Karnataka HC Quashes Seller’s Forgery FIR Against Buyer After ₹35 Lakh Recovery Claim, As 11E Sketch Was Already Part Of Sale Agreement

The petitioner and the complainant entered into a registered agreement of sale on 26 February 2022, under which the petitioner paid an advance of ₹35 lakh.

In 2024, the complainant issued notice seeking to forfeit the advance and terminate the agreement; the petitioner disputed that position and initiated proceedings seeking recovery of the amount.

After notice issued in those proceedings, the complainant lodged a police complaint alleging that the petitioner and others had forged the complainant’s signature to obtain an 11-E sketch concerning the property.

The sketch was, however, appended to the sale agreement.

Police registered Crime No. 198 of 2024 for offences under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 IPC.

The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS; interim protection against further investigation had been granted.

The Court applied Sections 468, 471, 420 and 34 IPC, under which the complaint had been registered, and the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Cheating requires dishonest or fraudulent intention at the inception of the transaction; forgery requires foundational facts indicating the making of a false document with the requisite criminal intent.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, proceedings may be quashed where the allegations do not disclose an offence or where they are manifestly mala fide and instituted to wreak vengeance.

Varala Bharath Kumar v. State of Telangana and Mahmood Ali v. State of Uttar Pradesh support careful scrutiny of the complaint and relevant surrounding circumstances where an ulterior motive is alleged.

The Court also relied on Anita Maurya v. State of Uttar Pradesh for the principles that criminal proceedings should not be used as retaliation or to cloak an essentially civil dispute with criminality.

The Court found that the complaint did not set out foundational facts showing how the petitioner had forged the complainant’s signature or possessed the requisite criminal intent.

The allegation concerned an 11-E sketch that was already appended to the sale agreement and, on the material before the Court, had been furnished by the complainant.

The dispute arose from the sale agreement, the proposed forfeiture of the advance and the petitioner’s recovery proceedings.

The complaint followed the issuance of notice in those proceedings, a sequence the Court regarded as supporting the inference that the criminal case was retaliatory.

Applying Bhajan Lal and the cited authorities, the Court concluded that the allegations did not disclose the necessary ingredients of the offences and that continuing the prosecution would constitute an abuse of process.