-
by sayum
03 April 2026 12:17 PM
“The allegations are not confined to breach of contract... They traverse far deeper, into the realm of deceit, impersonation, forgery and calculated fraud” – In a significant ruling that underscores the judiciary’s intolerance towards the abuse of civil proceedings to suppress criminal liability, the High Court of Karnataka has refused to quash an FIR alleging large-scale impersonation, forgery, and conspiracy to usurp immovable property worth over ₹15 crores.
Dismissing the plea filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that “to interdict such investigation at the threshold, would be to prematurely close the doors of criminal justice and to permit serious allegations of fraud to go unanswered.”
“Availability of Civil Remedy Does Not Eclipse Criminal Law”: Court Reiterates Duality of Remedies
At the heart of the case was the contention by the petitioner, accused no.8 Venkat Rama Naidu Kola, that the dispute arose purely out of a civil disagreement over land ownership and that parallel suits were already pending in civil courts (notably O.S. No. 859/2025, O.S. No. 2146/2023, and O.S. No. 1137/2024). Relying on Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2020) 3 SCC 794], the petitioner argued that the registration of FIR and the continuation of criminal proceedings was unwarranted.
However, the High Court held that such an argument could not be accepted in the face of "layered conspiracy" and a complaint that details "how family identities were fabricated and how public offices were allegedly misled through forged appearances and signatures."
Citing a series of recent Supreme Court rulings including Rocky v. State of Telangana [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2713], Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514], and Kathyayini v. Sidharth P.S. Reddy [2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428], the Court reiterated:
“Criminal law cannot be stultified merely because civil proceedings are pending or maintainable.”
In doing so, the Court clarified that “civil and criminal proceedings are not mutually exclusive but co-extensive,” especially when serious criminality is prima facie made out.
Complaint Reveals ‘Layered Conspiracy’ of Forgery, Fabrication, Impersonation
The case revolves around a sprawling and detailed complaint lodged on 22.10.2025 by one K. Venkatappa, power of attorney holder of Smt. R. Radha – the widow of Sri S. Krishnan, the original owner of nearly 13 acres of valuable land in Bandapura village, Bengaluru East Taluk. The complaint meticulously narrates a web of fraud involving three distinct sets of accused, with allegations ranging from impersonation of Radha and her non-existent family members to the creation of forged documents, bogus gift deeds, false wills, and fraudulent revenue mutations.
The petitioner, Venkat Rama Naidu Kola, was specifically alleged to be part of the second group of conspirators, playing a central role in orchestrating the execution of fraudulent deeds, including Agreements to Sell and Deeds of Declaration registered in February 2023 in favour of developers, based on forged documents.
Justice Nagaprasanna observed:
“The petitioner also has a pivotal role in bringing in impersonators, apart from other accused. All these accused together have created fraud and fabricated documents.”
The Court emphasized that such allegations were "not peripheral, but central" to the criminal conspiracy and therefore warranted full investigation.
Judicial Process Allegedly Abused Through Forged Wills, False Suits and Letters of Administration
One of the more damning aspects of the complaint was the allegation that the impersonators had even succeeded in obtaining a Letter of Administration from a Bengaluru court by producing a forged Will allegedly signed after the impersonated “Radha” had already died. The forged documents were then used to register further deeds and to receive compensation from the National Highways Authority of India amounting to over ₹11 lakh.
The complaint also highlights how various Sub-Registrars, witnesses, and even revenue officials allegedly colluded in the execution and recording of these forged instruments, raising serious concerns about systemic fraud.
These acts, the Court noted, were not limited to private deception but “amount to fraud, cheating, impersonation, and forgery, constituting offences not only against the complainant but also against the administration of justice.”
Petitioner’s Argument That FIR Is Premature Rejected as ‘Untenable’
Rejecting the petitioner’s plea for quashing the FIR on the basis that a civil trial should first determine the veracity of the sale deeds, the Court unequivocally held:
“The investigation in the case at hand is a must, to know who are the impersonators or perpetrators of fraud played. Pendency of civil suit... cannot and will not come in the way of the investigation against the petitioner.”
The Court found the reliance on Rajeshbhai Patel to be misplaced, stating that the judgment dealt with dishonour of cheques and did not involve the extensive allegations of impersonation and forgery as in the present case.
FIR to Stand; Investigation to Proceed
Finding that a prima facie case of cognizable offences was made out under numerous provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, including Sections 335, 339, 340, 341, 308, 318, 319, 322, 323, 324, 329, 246, and Section 3(5) (common intention), the Court dismissed the criminal petition and vacated the interim stay.
Justice Nagaprasanna concluded: “Finding no merit in this petition, criminal petition stands rejected. Interim order of any kind subsisting shall stand dissolved. The investigating agency shall proceed in accordance with law, to bring the investigation to its logical conclusion with due expedition.”
This ruling sets a strong precedent against premature attempts to stifle criminal investigations by cloaking serious allegations of fraud under the garb of civil litigation.
Date of Decision: 30 January 2026
