Family Land Dispute: Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Over Allegedly Backdated Partition Deed, Says Probe Must Continue

The complainant alleged that, after cancelling a 1996 power of attorney on 12 February 2019, the petitioners nevertheless relied on it to execute a partition deed dated 15 May 2019, which the complainant alleged was actually executed on 19 September 2019.

The dispute also concerned prior sales of portions of land and the validity of a confirmation deed.

The Kaggalipura Police registered Crime No. 240/2019 for offences under Sections 120B, 406, 465, 467, 468, 420 and 471 of the IPC.

A later complaint concerning overlapping properties and documents was registered as Crime No. 461/2020 at Banaswadi Police Station.

In that case, a B-report was challenged, cognizance was taken for an offence under Section 406, and other offences were later added by alteration of charge.

The petitioners sought to quash the first FIR, contending that the dispute was civil and that the two complaints impermissibly duplicated the same transaction.

The Court considered the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC and the principles governing successive FIRs and investigation under Sections 162, 173(2) and 173(8) of the CrPC.

Relying on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, and Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, it noted that a second FIR is generally impermissible where it concerns the same incident or transaction, while a separate FIR may be permissible for a distinct incident; connected allegations may instead be addressed through the investigation and further-report process.

The Court also considered Ranimol v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2776, as cited by the petitioners.

The alleged offences in the present FIR were under Sections 120B, 406, 465, 467, 468, 420 and 471 of the IPC.

The Court found substantial overlap between the complaints: they involved the same complainant, the same disputed properties, and common documents, including the power of attorney and confirmation deed.

However, the later case had proceeded separately: a B-report had been filed, cognizance had been taken for Section 406, and other offences had been added by the Trial Court.

The first FIR also included forgery-related offences not initially invoked in the later complaint, and the disputed partition deed raised factual questions about its date and execution after the alleged cancellation of the power of attorney.

Because investigation in the first case had been stayed and the allegations required investigation, the Court declined to quash the FIR.

It stated that the Investigating Officer should take account of the investigation and proceedings in the later case and that the petitioners could seek an appropriate remedy before the Trial Court concerning the cases’ overlap.

The FIR in Crime No. 240/2019 therefore remained undisturbed; the Court left the investigation to proceed with due regard to the related proceedings in Crime No. 461/2020 and noted that the petitioners could seek relief before the Trial Court concerning the overlap.