WP/21535/2022 of SRI ANNAPPA M Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 30 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

1. Heard Sri. Sathish K., learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.21535/2022, Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned

HC-KAR

senior counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No.19413/2022 and WP No.19413/2022 and W.P. No.22059/2022 and Sri. Prithveesh M.K., learned counsel for the petitioner in WP No.19606/2023 and Sri. H.B. Chandrashekar for the applicant for and on behalf of respondent No.2 in all the writ petitions and Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 - State in all the petitions.

2. All these petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with the following prayers: In WP No.21535/2022

a) CALL for records from Respondent No.1 in respect of impugned First Information Report dated 16/09/2022 in Crime No.152/2022 (ANNEXURE - G);

b) ISSUE A WRIT OR ORDER quashing the impugned Complaint dated 16/09/2022 given by the 2nd Respondent (ANNEXURE-F) and impugned First Information Report in Crime No. 152/2022 dated

HC-KAR

16/09/2022 registered by the 1st Respondent Police (ANNEXURE - G) and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, in so far as the Petitioner is concerned (Accused No. 5), in the interest of justice and equity; In WP No.19413/2022 Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the FIR in Crime No.152/2022 of Santhebennur Police Station vide Annexure 'K' dated 16-09-2022 registered for the offences punishable under sections 149,406,420,465 of Indian penal Code, 1860 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jnr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Channagiri. In WP No.22059/2022 Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the FIR in Crime No.152/2022 of Santhebennur Police Station vide Annexure 'H' dated 16-09-2022 registered for the offences punishable under sections 149,406,420,465 of Indian penal Code, 1860 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jnr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Channagiri. Insofar as petitioners concerned . In WP No.19606/2023 Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the FIR in Crime No.152/2022 of Santhebennur Police Station vide Annexure 'H' dated 16-09-2022 registered for the offences punishable under sections 149,406,420,465 of Indian penal Code, 1860 pending on the file of Addl. Civil

HC-KAR

Judge (Jnr.Dn) & JMFC Court, Channagiri. Insofar as petitioners concerned .

3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present writ petitions are as under:

3.1. Smt. Parvathamma, for whom the applicant represents now, lodged a complaint with Sante Banner Police on 16.09.2022 which was registered in Crime No.152 of 2022 for the offence under Sections 406, 420, 465 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against ten accused persons who are petitioners herein.

3.2. The gist of the complaint averments would reveal is that landed property bearing Sy.No.1/2 measuring 0.8 guntas, Sy.No.1/5 measuring 1 acre 24 guntas, Sy.No.16/16 measuring 1 acre 17 guntas, Sy.No.3/4 measuring 6 acres 33 guntas, Sy.No.84/2 measuring acres guntas belonged to Smt. Parvathamma.

HC-KAR

3.3. She being illiterate, Revenue Inspector of Sante Bennur, Chandrappa, Vijaykumar Patil visited her house and gave wrong information and took her to Sub-Registrar Office on 09.03.2022 at about 05.56 p.m. and without informing her about the documents that has been registered in her name came to be registered and property has been gifted in favour of Geeta, who is nowhere related to the said Smt. Parvathamma after cancelling the Will. Therefore she has sought for action against the ten accused persons stating that all of them have conspired together with a common object of deceiving Smt. Parvathamma.

3.4. Police based on the said complaint registered the case and was investigating the matter.

4. In the meantime, the petitioners herein have approached this Court and there is an order of stay by this Court for the investigation.

HC-KAR

5. In respect of the very same subject matter, Smt. Parvathamma had also approached Senior Citizen Forum taking advantage of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. Action initiated therein was subject matter of the writ petition before this Court in WP No.18181/2022.

6. A co-ordinate bench of this Court by a considered

Order

dated 13.10.2025 quashed the proceedings initiated in the said Act in Case No.23/2022 before the Assistant Commissioner, Honnali Sub-Division, Chennagiri Taluk, Davanagere.

7. Respondent No.3 did not choose to challenge the said Order and action initiated under the aforesaid Act thus stood terminated.

8. A civil suit is also filed in O.S.No.28/2023 by respondent No.3 before the Jurisdictional Civil Court with a prayer to cancel the Gift Deed said to have been executed

HC-KAR

by Smt. Parvathamma in favour of Smt. Geetha, who is the first petitioner in WP No.19413/2022.

9. Counsel for petitioners lead by Sri. P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel would contend that continuation of the criminal proceedings in a matter of this nature is nothing but abuse of process of law inasmuch as from the complaint averments, no criminality whatsoever is made out against any of the accused persons much less all the accused persons.

10. Sri. P.P. Hegde would further contend that as could be seen from the complaint averments, what has been alleged by the complainant is that Revenue Inspector and others visited her house, hurriedly took her to Sub- Registrar's Office and at about 05.56 p.m., some document has been executed in her name without informing the contents of the same.

11. As could be seen from the said averments, there is no question of impersonation as is sought to be

HC-KAR

portrayed before this Court by the respondents is the contention of the petitioners.

