G PRASAD REDDY vs THE STATE BY

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI


WRIT PETITION NO. 9246 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1 . G PRASAD REDDY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
S/O LATE G SRINIVASA REDDY
O/A NO.14, KRISHNA COMPLEX
ST RD
1 AND 3 FLOOR, SBI ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001.






2 . P VISHWAS
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
S/O SRI G SRINIVASA REDDY
ND
R/AT NO.392, 2 CROSS
TH
13 MAIN, KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034.

…PETITIONERS




Digitally signed
by ANUSHA V
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka

[BY SRI KIRAN S. JAVALI, SR. COUNSEL A/W
SRI AJIT P.B., ADVOCATE (PH)]
AND:
1 . THE STATE BY
KENGERI POLICE STATION
KENGERI GATE SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU - 560 060.
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



2 . SHIVAKUMAR S.,
ST
NO.2, 1 FLOOR
SHOPPING STREET
SERPENTINE ROAD
KUMARA PARK WEST
BENGALURU - 560 020.
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT.SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1;
SRI RAKESH B.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (PH)]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482
OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.05.2020 IN CRIME
NO.0109/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXII ADDL.
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, NRUPATUNGA
ROAD, BENGALURU CITY, ANNEXURE-A, QUASH THE FIR
DATED 14.05.2020 IN CRIME NO.0109/2020 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE XXXII ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY FILED BY THE

R-1 POLICE (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 28.08.2026, THIS DAY, THE COURT,
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CAV ORDER

Challenging FIR in Crime no.109/2020 registered by
Kengeri Police Station pending on file of XXXII ACMM,
Bangalore for offences punishable under Sections 418, 420,
465, 468, 471 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ),
this writ petition is filed.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020




2. Sri Kiran S Javali, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for Sri Ajit PB, advocate for petitioners submitted that
petitioners were accused no.1 and 2 ( petitioners ) in complaint
dated 14.05.2020 filed by respondent no.2 ( complainant )
stating that in November 2019, with intention to purchase a
residential site in a private layout by name 'Royal Elite
Residency ' ( Residency ) in Chudenapura village, Kengeri Hobli,
Bengaluru South Taluk, had approached Roshan - Marketing
Executive and obtained title related documents. It was alleged
that sites in layout had 'A' Khata issued by BBMP and sale
prices varied from Rs.46 Lakhs for 1050 sq.ft.; Rs.53 Lakhs for
1200 sq.ft.; Rs.60 Lakhs for 1350 sq.ft. and Rs.66 Lakhs for
1500 sq.ft. area sites respectively. And that on 14.01.2020,
agreeing to purchase site no.207 measuring 1,184 sq.ft. issued
cheque no.006380 for Rs.1 Lakh towards advance sale
consideration. It was stated that cheque was encashed and
receipt issued.


3. But legal opinion on documents of site, obtained by
complainant reported serious discrepancies. One of documents
- layout plan purportedly issued by CMC Rajarajeshwarinagar

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



on 10.05.2006 approving layout in Sy.nos.1/6, 1/7, 2/3A,
2/3B, 2/16 and 2/17 of Chudenapura village in favour of
accused no.1 and 2 – G. Prasad Reddy and P. Vishwas was on
verification found not sanctioned/issued by CMC and apparently
forged to lure purchasers by representing that sites were in
approved layout. Further in khata also there were irregularities
as information received on RTI applications from office of
Assistant Revenue Officer, Kengeri Sub-Division of BBMP in
2019 ( ARO ) about inability to furnish any layout plan while
issuing ‘A’ khata to 190 sites formed in 8 Acres of Sy.nos.1/6,
1/10, 1/7, 2/3A, 2/3B, 2/16 and 2/17 of Chudenapura village
indicated that they were illegal. It was alleged that sites were
sold by accused to gullible buyers for considerations varying
from Rs.35-50 lakh per site without mentioning about
sanctioned layout plan in sale deeds.


4. Further after he pointed out irregularities to
Roshan, on his request even Shivaji, Legal Officer of firm was
apprised about irregularities and sought documents/explanation
along with request for return of advance amount with additional
Rs.1 Lakh plus interest in case of failure to explain

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



irregularities. After no response for over a month and when
complainant got issued legal notice on 17.02.2020 notifying
Firm about impending legal action, instead of necessary
documents on 04.03.2020 Firm refunded Rs.1 lakh advance
amount through NEFT. This established that accused no.1 and 2
had intention to cheat complainant in same manner as other
gullible customers using forged documents. Complaint so filed
was registered as Crime no.109/2020 by Kengeri Police Station
for offences under Sections 418, 420, 465, 468, 471 read with
34 of IPC against accused. A ggrieved, this petition was filed.


