[Forgery Of Will] Criminal Proceedings Cannot Be Obliterated Merely Because An Issue Appears To Be Civil In Nature: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a case of cheating registered against a mother and son who are alleged of fabricating documents in order to acquire title in a property.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Vanitha and Venkatesh M and said, “It is no law that merely because an issue brought before the Court appears to be civil and is standing on the heels of crime, it should be obliterated.”

As per the complaint filed by Milli T Shah, her father had executed a Will dated 14-08-2002 in respect of all his properties and had died on 31-07-2008. However, on 21-05-2024 when they sought to verify the records in respect of the property, they come across a Gift Deed dated 19-02-2024 executed by Vanitha in favour of her son, on the basis that the father of the complainant had executed a Will dated 01-10-2005 in favour of Vanitha's husband.

Accordingly, a complaint was lodged under Sections 420, 468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Seeking quashing of the FIR, the petitioners-accused argued that the issue is purely civil in nature and there is no question of cheating or forgery, as the husband of Vanitha was the recipient of the Will from the hands of complainant's father. Therefore, the property having come to their hands, execution of the gift deed by her in favour of the son is no crime.

The complainant opposed the plea saying that her father had made a Will in favour of the members of the family way back in the year 2002 and the Will that the petitioners sought to contend was forged, had varied signature.

The bench agreed, stating, “The signatures found in the registered Will and in the unregistered Will are undoubtedly at variance even to the naked eye. Therefore, these signatures would require analysis and examination at the appropriate fora...A forgery or cheating of this kind if interdicted in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. it would be putting a premium on the alleged activities of the petitioners.”

Rejecting the contention of the petitioner that the matter is purely civil in nature, the court said “An act or a fact would give rise to two circumstances – one setting civil law into motion and the other criminal law. Merely because the issue projected is civil, it is no law that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should obliterate the crime. It is a matter of evidence which cannot be deciphered at this stage of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.”

It thus dismissed the quashing petition.

Appearance: Senior Advocate Kiran S.Javali a/w Advocate Chandrashekara K for Petitioners.

HCGP P.Thejesh for R1.

Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, a/w Advocate K S Ponnappa for R2.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 312

Case Title: Vanitha & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5522 OF 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order