SRI V G P BABUDAS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7962 OF 2019


BETWEEN:

1. SRI. V.G.P. BABUDAS
S/O SRI. V.G. PANNEERDAS
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

2. SRI. V.G.P. RAVIDAS
S/O SRI. V.G. PANNEERDAS
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

3. SRI. V.G. RAJADAS
S/O SRI. V.G. PANNEERDAS
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 ARE
RESIDENTS OF THE PREMISES
BEARING NO.52, HOSPITAL ROAD
SAIDAPET, CHENNAI-600015
TAMIL NADU
…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. VIKRAM HULIGOL, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SUSHAL TIWARI N., ADVOCATE)
AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION
HAROHALLI CIRCLE
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560001












Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019



2. SRI. V.G. VINODHRAJ
S/O SRI. V.G. SELVARAJ
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.52
HOSPITAL ROAD, SAIDAPET
CHENNAI-600015
TAMIL NADU
…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. SUHAS GOWDA M., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHREE SHING, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. HARSHA S., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.240/2019
REGISTERED AT KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION, HAROHALLI
CIRCLE, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 406, 465, 467, 468, 420
AND 471 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDL.C.J.M.,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND ETC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 29.10.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CAV ORDER

This petition is filed praying this Court to quash the FIR in
Cr.No.240/2019 registered at Kaggalipura Police Station,
Harohalli Circle, Ramanagar District for the offences under
Sections 120B, 406, 465, 467, 468, 420 and 471 of IPC against
the petitioners.

- 3 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties.
3. The factual matrix of case of the complainant that
in connection with the property belongs to the family of the
complainant, his father had executed a power of attorney on
17.07.1996. At that time, the complainant was minor and he
attained the majority on 31.01.1999. With an intention to
defeat the right of the complainant from 15.09.2004 to
15.05.2019, accused persons, in conspiracy, the property
belongs to the complainant portion in Sy.No.131/5 to the
extent of 15.04 guntas, executed the sale deed in favour of
Raut Amol @ Amol Raut on 01.09.2014 and also on
13.11.2015, executed another sale deed in favour of Smt.
Bhagyamma in Sy.No.131/6 to the extent of 28.3/4 guntas and
sold the said extent. The complainant had cancelled the GPA on
12.02.2019 itself. Inspite of no confirmation deed is executed,
the documents were created on 15.05.2019 and so also the
partition deed and falsely got it registered the same creating
the documents. Hence, complaint is lodged. Based on the
complaint, the case is registered.

- 4 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


4. The counsel for the petitioners in his arguments
would vehemently contend that the very initiation of case is
nothing but a false implication and dispute is purely civil in
nature. The execution of the general power of attorney by the
second respondent through his father not in dispute and the
general power of attorney so executed authorizing the first
petitioner to sell the land which came to be allotted to the
share of the second respondent and the first petitioner, in
exercise of the rights secured by him under the said general
power of attorney, sold a portion of the land, by no stretch of
imagination could it be said that conduct of the petitioners
would construct the commission of an offence. That apart, in
the partition deed that has been referred to by the second
respondent in his complaint, the second respondent has been
given the share, for which, he has become entitled to and the
second respondent has, therefore, could not have raised any
grievance and in connection with the said partition deed, to
which document, the first petitioner has subscribed his
signature as the general power of attorney holder of the second
respondent, who in fact, had no knowledge of the cancellation
of the general power of attorney said to have been done by the
second respondent.

- 5 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


5. The counsel also vehemently contend that the
second respondent has clothed his civil grievance with a
criminal dress with a malafide intention to drag the petitioners
before this Court in a criminal prosecution. The counsel for the
petitioners during the course of his arguments brought to
notice of this Court that one more complaint was lodged and
the same is registered in Crime No.461/2020 with Banaswadi
Police. The present complaint is in respect of Kaggalipura Police
and list of dates and events also given along with the
comparative statement. The counsel would vehemently contend
that this case is purely civil in nature. No dispute that proper
power of attorney was executed on behalf of the complainant in
favour of petitioner No.1 on 17.07.1996 and the complainant
had attained majority on 31.01.1999 and also he had executed
a confirmation deed on 15.09.2004. Though he denies, but
admits before the Banaswadi Police the signature on the deed
belongs to him. Hence, it is clear that there is a confirmation
deed.
6. The counsel also would contend that respondent
No.2 claims to have first learnt about the sale transaction on
09.01.2019 but allegation is that, has not rendered proper
accounts. Partition deed is executed between petitioner No.1

