Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Complaint Alleging GPA Holder Sold 10 Flats After Revocation, Orders Coordination Of Rival Investigations

Respondent No. 2 alleged that he owned property in Bengaluru and had granted the petitioner a General Power of Attorney (GPA) to manage it. After Respondent No. 2 revoked the GPA and informed the petitioner, the petitioner allegedly executed sale deeds concerning ten flats and parking areas on the property. Respondent No. 2’s complaint led to registration of Crime No. 146 of 2025 for offences under Sections 318(4), 319(2), 322, 351(2) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS).

The petitioner claimed to have funded the purchase and development of the property, and argued that the complaint arose from a civil dispute. He had also filed a complaint against Respondent No. 2, registered as Crime No. 96 of 2025, which was under investigation by the Chennai CCB; challenges to those proceedings had been dismissed by the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court.

Respondent No. 2 had also filed a civil suit seeking, among other reliefs, cancellation of the sale deeds and recovery of possession. The petitioner sought to quash Crime No. 146 of 2025 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 / Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

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

The Court stated that a complaint setting out the opposing party’s version of the same transaction is not barred merely because an earlier FIR has been registered; separate complaints may be registered and investigated as rival versions.

The availability or pendency of civil remedies does not, by itself, exclude the possibility of criminal liability where the allegations warrant investigation.

The Court did not rely on specific precedents, noting that the cited decisions were not discussed as they did not apply to the particular facts.

The Court considered the allegations that the petitioner executed sale deeds after the GPA had been revoked and that the revocation had been communicated to him, alongside the petitioner’s disputed claim that he funded the property and acted to protect his investment.

Resolving the parties’ competing accounts—including the source and purpose of the funds, the scope of the GPA, and the circumstances of the sales—would require investigation; those disputed matters could not be determined by accepting the petitioner’s version at the quashing stage.

The Court also held that the earlier complaint and pending civil suit did not, by themselves, make Respondent No. 2’s complaint impermissible.

Because both complaints concerned the same investment and property transactions, coordinated investigation would facilitate examination of both versions, while each complaint was to remain separate and be assessed independently.

It directed the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu Directors General of Police to coordinate, and directed the Karnataka investigating agency to coordinate with the Chennai CCB and obtain relevant material from Crime No. 96 of 2025.

The complaints were to be treated as separate rival versions and investigated independently and impartially; the parties’ contentions on the merits were left open.

The investigation was directed to proceed expeditiously and in accordance with law.