5. At outset, it was submitted, impugned complaint
was purely civil in nature and instead of availing civil remedy
misconceived complaint was filed, therefore criminal
proceedings were abuse of process of law. Relying on decision
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anukul Singh v. State of U.P.
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060 , held that dispute
concerning repayment of loan and alleged coercion in execution
of documents are purely civil in nature. It was submitted that
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Devendra v. State of U.P. reported
in (2009) 7 SCC 495 , held that criminal proceedings in

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



commercial disputes between parties which are civil in nature
may be quashed by High Court if it feels accused are harassed
unnecessarily. Further, in Usha Chakraborty v. State of WB
reported in (2023) 15 SCC 135 , it was held, criminal
proceedings can be quashed, if they are used as a weapon of
harassment by giving a cloak of criminal offence to a civil
dispute. It was submitted, this Court in S Rajendra v. State
of Karnataka [ WP no.20336/2023 & c/m DD
12.06.2026 ], held police cannot be permitted to investigate
into disputes regarding title deeds, revenue entries, powers of
attorney, or execution of sale deeds, which are predominantly
civil disputes.


6. It was submitted, there was no prima facie material
about petitioners committing offences. It was submitted, there
was no dispute about petitioners being owners of property and
there was no allegation by other buyers against them.
Moreover, complainant cancelled booking of site no.207 and
refunded advance sale consideration of Rs.1 Lakh vide NEFT on
04.03.2020. Thus, complainant was not an aggrieved person
and invocation of Section 420 of IPC would be untenable. It

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in S Anand v.
State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. reported in 2026 SCC OnLine
SC 702 , held that a third party cannot invoke Section 420 of
IPC (cheating) against a subsequent buyer when there is no
fraudulent inducement or contractual relationship between
them. It was submitted that even in Mohd. Ibrahim v. State
of Bihar reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 , it was observed
though execution of sale deed without ownership may defraud
purchaser, but not third-party complainant.


7. It was further submitted that mere allegation of
forgery would not suffice, that assumption cannot substitute
proof or evidence. It was submitted, legal notice by
complainant indicated intention against purchasing site no.207.
Therefore, petitioners returned advance amount. It was
submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radheyshyam v.
State of Rajasthan reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2311 ,
held that if FIR did not reveal fraudulent inducement or
dishonest deception, where parties engaged in consensual
commercial agreement for sale of immovable property,
subsequent defaults or non-registration of sale would not

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



establish deceitful intention. It was submitted that Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. State of Punjab reported
in (2023) 5 SCC 360 , held that breach of contract does not
give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent
or dishonest intention was shown right at beginning of
transaction and mere allegation of failure to keep promise will
not be enough to initiate criminal proceedings. It was held,
criminal Courts were not meant to be used for settling scores or
pressurise parties to settle civil disputes which amounts to
abuse of process of law. Hence, impugned criminal proceedings
would not sustain.


8. It was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Mariam Fasihuddin v. State of Karnataka reported in
(2024) 11 SCC 733 , held that offence of forgery intersects
with cheating and requires two primary components, one is
fabrication of an instrument and another is dishonest intention
to use it to cause damage, injury, or to deceive. Court held that
where primary ingredient of dishonest intention cannot be
established against accused, offence of forgery would have no
legs to stand on and subjecting parties to ordeal of a trial was

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



unwarranted. In present case, since complainants had cancelled
booking of site and advance amount was repaid, there was no
dishonest intention.


9. And even in Parminder Kaur v. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2010) 1 SCC 322 , it was held
that in absence of element of forgery prosecution under
Sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of IPC would be out of
question. It was further clarified that under Section 464 of IPC,
'merely changing document does not make it a false document '
unless it was altered dishonestly or fraudulently for some gain
or objective. It was held, where accused had nothing to gain
from alleged alteration, prosecution cannot stand as there
would be no dishonest intention.


10. Further, there was unexplained/inordinate delay of
two months. Advance amount was received on 04.03.2020 but
complaint filed on 14.05.2020, indicating afterthought and
intention to harass petitioners. On above grounds sought for
allowing petition.







