JUDGMENT K.Natarajan, J. - Criminal Petition No.225/2022 is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and investigation in Crime No.210/2021 registered by Bagalur Police Station, Bengaluru offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447, 380, 323, 465, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2-Smt.Rathnamma. 2. Criminal Petition No.8329/2021 is filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime No.215/2021 registered by Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, 420, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2-Ms.Ramya H.M. 3. Both the matters are interlinked with each other as the defacto complainant-Smt.Rathnamma in Crime No.210/2021 claimed to be owner of the property and the defacto complainant-Ms.Ramya H.M. is said to be GPa holder of Smt.Rathnamma and claiming their rights on the same property. Hence, taken together for common disposal. 4. Sri a.S.Ponnanna, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner counsel in both the cases and Sri M.R.Rajgopal, Senior counsel appearing for the defacto - complainant - respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.225/2022 and Sri Srihari, learned counsel appearing in Crl.P.No.8329/2021. 5. Heard the arguments on both sides. 6. The case of the prosecution in the Crl.P.No.225/2022 in respect of Crime No.210/2021 wherein, Smt. Rathnamma filed a complaint on 03.11.2021 before Bagalur Police alleging that she is the owner of the agricultural property in Survey No.35/2 (Old Survey No.35) of Sathanur Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru and the same was inherited from her husband who died in the year 1992. She further alleged that on 31.08.2017, she has executed a registered agreement of sale with possession of the property in favour of Ms. Ramya H.M before the Sub-Registrar, Jala (Gandhinagar) Bengaluru and accused No.1-P.G.Nataraj was confirming party in the sale agreement who has received Rs.93.00 lakhs. On the very same day, an irrevocable General Power of attorney (GPa) was executed in favour of Ms.Ramya before the Sub-Registrar, Jala (Gandhinagar). On 18.03.2018, accused No.1-P.G.Nataraj have executed a registered Deed of Declaration in favour of Ramya H.M declaring that he has no right and title over the said property. She has constructed the house in the property consisting of two bed rooms, a living area and bathrooms. On 18.03.2018, accused No.1-P.G.Nataraj have executed a registered Deed of Declaration in favour of Ramya H.M declaring that he has no right and title over the said property. She has constructed the house in the property consisting of two bed rooms, a living area and bathrooms. Herself and Ramya H.M. had engaged one Sandeepa as a care taker of the house work and Sanjay as Security Guard. The said Ramya H.M used to visit frequently to her house and during the months of March-april 2021 due to COVID-19, she was residing in her daughter's house at Telangana. She further alleged that on 01.07.2021, the said Ramya H.M informed her that accused No.1-P.G. Nataraja is said to be representing himself as partner of Hindustan Ideal Estates have fraudulently with dishonest intention submitted fabricated documents before the assistant Commissioner and got the Katha and RTC transferred in the name of Hindustan Ideal Estates. Based on the fabricated documents, P.G. Nataraja in collusion with accused No.2-Hiriyanna Shetty have transferred the property in favour of one Umesh Shyama Raju on 26.07.2021. The order of the assistant Commissioner has been challenged and is set aside. The assistant Commissioner made all the relevant observations and passed the order in her favour and restored back the RTC in her name. She further alleged that on 27.09.2021, she received a notice from the Bagalur Police Station concerning to a false complaint filed by P.G. Nataraja and the said P.G.Nataraja, Hiriyanna Shetty and 25 others who were their associates have assaulted and threatened Sandeepa and Sanjay and also threatened to kill the complainant and Ramya H.M, if they were involved in the said property. Therefore, she filed complaint seeking protection on 25.10.2021, but no action has been taken in this behalf. She further alleged that on 27.10.2021 at around 7.30 p.m., she along with Sanjay-security guard and Ramya H.M. went her house and saw that the locks installed on the doors were broken and further they went inside the house and they found that the house hold articles like fridge, washing machine, gas stove, cylinder, sofa sets, TV, air Conditioner and other articles were missing. an almirah containing the property papers, Bank Passbook, cash of Rs.1,80,000/- and some items valued around 10.00 lakhs were found missing. an almirah containing the property papers, Bank Passbook, cash of Rs.1,80,000/- and some items valued around 10.00 lakhs were found missing. She has contended that P.G. Nataraja and Hiriyanna Shetty and their associates have criminally conspired with common intention, tampered with revenue records with dishonest and fraudulently with an intention to cheat have fabricated her property documents and sold the property and therefore prayed for taking action. 