The Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru Bench) has refused to quash FIR against alleged power-of-attorney holder, holding that accusations of forged documents, cheating and fraudulent lease transactions raise disputed factual issues that must be investigated and cannot be decided in quashing proceedings. The Court reiterated that the existence of a civil dispute concerning property rights does not automatically eliminate criminal liability.
Where allegations disclose offences such as cheating, forgery or use of forged documents, criminal proceedings can continue alongside civil remedies. The complaint specifically alleged fabrication of a power of attorney and execution of a lease deed based on that allegedly forged document. The Court held that such allegations disclose cognizable offences requiring investigation at the threshold stage.
Questions regarding whether the power of attorney was genuinely executed, whether the lease transaction was lawful, and whether consideration was paid are all disputed factual matters. Such issues cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 CrPC/Section 528 BNSS. At the stage of considering a quashing petition, the Court’s role is limited to examining whether the complaint discloses the ingredients of an offence. Since the FIR contained detailed allegations of fraud and forgery, interference was not warranted.
The Court noted that an earlier challenge to the same FIR by other accused persons had already been dismissed. Since the allegations against the present petitioner were substantially similar, no separate ground existed to grant relief.
Briefly, the case arose from a complaint filed by Kayla Kathleen Kumar, daughter and beneficiary under the registered Will of late Dr. S. Krishna Kumar, regarding a residential property in Jayanagar, Bengaluru. She alleged that after her father’s death, she discovered a registered lease deed dated Nov 25, 2022, executed by Arokia Dass claiming to act as her father’s power-of-attorney holder.
According to her, her father had never executed any such power of attorney in favour of Arokia Dass and the document was a forged creation used to facilitate an illegal lease transaction in favour of other accused persons who were already occupying portions of the property. She further alleged that no lease consideration or rent was ever received by her father and that the entire arrangement was part of a conspiracy to unlawfully gain control over the property. Based on these allegations, FIR was registered for offences including cheating, forgery and use of forged documents.
The petitioner, Arokia Dass (Accused No.4), approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS). He was similarly placed as Accused Nos.1 to 3, whose earlier quashing petition had already been dismissed by the Court.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar observed that the complaint contained detailed allegations that the accused persons had acted in concert to create a forged power of attorney and rely upon it for executing a lease deed concerning valuable immovable property. On a plain reading of the complaint, the allegations disclosed the essential ingredients of offences such as cheating, forgery and use of forged documents, thereby warranting a criminal investigation.
The Court noted that the parties had raised serious and conflicting factual claims regarding the genuineness of the power of attorney, the lease deed, and the surrounding transactions. Such disputed questions of fact could not be examined or adjudicated in proceedings seeking quashing of an FIR and necessarily required investigation by the police.
The Court further emphasised that merely because a dispute may also have civil consequences does not mean criminal proceedings should be stifled at their inception. Allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating can give rise to both civil and criminal remedies simultaneously. The existence of a civil suit or the availability of civil remedies is not a valid ground to quash criminal proceedings where a prima facie criminal case is disclosed.
The Court also observed that since the earlier petition filed by Accused Nos.1 to 3 arising out of the same FIR had already been dismissed and the allegations against Accused No.4 were substantially identical, there was no reason to take a different view in the present petition.
