Karnataka High Court
Smt. Ranjitha Nayak vs State Of Karnataka on 17 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15744
CRL.P No. 3803 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3803 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RANJITHA NAYAK,
(AS PER AADHAR CARD)
W/O. RAMANATH NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO.7-3-23A, SUKRUTHA,
SODE MATA ROAD,
BEHIND VIDYODAYA COLLEGE,
BAILAKERE, UDUPI-576101.
2. SRI. NAYAK RAMANATHA,
S/O. LATE ACHUTHA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT NO.7-3-23A, SUKRUTHA,
SODE MATA ROAD,
BEHIND VIDYODAYA COLLEGE,
BAILAKERE, UDUPI-576101.
Digitally
signed by ...PETITIONERS
HEMALATHA
J (BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
Location:
HIGH COURT AND:
OF
KARNATAKA
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
PADUBIDRI POLICE STATION,
UDUPI DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560001.
2. SMT. SANGEETHA NAYAK,
S/O. H. MUKUNDA NAYAK,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15744
CRL.P No. 3803 of 2026
HC-KAR
R/AT 79, ASHRYA 18TH CROSS,
6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU-560003
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER
FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2026, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 IS
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CRIME NO.18/2026
(REGISTERED BY THE PADUBIDRI POLICE STATION) PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND (SR.DN) AND ACJM
COURT, UDUPI FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 406, 420, 465,
467, 468, R/W 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners have challenged an FIR drawn by respondent No.1 in Crime No.18/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 read with 34 of IPC pending on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and A.C.J.M Court, Udupi.
2. (i) The respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1 on 08.02.2026 that she desired to purchase a property in Mangaluru and therefore authorized the petitioner No.1 to purchase a property on her behalf in terms of a power of -3- NC: 2026:KHC:15744 CRL.P No. 3803 of 2026 HC-KAR attorney which was duly registered as document No.BNG(U) BYP/297/2010-2011 in the office at Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar (Byatarayanapura), Bangalore. Based on the said power of attorney, the land bearing Survey No.125-4A2 of Nadsalu Village, Kappu Taluk, Udupi District was purchased in her name in terms of a sale deed dated 18.03.2011.
(ii) She further alleged that, on 04.12.2026 she approached the Panchayat Development Officer of Padubidri to get her name entered in the revenue records. However, she received an endorsement dated 07.02.2026 stating that the aforesaid property is already transferred in the name of the petitioner No.2 as per the sale deed dated 18.07.2017. She then approached the Sub Registrar's Office at Mulki and applied for certified copies of the document. She found that the petitioners had fabricated a power of attorney dated 21.03.2011 and based upon the said power of attorney, a sale deed was brought about in the name of the petitioners. She therefore alleged that the petitioners had cheated her. Based on this, the respondent No.1 registered crime No.18/2026 for the aforesaid offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:15744 CRL.P No. 3803 of 2026 HC-KAR
3. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is inordinate delay in lodging a complaint with the respondent No.1. He submits that the power of attorney executed by the respondent No.2 in favour of the petitioners was on 21.03.2011, based upon which a sale deed dated 18.07.2017 was executed in favour of the petitioner No.2. He contends that from the year 2017 till date, it is the petitioners who have been paying property tax in respect of the aforesaid property. He therefore contends that the registration of an FIR by the respondent No.1 was wholly illegal and deserves to be quashed.
(ii) In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Chanchalpati Das v. State of West Bengal and another reported in (2023) 20 SCC 120. He also submits that the petitioners have filed O.S No.103/2026 against the respondent No.2, where an order of injunction is granted. He thus contends that the registration of an FIR against the petitioners for alleged offences, is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and hence, prays that the same be quashed.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:15744 CRL.P No. 3803 of 2026 HC-KAR
4. (i) Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 submitted that the respondent No.2 had stated in her information that she had visited the office of the Panchayat Development Officer on 04.12.2026 and came to know about the fraudulent sale deed brought about by the petitioners. She thereafter applied for certified copies of the same and after obtaining them, she filed a complaint on 08.12.2026. He therefore contends that there is no delay on the part of the respondent No.2 in informing the respondent No.1. He therefore submits that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
(ii) He further contends that the case is still at an initial stage and the respondent No.1 is yet to investigate the offence. Therefore, this Court may not entertain the petition filed by the petitioners and quash the proceedings.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:15744 CRL.P No. 3803 of 2026 HC-KAR
6. A perusal of the information furnished by the respondent No.2 to the respondent No.1 shows that the respondent No.2 had appointed the petitioner No.1 as her power of attorney in terms of a document duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Gandhinagar (Byatarayanapura), Bengaluru. Based on such a power of attorney, a sale deed was brought out in the name of respondent No.2 on 18.03.2011 which was duly registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Mulki.
7. The respondent No.2 claimed that when she approached the Panchayat Development Officer on 04.02.2026 to get her name entered in the revenue records, she came to know from an endorsement issued by the Panchayat Development Officer that the property is already transferred to the name of the petitioner No.2 as per the sale deed dated 18.07.2017. The respondent No. 2 claims that she then visited the office of the Sub Registrar, Mulki to secure copies of the sale deed dated 18.07.2017, she came to know about an unregistered power of attorney allegedly executed by her based upon which, a sale deed was brought about in the name of the petitioner No.2. She therefore informed the respondent No.1 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:15744 CRL.P No. 3803 of 2026 HC-KAR that the petitioners had cheated her and hence, the respondent No.1 has registered Crime No.18/2026 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is at that stage, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against him.
8. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent No.2 has lodged a belated complaint and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Chanchalpati Das referred supra, such belated complaint cannot be taken cognizance of.
9. It is relevant to note that the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts as in that case, the issue involved was a tourist bus belonging to the complainant and he had kept quiet for nearly 8 years and had filed a belated complaint alleging offences under Section 468, 471, 406, 120B of IPC. Therefore, the reliance placed on the said judgment of the Apex Court is wholly misplaced and the facts in the case on hand are different and hence, the judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:15744 CRL.P No. 3803 of 2026 HC-KAR
10. As regards to the claim that the petitioners already filed suit against the respondent No.2, when the respondent No.2 has clearly alleged that the petitioners had fabricated a power of attorney and had thereafter brought about a sale deed based on such power of attorney, the least that could be done is an investigation by the respondent No.1 to rule out any foul play by the petitioners.
11. In that view of the matter, the FIR registered by respondent No.1 based on the information furnished by respondent No.2 cannot be interfered at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
Learned High Court Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within 10 days.
Any observation made by this Court shall not influence the Investigating Officer in investigating the offence/s.
Sd/-
(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE UN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10