the

Jurisdictional Civil Court in O.S No.23/2023 and the

attesting witnesses have stated that they are not the

signatories to the disputed General Power of Attorney dated

15.07.2017 and their signatures found in the said document

are forged.

11. Petitioners herein claim to be bonafide

purchasers whereas in the suit, a specific contention has

been urged that accused no.1 and the petitioners herein

have colluded with each other and based on the forged

General Power of Attorney, accused No.1 has executed the

disputed three sale deeds in favor of the petitioners herein.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184

HC-KAR

Even in the first information submitted in the present case,

such an allegation is found as against accused Nos.1 to 4.

FIR in the present case has been registered for cognizable

offences and therefore police have got a right to investigate

the case and in normal circumstances, this Court should not

stall the investigation.

12. The law in this regard has been laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika

Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. State of Maharashtra and

others1, at paragraph 57, has observed as under:

"57. From the aforesaid decisions of this Court, right from the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Khawaja Nazir Ahmad (supra), the following principles of law emerge:

i) Police has the statutory right and duty under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure contained in Chapter XIV of the Code to investigate into cognizable offences;

ii) Courts would not thwart any investigation into the cognizable offences;

2021 SCC OnLine 315

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184

HC-KAR

iii) However, in cases where no cognizable offence or offence of any kind is disclosed in the first information report the Court will not permit an investigation to go on;

iv) The power of quashing should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, in the 'rarest of rare cases'. (The rarest of rare cases standard in its application for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the norm which has been formulated in the context of the death penalty, as explained previously by this Court);

v) While examining an 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 made in the FIR/complaint;

vi) Criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage;

vii) Quashing of a complaint/FIR should be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule;

viii) Ordinarily, the courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities. The inherent power of the court is, however, recognised to secure the ends of justice or prevent the above of the process by Section 482 Cr.P.C.

ix) The functions of the judiciary and the police are complementary, not overlapping;

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184

HC-KAR

x) Save in exceptional cases where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences;

xi) Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the Court to act according to its whims or caprice;

xii) The first information report is not an encyclopaedia which must disclose all facts and details relating to the offence reported. Therefore, when the investigation by the police is in progress, the court should not go into the merits of the allegations in the FIR. Police must be permitted to complete the investigation. It would be premature to pronounce the conclusion based on hazy facts that the complaint/FIR does not deserve to be investigated or that it amounts to abuse of process of law. During or after investigation, if the investigating officer finds that there is no substance in the application made by the complainant, the investigating officer may file an appropriate report/summary before the learned Magistrate which may be considered by the learned Magistrate in accordance with the known procedure;

xiii) The power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is very wide, but conferment of wide power requires the court to be cautious. It casts an onerous and more diligent duty on the court;

xiv) However, at the same time, the court, if it thinks fit, regard being had to the parameters of quashing and the self-restraint imposed by law, more particularly the parameters laid down by this Court in the cases of R.P. Kapur (supra) and Bhajan Lal

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184

HC-KAR

(supra), has the jurisdiction to quash the FIR/complaint; and

xv) When a prayer for quashing the FIR is made by the alleged accused, the court when it exercises the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., only has to consider whether or not the allegations in the FIR disclose the commission of a cognizable offence and is not required to consider on merits whether the allegations make out a cognizable offence or not and the court has to permit the investigating agency/police to investigate the allegations in the FIR".

13. In the case of Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 41 & 42, has observed as under:

"41. As cautioned by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases. While examining a complaint, the quashing of which is sought, the Court cannot embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint.

42. In S.M. Datta v. State of Gujarat, this Court again cautioned that criminal proceedings ought not to be scuttled at the initial stage. Quashing of a complaint should rather be an exception and a rarity than an ordinary rule. In S.M. Datta, this Court held that if a

(2021) 5 SCC 795

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184

HC-KAR

perusal of the first information report leads to disclosure of an offence even broadly, law courts are barred from usurping the jurisdiction of the police, since the two organs of the State operate in two specific spheres of activities and one ought not to tread over the other sphere."

14. In the case of Rudraswamy, a criminal case was registered much after the parties had approached the Civil Court by filing suits and in the said case, after completing investigation, the charge sheet was filed. Challenge in the said petition was made to the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused after filing of the charge sheet and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the said case, the petition was allowed. In the said case, taking into consideration that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, the impugned criminal proceedings were quashed. The same is not the situation in the present case and therefore, the judgment in the case of Rudraswamy (supra) cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances in the present case.

15. In case of Kamaladevi Agarwal Agarwal vs. State of West Bengal and others3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that merely for the reason that a criminal proceeding is pending between the parties, the same cannot be a ground to

(2002) 1 SCC 555

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184

HC-KAR

quash the criminal proceedings if it is found that prima facie case exists against the accused. In the case of Kamaladevi Agarwal supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph No.17 has observed as follows:

"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 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."

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while referring to the

case of Kamaladevi (Supra) in Kathyayini vs. Sidharth P.S.

Reddy & others4, in para no. 23 has observed as follows;

"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."

2025 INSC 818

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12184

HC-KAR

17. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion

that it is not a fit case wherein this Court is required to

exercise its inherent powers under Sections 482 of Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, the following: