SRI. ANNAMALAI GOPAL CHETTIAR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57559
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010427392026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 13 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9086 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
SRI ANNAMALAI GOPAL CHETTIAR,
S/O SRI GOPAL CHETTIAR,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
R/AT NO.144/B, BSK 2ND STAGE,
SMB COLONY, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
BANGALORE-560050.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VENKATESH P DALWAL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI G DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY HALASURGATE POLICE STATION,
REP. BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HALASURGATE SUB DIVISION,
BANGALORE-01.
2. SRI RAGHU H.R,
S/O RANGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT SF-17, 2ND FLOOR,
HAMMED COMPLEX,
CUBBANPETE MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU-560094.
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally
signed by
CHAYA S A
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
(BY SRI M.V ANOOP KUMAR, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1;
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57559
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010427392026
SRI ANGAD KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.0025/2026 AS PER ANNEXURE-A,
INITIATED BY THE HALASURGATE P.S. AGAINST THE
PETITIONER ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE 48TH ADDL. CMM
COURT, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 318(4), 336(2), 336(3), 3(5) OF
BNS, 2023.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and the,
learned counsel for respondent No.2.
2. This petition is filed to quash the FIR in Crime
No.25/2026, registered by the Halasurgate Police for the
offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3) and
3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘the BNS’ for short).
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would
submit that, the petitioner is a holder of an agreement for sale
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57559
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010427392026
dated 05.09.2024, executed by the General Power of Attorney
Holder/s.
4. It is urged that, admittedly one Kalpana Prakash was
the owner of the property and she had executed General Power
of Attorney to Babu Arokia Das and Lawrence.
5. Learned counsel would refer to the agreement for sale
at Annexure ‘C’ and urged that on the date of the agreement
for sale itself advance payment of Rs. 1/- crore is made
through RTGS transactions. Out of Rs. One crore Rs. 90/-
lakhs is transferred to the account of Babu Arokia Das and Rs.
10/- lakhs is transferred to the account of Lawrence. It is also
submitted that on 06.08.2024, 21.08.2024, 04.09.2024,
07.08.2024, 05.09.2024 payments have been made.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that
several cash payments were also made on 13.02.2025,
19.03.2025, 20.03.2025 to Babu Arokia Das and Lawrence. It
is urged that the General Power of Attorney holders - Babu
Arokia Das and Lawrence have also endorsed the receipt of the
amount from the petitioner.
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57559
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010427392026
7. The learned counsel would also urge that the
documents relating to title were handed over on 20.03.2025
and endorsement to that effect is also made on the agreement
for sale.
8. The Learned counsel for the petitioner would further
submit that the petitioner has also issued paper publication
with regard to the purchase of the property and later, petitioner
realised that, the property is sold to the second respondent-
the complainant under a registered sale deed dated 17.04.2025
and a suit in O.S.No.1672/2025 is filed seeking specific
performance of the agreement of sale.
9. The Learned counsel for the petitioner would urge that
the owner of the property has not lodged any complaint against
the petitioner. The General Power of Attorney holders who
executed the said sale deed have also not filed any complaint
against the petitioner but, respondent No.2, who claims to be
the owner of the property from the same owner Kalpana
Prakash through a sale deed allegedly executed by the power of
attorney holder has filed the complaint.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57559
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010427392026
10. Thus, the learned counsel for the petitioner would
urge that the purely civil dispute is sought to be converted into
a criminal case and registration of FIR is wholly unjustified.
11. The Learned counsel appearing for the second
respondent – complainant would submit that the sale
agreement dated 05.09.2024 indicates that the agreement is
allegedly executed by two persons by name Babu Arokia Das
and Lawrence, who are said to be the General Power of
Attorney holders of Kalpana Prakash, the original owner of the
property. However, the document is signed only by Babu
Arokia Das and there is no signature of Lawrence K., who is
said to be another General Power of Attorney holder.
12. The learned counsel for the second respondent
would also invite the attention of the Court to the fact that
there is a registered General Power of Attorney in the name of
Babu Arokia Das and Lawrence K. and the sale agreement in
the name of the petitioner without the signature of Lawrence K.
is invalid. The document relied on by the petitioner is a created
only with an intention to cheat the second respondent, who has
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57559
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010427392026
purchased the property under registered sale deed dated
17.04.2025 is the submission.
13. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor
submits that there is a registered General Power of Attorney
executed by Kalpana Prakash, in favour of Babu Arokia Das.
Another registered General Power of Attorney in the name of
Babu Lawrence K. It is also submitted that there is also
another registered joint General Power of Attorney executed by
Kalpana Prakash in favour of Babu Arokia Das and Lawrence K.
14. Though the learned counsel for the second
respondent would urge that the the agreement for sale is
forged on the premise that the signature of another General
Power of Attorney Holder – Lawrence K. is not found on the
sale agreement, if the signature of one of the joint power of
attorney holders is not affixed in the sale agreement, prima
facie it cannot be termed as a criminal act. It may amount to a
partially/wholly invalid transaction depending on other terms
of the contract.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57559
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010427392026
15. More importantly alleged agreement for sale appears
to be on a stamp paper which is dated earlier to the sale deed
in favour of the complainant and prima facie some RTGS
payments are made on the date of agreement for sale.
16. Admittedly a civil suit is already filed and neither the
original owner – Kalpana Prakash nor the General Power of
Attorney holders - Babu Arokia Das and Lawrence K. have
lodged any complaint alleging breach of trust, cheating or
forgery.
17. That being the fact this Court is of the view that all
the contentions relating to the validity or invalidity of the sale
deeds and power of attorney have to be adjudicated in the
pending civil suit in O.S.No.1672/2025, which is already
instituted by the petitioner, before lodging the complaint by the
second respondent.
18. If the civil Court in O.S.No.1672/2025 records a
finding that the document is forged, then it is always open to
the second respondent to take such legal action as available in
law.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57559
CRL.P No. 9086 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010427392026
8. With the afore-made observations, the following:
ORDER
a. The criminal petition is allowed.
th
b. The FIR in crime No.25/2026, pending before the 48
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,
Bengaluru, stands quashed.
c. It is made clear that observations made in this order
are not the reflections on merits or demerits of any of
the contentions raised by the parties or to be raised by
the petitioner as well as the second respondent before
the Civil Court.
d. It is also made clear that this Court has also not
expressed any opinion on the validity of any of the
general power of attorneys, agreement for sale and
the sale deed referred to in the course of the order.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
NVJ
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18