Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Case Over Allegedly Forged POA Used To Register Partition Deed, Directs FSL Examination

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners forged his signature on an unregistered, notarised power of attorney dated 22 February 2023 and used it to execute and register a partition deed on 3 March 2023 concerning properties in Udupi District.

The police registered Crime No. 144/2024 for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

The petitioners sought quashing, denying the forgery and contending, among other things, that respondent No. 2 had suffered no loss and had received a share greater than his entitlement.

The Court considered the alleged offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the High Court’s quashing jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC; the petition also referred to Section 528 BNSS.

The Court stated that quashing jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and with caution. At that stage, the court assesses whether the allegations, taken at face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose an offence; it does not conduct a mini-trial, assess disputed evidence or determine the genuineness of disputed documents. Proceedings may be quashed where the allegations do not constitute an offence or their continuation would abuse the process of law.

The complaint specifically alleged that the petitioners forged respondent No. 2’s signature on the power of attorney and used it to execute and register a partition deed. The disputed signature required comparison with admitted signatures through forensic examination, and the circumstances surrounding the document’s creation and use required investigation; the Court therefore declined to determine the forgery allegation at the quashing stage.

The contention that respondent No. 2 received a larger share did not, by itself, negate cheating, because whether the transaction was undertaken without his consent and caused wrongful gain or loss required examination in the context of the entire transaction.

It directed respondent No. 1 to collect the admitted and disputed documents, refer them to the Forensic Science Laboratory, conduct the investigation in accordance with law and submit the final report as early as possible.