7. Based upon her complaint, the Police registered a case on 03.11.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447, 380, 323, 465, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC. assailing the same, accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court. 8. The case of the prosecution in the Crl.P.No.8329/2021 in respect of Crime No.215/2021 wherein, Ms.Ramya H.M. has filed a complaint on 02.10.2021 before Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station alleging that the said Ms.Ramya H.M who is the GPa holder of Smt.Rathnamma in the above said case, came in contact with Smt.Sumithra W/o Hiriyanna Shetty in the year 2015. The complainant was intending to purchase some land. at that time, accused No.1-Hiriyanna Shetty and accused No.2-P.G.Nataraja shown the property in Survey No.35/2 which belongs to one Lakshman Gupta and the same was in the name of his wife Smt.Rathnamma. Therefore, on 31.08.2017, Smt.Rathnamma and her children executed an agreement of sale along with possession on the said property and also executed irrevocable GPa in her name. Then on 15.03.2018, the said Nataraja and Venkataram Shettappa were also executed the deed of declaration stating that they have also received money from her. Subsequently, Hiriyanna Shetty and John Shedrak have filed an application before the assistant Commissioner and the assistant Commissioner fixed the date on 30.07.2021 for further arguments. But the accused persons ie., Hiriyanna Shetty, Nataraja P.G, John Shedrak and Pruthvi Honnegowda suppressed the fact and got mutated the said property in the name of Hindustan Ideal Estates which was held by Nataraja in the RTC. The accused persons suppressed the material documents by relying upon the fabricated deed of dissolution in the year 1994. They got mutated their names in the said documents. When they questioned the same with accused No.1-Hiriyanna Shetty, he asked her to come home. The accused persons suppressed the material documents by relying upon the fabricated deed of dissolution in the year 1994. They got mutated their names in the said documents. When they questioned the same with accused No.1-Hiriyanna Shetty, he asked her to come home. accordingly, on 29.09.2021 and 30.09.2021, he was not present in his house and even his phone was not reachable and on 02.10.2021 at 7.30 a.m., she went to the house of accused No.1 and question as to why he has cheated her, at that time, accused No.1 and another person were present, the accused persons dragged her and tore her clothes, assaulted her and also threatened her with rowdy elements. Therefore she went to the Shanubhog Hospital and after taking treatment, she went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint. after receiving the complaint, the Police registered a case against four accused persons. assailing the same, the petitioners are before this Court for quashing the FIR and the complaint. 9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that the FIR is not sustainable under the law. The transaction between the complainant and the petitioners are civil contract. Based upon the agreement of sale and other deeds, the complainant has filed a criminal case instead of approaching the civil court for appropriate remedy. Therefore, the FIRs in both the cases are liable to be quashed. The senior counsel further contended that the property in question had purchased by the husband of Smt.Rathnamma as a partner of the firm. Subsequently, after the death of her husband, the complainant-Smt.Rathnamma inducted as partner along with the accused No.2-P.G.Nataraja and in the year 1994, the firm was dissolved and a dissolution deed was executed among the partners. The complainant has declared that the land in question was given to the P.G. Nataraja, the complainant and other partners have received monetary benefits but taking advantage of her husband, she has agreed to sell the property to one Ms.Ramya H.M. by way of agreement of sale and the said Ramya also agreed to sell the property to Shyama Raju who is none other than the father of Umesh S Raju with whom this petitioner sold the property. The said Shyama Raju or Umesh S Raju are not made as accused and the complainant has falsely implicated the witnesses to the document as accused. The said Shyama Raju or Umesh S Raju are not made as accused and the complainant has falsely implicated the witnesses to the document as accused. Ms.Ramya H.M who is the complainant in Crl.P.No.8329/2021 was confirming party to the sale deed of P.G. Nataraja. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was also executed between the parties which reveals that the property was fallen to the accused P.G.Nataraja. The learned senior counsel further contended that the entire case is purely civil in nature and the complaint is unable to perform the contractual obligation, but has filed a criminal case which is not correct. Hence, prayed for quashing the proceedings. 