Conflicting property descriptions in gift and sale deeds warrant investigation, not quashing of criminal proceedings.

Respondent No. 2, Bank of Baroda, filed a private complaint against five accused alleging offences under Sections 120B, 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 and 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC in connection with a loan and property offered as security.

The complaint alleged that, while the Bank was enforcing its security after the loan account became an NPA, accused Nos. 4 and 5 claimed an interest in the property under a Sale Deed dated 3 June 2020 executed by the petitioner, accused No. 3.

Following a Magistrate’s reference, Vishveshwarapuram Police registered Crime No. 105 of 2025, and summons were issued to the petitioner.

The petitioner sought quashing, contending that Site Nos. 74 and 75 had previously been gifted to accused No. 2 under a registered Gift Deed dated 23 October 2018, that the property remained with accused No. 2, and that the Bank could enforce its security under the SARFAESI Act.

Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed where the Gift Deed and Sale Deed both refer to Site No. 74, raising a factual question about the identity of the property and the alleged transaction.

Whether the Bank’s remedy under the SARFAESI Act, 2002 is, by itself, a ground to quash the criminal proceedings.

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (also referred to in the petition as Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).

The Court applied the principle that criminal proceedings should not be quashed at the threshold where the allegations and material do not establish that the case is wholly groundless and factual matters require investigation.

It also held that the availability of a civil or statutory remedy, including enforcement under the SARFAESI Act, 2002, does not by itself bar criminal proceedings where the allegations may disclose an offence.

The alleged offences were under Sections 120B, 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 and 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The Court found an unresolved factual inconsistency: the 2018 Gift Deed and the 2020 Sale Deed both referred to Site No. 74, while the petitioner maintained that the site had been gifted to accused No. 2 and was not available for sale by him.

Determining whether the documents concerned the same property, and whether the later transaction involved fraudulent or dishonest conduct, required investigation rather than resolution in a quashing petition.

The Bank’s ability to proceed under the SARFAESI Act did not eliminate the possibility of criminal liability.

It directed the investigating agency to examine the property descriptions in the Gift Deed, mortgage documents and Sale Deed, and to review relevant revenue, municipal, registration and encumbrance records before proceeding in accordance with law.

The petition was dismissed, without any finding on the validity or genuineness of the deeds or the ultimate culpability of the accused.