Man’s E-Stamp Payment Needs Independent Verification, Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Alleged Property-Forgery Case

Respondent No. 2 complained that Priya, falsely claiming to be the daughter of his late sister, relied on allegedly fabricated documents, including a Will, to deal with land in Sy. No. 1/4.

She entered into agreements of sale with Bharath in 2021 and 2022; the latter was registered on 19 December 2022.

During the investigation, Bharath allegedly implicated the petitioner in fabricating the documents.

Investigators also found that the petitioner had paid the amount for e-stamp papers using his mobile number on 19 December 2022.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC, arguing that the case against him rested on a co-accused’s inadmissible statement and his payment for the stamp papers.

The Court applied Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC, the offences under investigation.

It relied on P. Krishna Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 INSC 725, for the rule that an inculpatory statement made by an accused to police is not substantive evidence against a co-accused and cannot be made admissible merely by invoking Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; such a statement may nevertheless assist the police as an investigative lead.

The Court also referred to Sections 269ST and 271DA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and The Correspondence, RBANMS Educational Institution v. B. Gunashekar & Another, 2025 INSC 490, concerning the reporting and examination of cash transactions of ₹2,00,000 or more.

The Court accepted that Bharath’s police statement could not, by itself, establish the petitioner’s involvement.

However, the petitioner’s e-stamp payment was a separately verifiable circumstance connected with the agreement allegedly executed using fabricated property documents.

The purpose of the payment, the petitioner’s knowledge, and his role therefore required investigation; the Court held that it could not determine at that stage whether he had merely facilitated payment or knowingly participated in the alleged fabrication.

Separately, if the sale-agreement amounts were found to have been paid in cash in breach of Section 269ST, the Investigating Officer could refer the relevant information to the jurisdictional Income-tax Authority.

It expressed no view that payment of stamp duty alone constituted any of the alleged offences.

It dismissed the petition, permitted the Investigating Officer to continue the investigation in accordance with law, and directed that the investigation proceed independently of the Court’s observations.