Quashing of FIR | Civil Dispute Cannot Bar Criminal Investigation for Forgery and Fraud : Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that the pendency of civil proceedings does not preclude criminal investigation into allegations of forgery, impersonation, and fraud. In a case involving a sprawling land dispute, the Court held that criminal law must not be stultified merely because civil remedies are available, particularly where the allegations disclose prima facie cognizable offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Sri Venkat Rama Naidu Kola, sought to quash an FIR registered against him for offences under Sections 3(5), 335, 335(A)(iii), 337, 339, 340, 341, 323, 324, 329, 126, 351(1), 351(2), 351(4), 240, 242, 246, 314, 318, 319, 322, and 308 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023. The complaint, lodged by Sri Venkatappa K. (Special Power of Attorney holder of Smt. R. Radha), alleged a large-scale conspiracy involving impersonation, forgery of sale deeds, and fraudulent misappropriation of land valued at approximately ₹15 crores.

Procedural History

The case progressed through the following stages:

• 22-10-2025: Complaint lodged, leading to registration of Crime No. 446/2025.
• 24-11-2025: A coordinate Bench of the Karnataka High Court granted an interim stay on investigation, observing the dispute appeared civil in nature.
• 20-01-2026: Final hearing held; judgment reserved.
• 30-01-2026: Judgment pronounced, rejecting the petition and dissolving the interim stay.

The Parties' Positions

The dispute revolves around three sets of accused:

1. First Set: Impersonators posing as Smt. Radha and her family members to execute fraudulent sale deeds.
2. Second Set: Smt. Radha (impersonated) and the petitioner, alleged to have facilitated the fraud.
3. Third Set: Witnesses and public officials allegedly complicit in the conspiracy.

The petitioner contended that the dispute was purely civil, citing pending suits for cancellation of sale deeds. The complainant, however, argued that the allegations disclosed prima facie cognizable offences, including forgery, impersonation, and criminal conspiracy.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether the pendency of civil suits challenging the validity of sale deeds could bar the investigation into criminal offences under the BNS, 2023, where the allegations involved forgery, impersonation, and fraud.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

The petitioner’s counsel argued:

• The dispute was purely civil in nature, as evidenced by pending suits (O.S. No. 859/2025, O.S. No. 2146/2023, and O.S. No. 1137/2024) challenging the sale deeds.
• Criminal proceedings would shift the burden of proof onto the accused, contrary to the principle that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
• Reliance was placed on Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2020) 3 SCC 794] to argue that criminal law should not be invoked for civil disputes.

For the Respondent

The complainant’s counsel countered:

• The allegations disclosed prima facie cognizable offences, including impersonation, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.
• The complaint detailed multiple instances of fraud, such as the fabrication of sale deeds, impersonation of Smt. Radha, and misappropriation of compensation paid by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).
• The pendency of civil suits did not bar criminal investigation, as both remedies could coexist where the facts disclosed criminal culpability.
• Reliance was placed on Rocky v. State of Telangana [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2713] and Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514] to argue that criminal proceedings could not be quashed merely because civil remedies were available.

The Court's Analysis

The Court conducted a nuanced examination of the interplay between civil and criminal remedies, emphasizing the following principles:

1. Civil and Criminal Remedies Are Not Mutually Exclusive The Court reiterated the settled position that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist where the allegations disclose both civil wrongs and criminal offences. The mere pendency of civil suits does not bar criminal investigation or prosecution.

   "It is trite that civil and criminal remedies are not mutually exclusive. It is equally settled principle of law that merely because a given fact would project the matter being purely civil in nature, the criminal case must not be obliterated."

2. Prima Facie Case for Cognizable Offences The Court held that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case for offences under the BNS, 2023, including:

   • Section 335 (Forgery): Fabrication of sale deeds and impersonation of Smt. Radha.
   • Section 337(3) (Forgery of Public Records): Fraudulent alteration of mutation records.
   • Section 340 (Using Forged Documents): Execution of sale deeds based on forged documents.
   • Section 351 (Criminal Intimidation): Threats to the complainant and her representatives.
   • Section 308 (Extortion) and Section 318 (Cheating): Fraudulent misappropriation of NHAI compensation.