- 6 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


and respondent No.2 represented by his GPA holder wherein
Sy.No.131/5 (6 acres 6 guntas) and the Austin Town property
were allotted to petitioner No.1 and in lieu, respondent No.2 is
rd
allotted half of the 1/3 undivided share in the Injambakkam
and Saidapet (Chennai) properties, which is shown clearly in
schedule-F and further two other properties and the same is
also the subject matter of FIR in Cr.No.461/2020.
7. The counsel would contend that the alleged notice
of the deed of cancellation sent to petitioner No.1 by post for
the first time on 29.05.2019. But in the meanwhile already
there was a partition deed dated 15.05.2019 and this petitioner
was not having any knowledge about cancellation of the same.
The letter itself admits the family partition dated 27.01.1994
and 15 guntas out of his 7 acres 10 guntas had been alienated.
The respondent No.2 and his brother instituted a
C.P.No.393/2019 before the NCLT, Chennai and there are two
cases are initiated. The counsel would contend that there
cannot be a two FIRs and criminal cases in respect of the same
allegations. The counsel also contend that in subsequent
complaint is concerned, B-report was filed and the same was
resisted by filing a protest memo and the same is accepted and
taken the cognizance. Subsequently, an application is filed

- 7 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


under Section 216 for modification of the charges and the same
is also allowed and the offences under Section 465, 467, 468
and 471 were also invoked.
8. The counsel would vehemently contend that there
cannot be two prosecution against the petitioners on the same
allegation. In support of his arguments, he relies upon
judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 in
the case of T T ANTONY vs STATE OF KERALA AND
OTHERS and brought to notice of this court that once FIR was
registered and if any subsequent complaint also, the same will
be covered by Section 162 - officers in charge of the police
station has to investigate not merely the cognizable offence but
also other connected offence and powers are vest with the I.O
to file a further report under Section 173.
9. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of the
Apex Court reported in (2010) 12 SCC 254 in the case of
BABUBHAI vs STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS wherein
also Apex Court held that if two FIRs in respect of the same
transaction subsequent to registration of FIR, any further
complaint in connection with the same or connected offence
relating to the same incident or incidents which are parts of the

- 8 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


same transaction are reiterated, not permissible. But if two
FIRs pertain to two different incidents/crimes, second FIR is
permissible.
10. The counsel also relies upon the judgment of the
Apex Court reported in 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 2776 in the
RANIMOL AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KERALA AND
case of
ANOTHER and brought to notice of this Court paragraphs 11 to
14 wherein the Apex Court discussed with regard to exercising
of the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in case of first
information report are also arrayed in the second complaint,
would not make the complaint maintainable.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioners referring
these judgments prays this Court to quash the proceedings
initiated against the petitioners.
12. Per contra, the counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 in his arguments would vehemently contend that in both
the complaints, there are different accusations. In the
subsequent complaint, an allegation of misappropriation was
alleged. Thus, it cannot be contend that both the complaints
cannot be entertained. The counsel would contend that the
offences invoked in the present complaint is under Sections

- 9 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


120B, 406, 465, 467, 468, 420 and 471 of IPC. The specific
accusations are made in the said complaint that though the
power of attorney was cancelled on 12.02.2019, partition deed
was executed on 15.05.2019 subsequently relying upon the
earlier confirmation deed dated 15.09.2004. Thus, petitioner
No.1 has executed a fictitious partition deed dated 15.05.2019
and fraudulently transferred his lands. Thus, fraudulent conduct
of petitioner No.1 is to be investigated. Hence, question of
quashing of FIR does not arise and interference of this Court
also does not arise.

13. The counsel also would contend that the
complainant having come to know about the fraudulent conduct
of petitioner No.1 in alienating his lands to accused Nos.3 and
4, in order to prevent petitioner No.1 from further alienation of
the land, cancelled the GPA on 12.02.2019 and subsequent to
the cancellation of GPA, on 12.06.2019, respondent No.2 filed
the deed of cancellation before the Sub-Registrar. Respondent
No.2 was given to understand that the cancellation of the GPA
by respondent No.2 was recorded by the concerned Sub-
Registrar. Hence, petitioner No.1 could not have registered the
partition deed dated 15.05.2019 based on the power of
attorney which was cancelled on 12.02.2019. The copy of the

- 10 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


letter dated 12.06.209 and the extract of the website are
produced herewith as Annexure-R1 and R2. It is contended that
though the partition deed is dated 15.05.2019, the same was
actually executed on 19.09.2019 and copy of the partition deed
dated 19.09.2019 is produced herewith as Annexure-R3 and it
is nothing but an antedated partition deed as 15.05.2019 and
this document has been intentionally suppressed by the
petitioners. The counsel would vehemently contend that both
the complaints are different and distinct and there cannot be
any quashment.

14. The counsel appearing for the State in his
arguments would vehemently contend that no doubt, there are
two complaints between the same parties. The counsel
vehemently contend that there is a partition deed and the same
was illegally created. When the specific allegations are made,
investigation has to be taken place. The dispute is also with
regard to the execution of partition deed as contended by the
counsel appearing for the complainant that the same was
executed in the month of September 2019 which is subsequent
to the cancellation of the GPA.
15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material available

- 11 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


on record and considering the principles laid down in the
judgments referred supra, the points that would arise for the
consideration of this petition are:
1. Whether the petitioners have made out the
grounds to quash the proceedings initiated
against them for the offences as alleged in the
crime invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C?
2. What order?