11. Smt.Sowmya R , learned HCGP for respondent no.1-
State, opposed petition. It was submitted, petitioners had

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



forged documents and without obtaining approval for layout
plan, based only on letter of confirmation of approval dated
10.05.2006 - forged layout plan, there were sale of sites.
Therefore, FIR was registered and matter was under
investigation. It was submitted that veracity of allegations was
required to be ascertained in ongoing investigation. On above
ground sought dismissal of petition


12. Sri Rakesh B Bhat, learned counsel for complainant,
opposed petition. It was submitted, complaint was furnished
with copy of layout plan by petitioners, which as per
information received by him under RTI established to be
forged. Non-availability of documents pertaining to ‘A’ khata,
and absence of sanctioned layout plan rendered transaction
suspect. In view of above, attempt by petitioners to induce
complainant to purchase site based on 'A' khata and fabricated
layout plan would be deemed fraudulent as offence was
completed at time of inducement. It was submitted, time spent
and expenses incurred by complainant for getting legal opinion,
collection of documents etc. was not compensated, therefore
complainant would have locus standi to prosecute petitioners.

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



It was submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in CS Prasad v.
C Satyakumar reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 50 , held
solely on ground of pendency of civil suit, complaint cannot be
quashed.


13. Likewise, in Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v.
State of Maharashtra reported in (2021) 19 SCC 401 , it
was held that FIR though not an encyclopaedia, must disclose
all facts relating to offence reported in detail. And during
pendency of investigation, Court should not go into merits of
allegations in FIR. It further clarified that true test was whether
information furnished provides reason to suspect commission of
offence and questions regarding truthfulness of report, full
details of occurrence or whether accused is named were all
matters for investigation/trial and cannot be interfered with at
initial stage.


14. Further, in criminal law, it was not necessary that
only aggrieved person can file complaint, any person can set
law in motion in public interest. It was submitted, Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Lal Chandra Ram v. State of UP & Ors.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



[ Crl.Appeal no.4920/2025 D.D.18.11.2025 ], held that it
was well recognized principle of criminal jurisprudence that
anyone can set criminal law into motion unless contrary
intention is expressed in statute. And there was no express
prohibition in CrPC.


15. Heard learned counsel and perused material on
record.


16. This quashing petition is by accused no.1 and 2
against FIR for offences under Sections 418, 420, 465, 468,
471 read with Section 34 of IPC, mainly on ground of dispute
being civil in nature; unexplained inordinate delay of two
months in filing complaint; absence of prima facie material
against petitioners and complaint not by aggrieved party etc.


17. One of primary contention urged is about locus-
standi of complainant on ground that complainant had paid
advance sale consideration for purchase of site and entered into
an agreement of sale with petitioners, had later expressed
disinterest and sought refund. In view of refund, complainant
could not claim to have suffered loss as a result of cheating and

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



even submission that large number of people have purchased
sites, put up construction and not raised any objections and
area is fully developed, would be to throw baby away with
bathwater. In fact High Court of Allahabad in Pratap Singh vs.
State of U.P. and Others [2026:AHC:98093] has held:
“6. It is a settled principle of criminal
jurisprudence that what is done cannot be
undone. If a person commits an offence of fraud
and cheating and thereafter returns the
defrauded amount, such subsequent conduct
does not absolve him of criminal liability merely
on the ground of repayment. ...”



18. Though petitioners rely on decisions in S Anand
and Mohammed Ibrahim ’s cases (supra). But Constitution
Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of AR Antulay v. RS
Nayak , reported in (1984) 2 SCC 500 , has clarified:
“6. It is a well recognised principle of criminal
jurisprudence that anyone can set or put the
criminal law into motion except where the
statute enacting or creating an offence indicates
to the contrary. The scheme of the Code of
Criminal Procedure envisages two parallel and
independent agencies for taking criminal
offences to court. Even for the most serious
offence of murder, it was not disputed that a
private complaint can, not only be filed but can
be entertained and proceeded with according to
law. Locus standi of the complainant is a
concept foreign to criminal jurisprudence save
and except that where the statute creating an
offence provides for the eligibility of the

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



complainant, by necessary implication the
general principle gets excluded by such
statutory provision. ………
………. While Section 190 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure permits anyone to approach the
Magistrate with a complaint, it does not
prescribe any qualification the complainant is
required to fulfil to be eligible to file a
complaint. But where an eligibility criterion for a
complainant is contemplated specific provisions
have been made such as to be found in Sections
195 to 199 of the CrPC. These specific
provisions clearly indicate that in the absence of
any such statutory provision, a locus standi of a
complainant is a concept foreign to criminal
jurisprudence. In other words, the principle that
anyone can set or put the criminal law in motion
remains intact unless contra-indicated by a
statutory provision. This general principle of
nearly universal application is founded on a
policy that an offence i.e. an act or omission
made punishable by any law for the time being
in force [See Section 2(n) CrPC] is not merely
an offence committed in relation to the person
who suffers harm but is also an offence against
society. The society for its orderly and peaceful
development is interested in the punishment of
the offender. Therefore, prosecution for serious
offences is undertaken in the name of the State
representing the people which would exclude
any element of private vendetta or vengeance.
If such is the public policy underlying penal
statutes, who brings an act or omission made
punishable by law to the notice of the authority
competent to deal with it, is immaterial and
irrelevant unless the statute indicates to the
contrary. Punishment of the offender in the
interest of the society being one of the objects
behind penal statutes enacted for larger good of
the society, right to initiate proceedings cannot
be whittled down, circumscribed or fettered by
putting it into a strait-jacket formula of locus
standi unknown to criminal jurisprudence, save
and except specific statutory exception. ….. "

