Karnataka HC Quashes Sale-Deed Impersonation Case Against Buyer; Owner Had Not Complained And GPA Holder Produced No Copy Of The GPA

In brief

The question

1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed where the complaint was lodged by the alleged GPA holder, but the original owner had not complained of impersonation or challenged the sale deed.

The court held

The Court allowed the petition and quashed, insofar as the petitioner/accused No. 1 was concerned, the proceedings in Crime No. 200/2025 for the offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 339 of the BNS, pending before the II JMFC, Belagavi.

It also directed

Any pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioner, accused No. 1, sought quashing of Market Police Station, Belagavi Crime No. 200/2025, alleging offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 336(2), 336(3), 340(2) and 339 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

pp. 2–3

The complaint was lodged by a person claiming to be the GPA holder of Atul Kalyani, the owner of a property in Belagavi, alleging that the petitioner had obtained a registered sale deed for the property by impersonating Kalyani.

pp. 2–3

The petitioner maintained that the deed followed prior financial dealings with Kalyani and a proposed settlement of the petitioner’s investment in Shine Mart Industries Private Limited; he also relied on an earlier criminal case he had initiated against Kalyani concerning those dealings.

pp. 4–6

The High Court considered the complaint, the case record and the parties’ submissions while the investigation was ongoing.

pp. 6–9

02Issues

i.1. Whether the criminal proceedings against the petitioner should be quashed where the complaint was lodged by the alleged GPA holder, but the original owner had not complained of impersonation or challenged the sale deed.

pp. 7–9

ii.2. Whether, in light of the material on record and the parties’ prior financial dealings, continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process.

pp. 7–9

03Law Applied

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

p. 2

The Court set out the text of BNS Section 318(1), under which cheating involves deception coupled with fraudulent or dishonest inducement, or intentional inducement causing or likely to cause specified harm, and Section 319(1), which defines cheating by personation as cheating by pretending to be another person or knowingly substituting or representing a person as someone else.

p. 8

It also considered the charged BNS offences listed in the FIR; no judicial precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 11 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Section 318 Section 319 Section 336 Section 340 Section 339

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 406 Section 420 Section 468 Section 419

04Reasoning

The Court found that the complainant claimed to act as Kalyani’s GPA holder but had not furnished a copy of the GPA, and the record did not disclose how the complainant was personally aggrieved.

pp. 7–8

The original owner had not lodged a complaint alleging impersonation or challenged the registered sale deed, while the record reflected prior financial transactions between Kalyani and the petitioner, including substantial investments in Shine Mart Industries.

pp. 7–8

In those circumstances, the Court concluded that the complaint and record did not justify continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and that their continuation would be an abuse of process.

p. 9