12. Sri. P.P. Hegde further contends that since civil suit is filed and action initiated under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 is terminated by a considered Order of the co-ordinate bench of this Court, WP No.18181/2022, which has become final, continuation of the present criminal case, is thus totally uncalled for besides abuse of process of law and sought for quashing the criminal complaint.

13. Per contra, Sri. H.B. Chandrashekar, who now represents the alleged legal heir of Smt. Parvthamma (applicant) would contend that the investigation in a matter of this nature is utmost necessary in order to unearth the truth in the incident and therefore, quashing of the FIR would not arise.

14. He would further contend that a Will executed by Smt. Parvathamma was cancelled and a Gift deed got

HC-KAR

executed in favour of Smt. Geetha, who is not a blood relative of Smt. Parvathamma, which itself would establish that fraud has been played on Smt. Parvathamma in getting the document executed resulting in commission of the offence under Sections 406, 465 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and thus sought for dismissal of the writ petitions.

15. Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned High Court Government Pleader, while adopting the arguments put- forth on behalf of the applicant, would contend that in a matter of this nature, investigation by the police is utmost necessary as the executant was aged about 89 years as on the date of the execution of the document and her mental and physical fitness is a matter that is required to be investigated so as to find out whether there was a proper execution of the Gift Deed in favour of Smt. Geetha by Smt. Parvathama and thus sought for disposal of the writ petitions.

HC-KAR

16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

17. On such meticulous consideration of the material on record, the Gift Deed per se does not appear to be incorrect, as necessary precautions have been taken by the Registering Authority before the document came to be registered. Documents like PAN Card etc., is also obtained by the Registering Authority before registering the document, which would be sufficient enough to satisfy the legal requirement for registration of a document before the jurisdictional Sub-Register.

18. As could be seen from the complaint averments itself, what has been found out is that there was a misrepresentation.

19. The complaint averments would also reveal that Revenue Inspector with others came and took her hurriedly to the Sub-Registrar Office at about 05.56 p.m. on 09.03.2022 and a document came to be registered

HC-KAR

after taking her photograph and therefore she is not aware of the contents of the document.

20. But the copy Gift Deed that is placed on record, would go to show that photograph of Smt. Parvathamma, is found on the Gift Deed which is captured by the computer after she appeared before the Sub-Registrar and given her left thumb impression.

21. Only on the ground that the registration has taken place and printout has been taken on 09.03.2022 and about 18.07.00 p.m. itself would not be sufficient enough to doubt the execution. If at all, there is any misrepresentation that has taken place by the Donee, the same could be subject matter of the civil litigation and not a criminal complaint.

22. Cancellation of the Will that was executed on 31.08.2009 at about 11.48 a.m. has also taken place on 09.03.2022 and said document is registered at about 05.50 p.m. If the registration itself is completed at about

HC-KAR

05.50 p.m., on 09.03.2022, whereunder the Will was cancelled, the complaint averments that she was taken to the Sub-Registrar's Office from her house hurriedly at about 05.56 p.m. itself is a wrong statement made in the complaint.

23. Why would a Revenue Inspector visit the house of a person who has and take that person to Sub-Registrar Office is a question that remains unanswered. Where were the present applicant when these registration has taken place is not even spelled out by the applicant.

24. Moreover, witnesses were present when the registration has taken place and a licensed deed writer has drafted the Gift Deed.

25. Sub-Registrar having satisfied with the statutory requirements, rightly registered the Gift Deed.

26. Assuming that there was no intention of Smt. Parvathamma executing the Gift Deed in favour of Smt.

HC-KAR

Geetha, same would be decided by the competent Civil Court for which no criminal complaint would be maintainable.

27. It is not the case of the complainant that though it was argued that Smt. Parvathamma was impersonated, complaint averments do not substantiate the said contention.

28. Moreover, photograph of very same Smt. Parvaathamma is captured by the computer in the Sub- Registrar's office. Therefore, at the most, complaint averments would only go to show that Smt. Parvathamma was tricked to subscribe her thumb impression to a document. Consequences were not made known to her.

29. Said aspect of the matter is a matter of civil dispute and no criminality per se is made out, much less all ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 406, 420 or 465 of the Indian Penal Code.

HC-KAR

30. What is the unlawful object shared by ten accused persons including the Sub-Registrar who is a Government Servant is a matter that was required to be explained in the complaint itself.

31. Even according to the complaint averments, it is the Revenue Inspector of Sante Bennur, Chandrappa, Vijaykumar Patil who have visited the house of the complainant and not the Donee Geetha.

32. Therefore, when the unlawful assembly commenced and who are all the persons who shared the unlawful object, having not been spelt out in the complaint itself, police registering the case itself has resulted in abuse of the process of law. Therefore, a case is made out to quash the pending FIR.

33. Hence, following order:

ORDER

(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.

HC-KAR

(ii) Consequently, FIR in Crime No.152/2022 of Santhebennur Police Station, is hereby quashed.

(iii) However, the observations made in this Order shall not affect the rights of the applicant who represents respondent No.2 in the pending civil suit nor it shall it come in the way of the defence that has been raised by the Donee Smt. Geetha and others in the civil suit.

Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

SNC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12