MOHAMMED K FAROOQ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR alleging that, accused No.1 and his father, N.Khaleel stating that they would get the name of respondent No.2 entered in the property records maintained by the BBMP collected all the original documents pertaining to the subject property, and by forging her signature conveyed the subject property in favour of one A.Aafaq Ahmed through a registered sale deed dtd. 14/8/2009. The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Ss. 120B, 406, 419, 420, 465, 471 and 468 read with 34 of IPC. Taking exception of the same, accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court.

(2.) Sri.Tomy Sebastian, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners submits that the registered sale deed was executed in favour of one A.Aafaq Ahmed by Wasim Khan, and not the petitioner/accused or deceased father, and in the absence on any material that the petitioner/accused forged the signature of respondent No.2, the registration of FIR for the aforesaid offences is impermissible. He further submits that a suit in O.S.No.25070/2018 was filed to declare that the respondent No.2 is the owner of the subject properties and also declare the sale deed dtd. 14/8/2009 executed in favour of the A.Aafaq Ahmed as null and void, and the same was dismissed for non payment of deficit court fee. Therefore, he submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however given a criminal texture.

(3.) Learned HCGP for the respondent-State submits that accused No.4 has categorically admitted in his voluntary statement that at the instance of the petitioners/accused and their father he executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.1 A.Aafaq Ahmed, and the said statement is corroborated by the allegations made by the complainant and witnesses and the police after considering the same have rightly registered the FIR. Therefore, the allegations made in the FIR disclose the commission of cognizable offences, and the veracity of the allegation requires to be investigated, and at this stage, the registration of FIR does not warrant any interference.