10. Per contra, Sri M.R.Rajgopal, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Smt.Rathnamma has contended that the alleged property in question was purchased in the individual name of Umesh S. Raju prior to creation of partnership firm and after death of her husband the property was inherited by Smt.Rathnamma. The dissolution deed and MOU were falsely created by P.G. Nataraja and no title of the property will transfer under the dissolution of firm without transferring of the property to the P.G.Nataraja in accordance with law. The complainant agreed to sell the property in favour of Ms.Ramya H.M. and executed irrevocable GPa where P.G.Nataraja was also a confirming party who has received Rs.93.00 lakhs and he has given declaration and the said Ramya was unable to get the sale deed in her name, hence, she has agreed to sell the said property to one Shyama Raju. She has received Rs.4 crore 80 lakhs in the said agreement and the P.G.Nataraja was also a party, such being the case, by misrepresentating himself before the assistant Commissioner got mutated his name in the RTC and later the said mutation entry was cancelled by the same assistant Commissioner and by suppressing the cancellation of his name, he has sold the property to Umesh Shyama Raju and further contended that the amount paid by Shyama Raju in the agreement of sale between the Shyama Raju and Ramya were shown as amount received by P.G. Nataraja from Umesh S. Raju. There are manipulation, creation and fabrication of documents and the accused sold the property and there is no actual money transferred to the accused from the vendor and to deprive the right of the complainant that he has created a false document. There are manipulation, creation and fabrication of documents and the accused sold the property and there is no actual money transferred to the accused from the vendor and to deprive the right of the complainant that he has created a false document. Therefore, the police required to investigate the matter and the FIR cannot be quashed at the initial stage as the accused committed the offence which falls under the Indian Penal Code and it cannot be said that there is no criminality. The accused cheated the complainant and further contended that the anticipatory bail of the accused itself was rejected by the District Court on 9.12.2021, therefore, question of quashing the FIR does not arise, hence prayed for dismissing the petition. 11. In support of his contention the learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the following judgments: a) State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. b) Priti Saraf and another vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another in Crl.a.No(s).296/2021 (arising out of SLP(Crl). No(s). 6364 of 2019). c) Kaptan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal appeal No.787/2021 d) State of Odisha vs. Pratima Mohanty Etc. in Criminal appeal Nos.1455-1456 of 2021. 12. The counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-Ms.Ramya H.M. in Crl.P.No.8329/2021 have also argued and supported the arguments of respondent counsel in Crl.P.No.225/2022 and he has also argued that the accused have created the dissolution deed on 08.09.1994 and the amendment deed of dissolution was created, whereas the bond paper was purchased on 10.06.1995 which reveals the amended dissolution was not done in the year 1994, when, the bond paper has been purchased in the year 1995 which clearly shows the document was created by the accused. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate the matter. The learned counsel further submits that the deed of dissolution has not been signed by Smt.Rathnamma in the 1st and 2nd pages and the signature is found on the last page. Hence, he has contended that the accused persons have created fake documents in the name of the complainant and therefore, the Police required to investigate the matter. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 13. Hence, he has contended that the accused persons have created fake documents in the name of the complainant and therefore, the Police required to investigate the matter. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition. 13. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records and the allegations made against the petitioners, it reveals that the husband of Rathnamma, who is the defacto complainant in Crime No.210/2021 purchased the land in question in the year 1970 and subsequently, he became a partner in a company where accused No.1-P.G. Nataraja was also a partner and after the death of the husband of the defacto complainant Rathnamma, the said Rathnamma inducted as a partner and subsequently, she was retired from the firm called M/s. Hindustan Ideal Estate. The other partners also retired from the firm and the property in question said to have fallen to the share of the accused P.G. Nataraja. He was continued as a partner in the firm. It is further revealed that subsequently, an amended dissolution deed said to have executed by the complainant Rathnamma in the year 1994. But the bond/stamp paper has been purchased in the year 1995. The immovable property which was standing in the name of husband of Rathnamma was inherited by her after his and later, the said Rathnamma agreed to sell the said property to one Ramya vide agreement of sale dated 31.08.2017 which was a registered document in which accused No.1 P.G Nataraja was a confirming party and he has received Rs.93.00 lakhs which was revealed in the irrevocable GPa executed by Rathnamma in favour of Ramya. 