Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Forgery Case Over Sale Deed Allegedly Bearing Thumbprint Copied From Mortgage Deed

In brief

The question

1. Whether the charge sheet and criminal proceedings should be quashed where the handwriting expert’s opinion and the parties’ competing accounts concerning the signatures and thumb impression require evidentiary assessment.

The court held

The Court held that the allegations and evidence required trial and that the Sub-Registrar’s non-joinder was not a ground to quash the case.

It also directed

It dismissed the petition to quash the charge sheet and further proceedings in C.C. No. 435/2026.

01Facts

The petitioner sought to quash the charge sheet and proceedings in C.C. No. 435/2026, arising from Crime No. 288/2023, for alleged offences under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

p. 2 · ¶ 2 · p. 7 · ¶ 14

The prosecution concerned a mortgage deed dated 25 March 2021 and a sale deed dated 31 March 2021, allegedly executed by the second respondent.

p. 6 · ¶ 11

The handwriting expert reportedly opined that the signatures on the mortgage deed, sale deed and loan application were forged.

p. 6 · ¶ 11

The petitioner relied on the matching thumb impression on the sale deed; the respondents contended that an impression taken for the mortgage deed had been copied and affixed to the sale deed.

p. 3 · ¶ 5 · p. 5 · ¶ 5–9

A civil suit concerning the properties was also pending.

p. 3 · ¶ 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the charge sheet and criminal proceedings should be quashed where the handwriting expert’s opinion and the parties’ competing accounts concerning the signatures and thumb impression require evidentiary assessment.

p. 3 · ¶ 4–5 · p. 6 · ¶ 10–11

ii.2. Whether the proceedings should be quashed because the Sub-Registrar, against whom allegations were made, was not made a party.

p. 6 · ¶ 12–13

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as stated in the petition, and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, as referred to in the judgment.

p. 2 · ¶ 1 · p. 5 · ¶ 9

The alleged offences were under Sections 120B, 420, 465, 468 and 471 IPC.

p. 2 · ¶ 2

The Court applied the principle that disputed factual matters requiring appreciation of evidence, including the significance of an expert’s opinion and competing claims about document execution, are appropriately determined at trial rather than resolved in a quashing proceeding.

p. 5 · ¶ 9–10 · p. 6 · ¶ 11

No precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 420 Section 465 Section 468 Section 471

04Reasoning

The Court found that the expert’s opinion that the signatures on the mortgage deed, sale deed and loan application were forged, together with the respondents’ allegation that the thumb impression from the mortgage deed was copied onto the sale deed, raised matters requiring trial.

p. 6 · ¶ 11

The petitioner’s reliance on the matching thumb impression did not resolve those factual disputes at the quashing stage.

p. 6 · ¶ 11

Nor did the Sub-Registrar’s absence as a party justify quashing: if evidence at trial implicated the Sub-Registrar, the trial court could proceed in accordance with law.

p. 6 · ¶ 12–13 · p. 7 · ¶ 13