M DEVARAJ RAO vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60127
CRL.P No. 440 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010730262024


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ


CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 440 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) /

528(BNSS)-)

BETWEEN:

1. M DEVARAJ RAO
S/O DEVI PRASAD
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT MATPADI ROAD
BRAHMAVARA POST CHANTHAR
UDUPI DISTRICT

2. VISHNUMOORTI
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O KRISHNA MELANTA
R/AT HOUSE NO.3-170
HANDIKALLU POST
CHARA HEBRI UDUPI
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY SHO
BRAHMAVAARA POLICE STATION
REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE

2. PADMANABHA BHAT
S/O LATE SUBHRAMANYA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
R/AT VITTAL SAADANA,
KIDIYOORU VILLAGE, UDUPI-576103
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. NITHYANAND.V. NAIK., ADVOCATE FOR R2)











Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60127
CRL.P No. 440 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010730262024


THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S
528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.144/2024 OF BRAHMAVAR
POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 465, 468, 471 R/W
34 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, UDUPI.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Quash the entire proceedings against the petitioners
in Cr.No.144/2024 of Brahmavar Police Station for the
offence p/u/s 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 34 of IPC, on

the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Udupi.



2. Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint on 06.06.2024
alleging that the petitioners, who are family
members having an interest in the properties bearing
Sy. Nos. 109 and 102 of Chara Village, Hebri Taluk,
Udupi District, had forged his signature and created a
power of attorney dated 22.02.2023.

3. It is further alleged that, acting on the said power of
attorney, a partition deed was executed and
registered on 03.03.2023. Alleging forgery,
respondent No. 2 sought action against the
petitioners. Pursuant to the complaint, Brahmavar
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60127
CRL.P No. 440 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010730262024

Police registered Crime No. 144/2024 for offences
under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of the
IPC. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking to
quash the said proceedings.

4. Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the
petitioners, contends that:

4.1. The allegation of forgery of the power of
attorney is denied. Alternatively, it is contended
that no loss has been caused to respondent
No.2.

4.2. No loss has been caused to respondent No.2 by
the partition deed dated 03.03.2023. On the
contrary, respondent No. 2 has been allotted a
share greater than what he was entitled to.
Therefore, the ingredients of cheating under
Section 420 of the IPC are not attracted.

5. Sri Nithyanand V. Naik, learned counsel for
respondent No. 2, submits that the alleged forgery is
evident from the disputed signature on the power of
attorney and the signature of respondent No. 2 on
the complaint. He contends that the matter requires
investigation and that respondent No. 2 has suffered
loss since his share in the property has been
reduced.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60127
CRL.P No. 440 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010730262024


6. Heard Sri Nishit Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned HCGP for
respondent No. 1, and Sri Nithyanand V. Naik,
learned counsel for respondent No. 2. Perused the
papers.

7. The power of attorney alleged to have been forged is
an unregistered, notarised document. The partition
deed executed pursuant to it is a registered
document, executed within 15 days of the power of
attorney. The complaint alleges that the petitioners
forged the signature of respondent No. 2 on the
power of attorney and thereafter used the said
document to execute and register the partition deed.

8. Insofar as the offences relating to forgery and use of
a forged document are concerned, the genuineness
of the power of attorney is the central issue. The
petitioners deny the allegation of forgery. However,
this Court is of the considered opinion that the
disputed signature requires comparison with the
admitted signatures of respondent No. 2 through
forensic examination. The circumstances in which the
power of attorney was created and subsequently
acted upon also require investigation. At this stage,
this Court cannot conclusively determine whether the
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60127
CRL.P No. 440 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010730262024

document is forged or whether the petitioners have
committed the offences alleged.

9. Insofar as the offence of cheating under Section 420
of the IPC is concerned, learned counsel for the
petitioners contends that respondent No. 2 has
suffered no loss under the partition deed and has, in
fact, been allotted a share greater than his
entitlement. It is contended that the essential
ingredients of cheating are therefore not attracted.

10. The complaint, however, alleges that the petitioners
forged the signature of respondent No. 2 on the
power of attorney and, on the strength of that
document, executed and registered a partition deed.
Whether the document was created and used without
his consent, and whether the transaction resulted in
wrongful gain or wrongful loss are matters require
investigation. The contention that respondent No. 2
received a larger share does not, by itself, negate
the allegation of cheating. The allegations must be
examined in the context of the entire transaction and
the manner in which the power of attorney was
allegedly created and used.

11. The power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash
criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60127
CRL.P No. 440 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010730262024

with caution. At this stage, the Court must examine
whether the allegations in the complaint, taken at
face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the
commission of the offences alleged. The Court cannot
conduct a mini-trial, appreciate disputed evidence or
determine the genuineness of disputed documents
while considering a petition for quashing.

12. Where the allegations disclose the ingredients of the
offences alleged and the matter requires
investigation, the proceedings cannot be quashed
merely because the accused disputes the allegations
or offers a different explanation. Quashing is
warranted where the allegations, even if accepted in
their entirety, do not constitute an offence or where
continuation of the proceedings would amount to an
abuse of the process of law.

13. In the present case, the complaint specifically alleges
forgery of the power of attorney and use of that
document to execute and register a partition deed
including the property of the Complainant,
representing the Complainant in the Partition Deed.
The genuineness of the document and the
circumstances in which it was executed and acted
upon require investigation. The petitioners'
contention that respondent No. 2 suffered no loss
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru
Verified

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60127
CRL.P No. 440 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010730262024

does not, at this stage, justify quashing the
proceedings.

14. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to exercise its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash
the proceedings. The petition is dismissed. The
petitioners are at liberty to raise all permissible
defences at the appropriate stage. The investigating
agency shall proceed in accordance with law.

15. In that view of the matter, this Court passes the
following;
ORDER
dismissed

i. Criminal petition stands .

ii. Respondent No.1 is directed to collect the
admitted and disputed documents and refer the
documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory,
conduct the regular investigation and submit
the final report as early as possible.
Digitally Signed By:
SURAJ GOVINDA RAJ
02/11/2026, 13:42, Bengaluru

Verified
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE


SR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5