A pending civil suit does not bar investigation into an allegedly forged power of attorney.

The complainant alleged that his father purchased two adjoining sites in 2003 and 2004.

He disputed the signature on a General Power of Attorney (GPA) said to have been executed on 14 October 2005, alleging that it was fabricated and later used by Hanumappa to execute a registered sale deed in favour of Palanethraiah on 27 November 2020.

Stamp duty on the GPA was allegedly paid in 2019.

The complainant lodged a complaint on 31 October 2024, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 447, 427 and 34 of the IPC.

Hanumappa and Palanethraiah sought to quash the FIR, relying on delay, the civil nature of the dispute and the pending civil suit concerning the property.

Whether the delay in lodging the complaint, considered with the complainant’s account of when he learned of the transaction, justified quashing the FIR

Whether the dispute was purely civil, or whether the specific allegation that the GPA was forged and used to execute the sale deed required criminal investigation

Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) empowers the High Court to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; at the quashing stage, the Court considers whether the allegations disclose matters requiring investigation, rather than deciding whether they are ultimately proved

A civil dispute does not, by itself, bar criminal proceedings where the complaint specifically alleges forgery and use of a forged document; civil and criminal remedies may address distinct aspects of the same transaction

The petitioners relied on Chanchalpati Das v. State of West Bengal concerning unexplained inordinate delay, Randheer Singh v. State of U.P. concerning criminal proceedings allegedly used to colour a civil dispute, and Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh concerning the distinction between civil claims and criminal offences.

The Court held that the complaint did not merely concern title or possession: it specifically disputed the father’s signature on the GPA and alleged that the document was used to execute the subsequent sale deed.

The gap between the alleged 2005 execution and 2019 payment of stamp duty, together with the 2020 sale, raised factual questions about the GPA’s genuineness, Hanumappa’s authority and the parties’ knowledge or roles.

Those matters could not be conclusively determined in a quashing petition and could be investigated, including by obtaining the original GPA and seeking forensic examination if considered necessary.

The pending civil suit concerned property rights and the sale transaction, but did not preclude investigation into the alleged fabrication and use of the GPA.

The Court expressed no final view on the document’s genuineness or either petitioner’s culpability.

Both criminal petitions were dismissed, and the police were directed to investigate the matter in accordance with law, including the relevant documents and, if considered necessary, forensic examination of the GPA.

The Court clarified that its observations were not final findings and that the Investigating Officer must investigate independently.