Point No.1:
16. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
respective parties and also on perusal of the material available
on record, it discloses that during the course of the arguments
regarding registration of subsequent crime in Cr.No.461/2020 it
is contend that at the time of filing of the present petition, the
subsequent crime No.461/2020 was not in existence. But
counsel for the petitioners mainly relies upon both the
complaints and contend that the allegations made in the said
complaints are similar. It is not in dispute that subsequent
complaint was registered for the offences under Section 406,
420 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. It is also not in
dispute that the police have investigated the matter and filed

- 12 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


B-report in the said complaint and subsequently, protest memo
was filed and B-report was rejected and Trial Court has taken
the cognizance only for the offence under Section 406 of IPC
and not in respect of other offences. It is also to be noted that
the counsel brought to the notice of this court that an
application was filed for alteration of charge and the same is
also entertained by the Trial Court for invoking the other
offences.

17. Having considered the materials available on
record, it discloses that the present petition is arised out of
Cr.No.240/2019 and other complaint is in Cr.No.461/2020 and
the same are filed in different police stations i.e., one at
Kaggalipura Police Station at the first instance and subsequent
complaint is filed at Banaswadi Police Station. In both the
cases, complainant is the same. In the first complaint, there
are 5 accused persons. In the second complaint, there are only
3 accused persons. The offences in the first complaint are
under Sections 120B, 406, 465, 467, 468, 420 and 471 of IPC
and in the subsequent complaint, the offences under Sections
406, 420 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. The Court has
to take note that in both the cases, some of the same offences
were invoked. In the first complaint offences under Sections

- 13 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


465, 467, 468 were also invoked. It is also to be noted that
when B-report was filed, the same was challenged and in
respect of the second complaint, offence of Section 406 was
invoked and subsequently, other offences were also invoked by
altering the charge. The issue in both the complaint is in
respect of Sy.No.131/5 and 131/6 and so also, the common
documents are disputed i.e., General Power of Attorney dated
17.07.1996 and also the confirmation deed. Though, the
complainant disputed the confirmation deed, but during the
course of investigation, admitted the execution of confirmation
deed. The dispute in the present case is with regard to
execution of partition deed dated 15.05.2019. It is the case of
the complainant that the power of attorney which was executed
on 17.07.1996 was cancelled on 12.02.2019 itself. But
subsequent to the same, partition deed dated 15.05.2019 came
into existence. The counsel appearing for the respondent/
complainant would submits that though in the partition deed, it
is mentioned as dated 15.05.2019, actually it was executed on
19.09.2019.

18. It has to be noted that the principles laid down in
the judgments referred by the petitioners’ counsel there is no
dispute wherein it is held that there cannot be two FIRs and

- 14 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


investigation. But in the present case on hand, first complaint
was filed in respect of different offences and subsequent
complaint is only for limited offences of 406, 120B and 420.
The taking of cognizance for the offence under Section 406 and
subsequently adding of other offences is also subject to the
confirmation of that order. Though there are two complainants
for similar allegations based on the similar documents, the
prayer sought in the present petition is only for quashment of
FIR and complaint in question in the present petition is also
earlier to the second complaint. When such being the case, this
Court can direct the investigating officer to keep the
investigation which was already made in second complaint to
investigate the present petition and file the charge sheet. If
such charge sheet is also filed in this case, both the cases have
to be clubbed together in view of involvement of different
offences and there cannot be any overlapping of similar
offences since both complaints narrates with regard to the
allegations in respect of particular documents of confirmation
deed and the execution of power of attorney and so also
cancellation of the power of attorney. In T T Antony ’s case
referred supra, the Apex Court says that if any other complaint
is filed, it would be covered under Section 162 and ought to

- 15 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


have invoked Section 173(2) as well as Section 173(8). But in
the second complaint, already B-Report was filed and the same
was questioned and the Court has taken cognizance only for
limited offences. In respect of the other offences is concerned,
it requires investigation. But in the case on hand, in view of the
stay granted by this Court in respect of Cr.No.240/2019, the IO
could not investigate the matter and in the meanwhile, in
respect of the other crime is concerned, investigation was
conducted and B-report was filed and the same was
questioned. In BABUBHAI’s case referred supra, the Apex
Court held that subsequent to the registration of an FIR, any
further complaint in connection with the same or connected
offence relating to the same incident or incidents which are part
of the same transaction, two FIRs are not permissible, but if
two FIRs pertaining to the different incidents, second FIR is
permissible.

19. Having taken note of the situation in the case on
hand, it discloses that earlier case was registered and the same
was stayed and other complaint was filed in respect of the
different offences and investigation was conducted and in view
of the alteration made by the Trial Court in the charge invoking
the other offences, the same also to be kept in mind by the

- 16 -
CRL.P No. 7962 of 2019


investigating officer and he has to investigate the matter with
regard to the accusation. In both the complaints, offences are
overlapped with each other, other than the offence of forgery
and making use of forged document and the same has to be
kept in mind by the IO during the course of investigation. If the
investigating officer found that the petitioners have made out
the offences apart from the offences which have been invoked
in pursuance of the other complaint, petitioners can seek the
remedy before the Trial Court to merge both the cases together
since complainant being one and the same in both the
complaints and have the remedy before the Trial Court. Hence,
this Court answered the above point accordingly.

Point No.2:
20. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE

SN