   The Court observed that the allegations traversed beyond mere contractual disputes, involving deceit, impersonation, and calculated fraud.

3. Distinction from Cheque Dishonour Cases The Court distinguished the present case from judgments like Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel, which arose in the context of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Unlike cheque dishonour cases, where the dispute is often purely financial, the present case involved forgery, impersonation, and abuse of judicial process, warranting criminal investigation.

4. Precedents on Coexistence of Civil and Criminal Proceedings The Court relied on a catena of Supreme Court judgments to reinforce its holding:

   • In Rocky v. State of Telangana, the Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution could proceed alongside civil remedies where the allegations disclosed essential ingredients of an offence.
   • In Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court declined to quash criminal proceedings where allegations of inducement and criminal breach of trust were made.
   • In Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy, the Supreme Court held that pendency of civil suits does not bar criminal prosecution if a prima facie case exists.
   • In Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), the Court reiterated that mere institution of civil proceedings cannot act as a bar to investigation of cognizable offences.

   "A common thread that runs through these authorities, where a set of facts disclose both civil wrong and criminal culpability, is that the criminal law cannot be stultified merely because civil proceedings are pending or maintainable."

5. Factual Matrix Supports Criminal Investigation The Court noted that the complaint detailed a layered conspiracy, including:

   • Impersonation of Smt. Radha by multiple individuals before the Sub-Registrar.
   • Fabrication of sale deeds with altered dates and forged signatures.
   • Fraudulent misappropriation of NHAI compensation.
   • Threats and intimidation against the complainant.

   These facts, the Court held, cried out for investigation and could not be dismissed as purely civil disputes.

The Verdict

The Court rejected the petition and dissolved the interim stay on investigation. It held that:

1. The pendency of civil suits challenging the sale deeds did not bar criminal investigation into the alleged offences.
2. The allegations disclosed a prima facie case for cognizable offences under the BNS, 2023, including forgery, impersonation, and criminal conspiracy.
3. The investigating agency was directed to proceed expeditiously and bring the investigation to its logical conclusion.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Civil Disputes Do Not Automatically Bar Criminal Investigation

Practitioners must recognize that civil and criminal proceedings can coexist where the allegations disclose criminal culpability. The mere fact that a dispute involves civil claims (e.g., title to property) does not preclude criminal investigation if the facts reveal:

• Forgery or fabrication of documents (e.g., sale deeds, powers of attorney).
• Impersonation or identity fraud (e.g., posing as the rightful owner).
• Misappropriation of funds or property (e.g., fraudulent withdrawal of compensation).
• Criminal intimidation or threats.

Prima Facie Test for Quashing FIRs

Courts will not quash FIRs at the threshold unless the allegations are patently absurd or devoid of criminal ingredients. Practitioners seeking to quash FIRs must demonstrate:

• The dispute is purely civil in nature with no criminal overtones.
• The allegations do not disclose any cognizable offence.
• The criminal proceedings are vexatious or an abuse of process.

Parallel Proceedings Require Strategic Handling

Where civil and criminal proceedings are pending simultaneously:

• Defendants should focus on disproving criminal intent in the criminal case while pursuing civil remedies.
• Complainants should ensure that the criminal complaint is detailed and specific, highlighting the criminal elements (e.g., forgery, fraud) to avoid dismissal as a civil dispute.
• Investigating agencies must proceed expeditiously to avoid allegations of harassment or delay.

Forgery and Impersonation Attract Stringent Scrutiny

Cases involving forgery of documents (e.g., sale deeds, wills) or impersonation are likely to attract criminal liability, even if they arise from civil disputes. Practitioners should:

• Scrutinize documents for authenticity (e.g., signatures, dates, stamp vendor details).
• Gather forensic evidence (e.g., handwriting analysis, FSL reports) to support allegations of forgery.
• Highlight the role of public officials (e.g., Sub-Registrars) in facilitating fraud, if applicable.