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020




19. Therefore, challenge on ground of lack of locus
standi of complainant or he being an aggrieved party would be
ill founded and require rejection.


20. Next contention is about dispute being purely civil
in nature but sought to be given criminal cloak, by relying on
Anukul Singh, Devendra, Usha Chakraborty and S
Rajendra’ s cases (supra). However, as observed in Anukul
Singh, CS Prasad and Neeharika ’s cases (supra) there is no
prohibition against initiation/continuation of civil as well as
criminal proceedings, if any act complained of gives rise to
cause of action for both. It is clarified that in such case, true
test would be to verify whether essential ingredients of offences
are disclosed in complaint. And if so proceedings would
continue.




21. Offences alleged against petitioners are mainly
cheating, forgery and cheating using forged document etc. As
rightly submitted, one of essential ingredient common to both
offences is ‘dishonest intention’, at time of making promise and
forgery respectively.

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020




22. Further Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hira Lal Hari Lal
Bhagwati v. CBI reported in (2003) 5 SCC 257 , held that for
establishing offence under Section 420 of IPC, fraudulent or
dishonest intention is required to be established at time of
making promise. But, in present case both essential ingredients
of offence i.e. fraudulent or dishonest inducement and delivery
of property, are absent insofar as petitioners are concerned. In
complaint, entire interaction of complainant is with Roshan and
Shivaji and not with petitioners. And there is not even an
allegation that Roshan and Shivaji were acting on instructions
of petitioners in commission of offences. Therefore, Sections
418 and 420 would not be attracted. Said conclusion is
supported by decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Mitra
v. State of M.P. , reported in (2003) 3 SCC 11 and Rekha
Jain v. State of Karnataka reported in (2022) 18 SCC 174 .


23. Further, Sections 465, 468, 471 of IPC criminalize
forgery and fraud based on forged document. While Section
465 of IPC prescribes punishment for forgery, Section 468 of
IPC prescribes punishment for forgery for purposes of cheating
and Section 471 of IPC provides punishment for using as

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



genuine forged document. Thus, without essential ingredients
for offence of forgery, offences under Sections 471, 465, 468 of
IPC do not sustain. Offence of forgery, as per Section 463 of
IPC is as follows:
“Section 463. Forgery.— Whoever makes any
false documents or false electronic record or
part of a document or electronic record, with
intent to cause damage or injury, to the public
or to any person, or to support any claim or
title, or to cause any person to part with
property, or to enter into any express or implied
contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that
fraud may be committed, commits forgery.



24. In instant case, though there is allegation about
forged layout plan was given to complainant by Marketing
Executive of Firm, there is no allegation that forgery of layout
plan was by either of accused. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Jupally Lakshmikantha Reddy v. State of A.P. , reported
in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1950 , has held:
“18. We are unable to accept her submission on
this score too. There is nothing on record to
show the appellant had manufactured the
alleged fake document which is a sine qua
non to attract Section 465 IPC. In fact, the
original fabricated document had not been
recovered.”
(emphasis supplied)


25. In fact, even Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vandana v.
State of Maharashtra [ 2025 INSC 1098 ], held that to

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57951
WP No. 9246 of 2020


CNR: KAHC010227572020



attract offence of Section 468 of IPC, prosecution must
establish that accused made a false document with intent to
cheat. Likewise in case of Section 471 IPC requires proof that
accused used a forged document as genuine, knowing or
having reason to believe it to be forged at time of its use.
Therefore, prosecution for offences under Sections 465, 468
and 471 of IPC also would not sustain. Consequently, following:

ORDER
Petition is allowed ; FIR in Crime no.109/2020 registered
by Kengeri Police Station pending on file of XXXII ACMM,
Bangalore for offences punishable under Sections 418, 420,
465, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC are quashed.

Sd/-
(RAVI V HOSMANI)
JUDGE



YKL,AV
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54