Karnataka HC Quashes FIR Over Sale Agreement Missing One GPA Holder’s Signature, Says Omission Is Not Prima Facie Criminal

The petitioner sought to quash an FIR registered by Halasurgate Police for alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”)

He relied on an agreement for sale dated 5 September 2024, said to have been executed by the original owner’s power-of-attorney holders, and asserted that he had made payments and received the title documents

The second respondent, who claimed ownership under a registered sale deed dated 17 April 2025, alleged that the agreement was created to cheat him; he also pointed out that one of the two named power-of-attorney holders had not signed it

The petitioner had filed a civil suit for specific performance, O.S. No. 1672/2025

The petition invoked the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

The FIR alleged offences under Sections 318(4), 336(2), 336(3) and 3(5) of the BNS

The Court stated that the absence of one joint power-of-attorney holder’s signature could prima facie render the transaction partially or wholly invalid, depending on the contract’s terms, but could not, without more, be treated as a criminal act

The Court made no broader finding on the validity of the documents or the merits of the parties’ claims

The Court noted that the agreement for sale predated the second respondent’s registered sale deed and that prima facie some RTGS payments had been made on the agreement date

It also considered that neither the original owner nor the power-of-attorney holders had complained of cheating, forgery or breach of trust, while a civil suit concerning the transaction was already pending

In those circumstances, the Court considered the validity of the agreement, powers of attorney and sale deed matters for adjudication in the civil suit.

It added that the second respondent could pursue legal action if the civil court found the document to be forged

It expressly left open the parties’ contentions and the validity of the powers of attorney, agreement for sale and sale deed for determination in the civil proceedings