14. It is also seen from the records that the said Ramya, who is the complainant in another case in Crime No.215/2021 of Basaveshwaranagar police, got executed the sale deed. Therefore, she has entered into an agreement of sale with one Shamaraju and received Rs.4.80 crores as advance amount. accused No.2 - B. Heriyanna Shetty was a witness to the said agreement. It is also revealed that the accused P.G. Nataraja got mutated his name in the RTC as per the order of the assistant Commissioner. However, the said assistant Commissioner himself cancelled the entries and removed the name of P.G. Nataraja in the RTC and by suppressing the same, he has sold the same property i.e. Sy. It is also revealed that the accused P.G. Nataraja got mutated his name in the RTC as per the order of the assistant Commissioner. However, the said assistant Commissioner himself cancelled the entries and removed the name of P.G. Nataraja in the RTC and by suppressing the same, he has sold the same property i.e. Sy. No.35/2 to one Umesh S Raju and he has stated that Rs.4.80 crores has been received from Umesh S Raju by a cheque, but the same cheque has been issued by Shamaraju to Ramya under the agreement of sale between Ramya and Shamaraju. The same cheque i.e. cheque No.414316 dated 12.03.2018 drawn on Karnataka Bank Limited cannot be shown as a part sale consideration by Umesh S. Raju and this cheque number is mentioned in the agreement of sale executed by Ramya in favour of Shamaraju and the sale deed executed by accused P.G. Nataraja in favour of Umesh S. Raju. These are all got to show that there is a creation of false document by the accused persons and accused P.G. Nataraja received Rs.93.00 lakhs by signing as a confirming party and accused Heriyanna Shetty was also a witness, and knowing fully, they executed the sale deed in favour of Umesh S. Raju, which clearly attracts the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC and creation of false documents would also attract Sections 468, 471 of IPC. The dissolution deed executed in the year 1994 and the stamp paper purchased in the year 1995 also requires for investigation. apart from that, the allegation under Sections 380, 323 of IPC is also made out for the offences of entering into the house of Rathnamma and stealing the documents by the accused. That apart in Crime No.215/2021, the accused persons called Ramya to the office and there, they abused her, assaulted and pulled her cloths and outraged the modesty of a woman, which are punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, 420 and 120B of IPC. Such being the case, the learned Senior Counsel Rajagopal and the learned counsel for respondent in Crl.P. No.8329/2021 have rightly said that the matter requires investigation and this Court cannot interfere at this stage and it cannot be considered that the allegation against the petitioners is civil in nature, but the ingredients of the criminal offences are attracted. Such being the case, the learned Senior Counsel Rajagopal and the learned counsel for respondent in Crl.P. No.8329/2021 have rightly said that the matter requires investigation and this Court cannot interfere at this stage and it cannot be considered that the allegation against the petitioners is civil in nature, but the ingredients of the criminal offences are attracted. This Court cannot go into investigating the allegations and appreciating the documents, at this stage. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases of State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and Others reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and Priti Saraf and another vs. State of NCT of Delhi and another in Crl.a.No(s).296/2021 (arising out of SLP(Crl). No(s). 6364 of 2019), the apex Court, in a similar situation, has categorically held that the Court cannot quash FIR by investigating the allegations. The apex Court has also taken a similar view in the case of Kaptan Singh vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh in Criminal appeal No.787/2021. 15. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion both the FIRs challenged in these criminal petitions requires to be investigated by the investigation officer in detail. This Court cannot interfere at this stage in the present fact and circumstances of these cases by exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. accordingly, both the criminal petitions are hereby dismissed.