Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Over Brother’s Allegation That Forged GPA Was Used To Transfer Family Property

Respondent No. 2 alleged that the petitioners forged his signature on a General Power of Attorney dated 27 December 2002 and used it to execute a partition deed and transfer disputed family property.

He had already filed a partition suit in 2011 and later complained to the police in 2022; following an FSL report indicating a discrepancy between the disputed and admitted signatures, he filed a private complaint.

On 10 October 2023, the Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to registration of Crime No. 472/2023 for offences under Sections 415, 420, 463, 464, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.

The accused sought to set aside the referral order and quash the FIR, arguing, among other things, that the dispute was civil and the Magistrate had not applied his mind.

Section 482 Cr.P.C. was invoked to seek quashing of the FIR; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. governed the Magistrate’s referral of the private complaint for police investigation; and the charged offences were under Sections 415, 420, 463, 464, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC.

The Court relied on Sharla Bazliel v. Baldev Thakur and Others, which it described as holding that criminal proceedings should not be quashed where an FSL report is available or its consideration is pending.

The petitioners relied on Bhikhubhai Govindbhai Patel and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another, but the judgment does not state or apply a specific rule from that decision.

The Court found that the complaint alleged forgery of the General Power of Attorney and its use to transfer the property, and that the FSL report indicated a discrepancy between the disputed and admitted signatures.

Those matters warranted investigation; the investigation remained at an early stage, and the Court declined to determine the forgery allegation on the basis of the petitioners’ defence or the pending civil suit.

It also rejected the challenge to the Section 156(3) referral because the Magistrate had considered the complaint and accompanying affidavit and recorded that a prima facie case was made out.

It dismissed both criminal petitions.