ORDER : (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.) In this petition, petitioners seek for the following reliefs: “Wherefore, the petitioners above named most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash FIR in Crime No.32/2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 336(2), 336(3), 318(4), 318(2), 190 of BNS of Sakaleshpura Town Police Station, pending on the file of Principal Civil Judte (Sr.Dvn) and CJM at Sakaleshapura, in the interest of justice.” 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that it is the specific contention of the petitioners that respondent No.2 entered into a sale agreement dated 23.07.2019 with petitioner No.1 which was notarized on 29.07.2019. It is contended that on 25.10.2019, respondent No.2 is said to have lodged the complaint against petitioner No.1 and others, who were summoned before the Police Authorities and their statements were recorded. 4. It is also pointed out on 20.02.2020, petitioner No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.182/2019 for bare/perpetual injunction in relation to the subject property. Respondent No.2 filed one more suit in O.S.No.3/2020 on 12.03.2020 against respondent No.2 and others, which is pending before the competent Civil Court. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite having filed a written statement in the year 2020 to the aforesaid suit filed by petitioner No.1, specifically contending that the sale agreement relied upon by the petitioners was fabricated and concocted document out of fraud and collusion by the petitioners, respondent No.2 has belatedly filed the impugned complaint dated 24.01.2025 after more than 5 years for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 352, 351(2), 336(2), 336(3), 318(4), 318(2), 190 of BNS, which is impermissible in law and deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2- complainant submits that though it was contended in the written statement that the sale agreement was fabricated and concocted, it was only after collecting necessary material during the pendency of the suit, respondent No.2 filed the impugned complaint based on the additional material collected by him and as such, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract Annexure- B , which reads as under: 7. 6. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract Annexure- B , which reads as under: 7. It is an undisputed fact that even prior to the aforesaid complaint filed by respondent No.2, petitioner had instituted a suit in O.S.No.3/2020 against respondent No.2 and others, which is pending before the competent Civil Court. 8. The plaint averments in the said suit, reads as under: THE PLAINT SUBMITTED UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 R/W SEC.26 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEEDURE 1. The address of the parties given in the cause title is correct for the purpose of service of process to be issued by the Hon'ble court. The additional address of the plaintiff for the purpose of service of all process is that of his counsel Sri. H.K.Dwarakanath, No. 04, Sri Venkateshwara Building, M.O.Office Road, Hassan - 573 201. 2. The suit schedule property is situated at Sakaleshpura Town & it is house and site Property. The same is described with its katha number, measurement & boundaries at the end of this plaint under name & style suit schedule property. 3. Defendants are the absolute owners and possessors of suit schedule property. The documents pertain to the suit property are standing in name 1" defendant. Initially one Shanthamma filed original suit O.S.No.127/1972 for the relief of partition and seprate possession. The said suit was dismissed on 12.5.1974. Later the same was questioned before the appellant court in R.A. No. 29/1976. The appellate allowed the said appeal in part. Later the said Judgement and decree was questioned before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in RSA 603/1977. The said RSA dismissed on 24.08.1987. Later after lapse of 3 years from the date of disposal of RSA case, FDP case No. 13/2013 was instituted to effect partition in pursuant to the decree passed in R.A. 29/1976. At that time suit schedule property came to the share of defendants. Thus the defendants became absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. But, katha of the property standing in the name of 1st defendant only with consent of other defendants. 4. During the lifetime of family members of defendants gave the suit schedule house to one Mahammed Jaffar who is none other than father of plaintiff for a monthly rent. Since then he was residing in the suit property. But, katha of the property standing in the name of 1st defendant only with consent of other defendants. 4. During the lifetime of family members of defendants gave the suit schedule house to one Mahammed Jaffar who is none other than father of plaintiff for a monthly rent. Since then he was residing in the suit property. After his death plaintiff and his family members continued as tenants in the said house i.e., suit schedule property and pay the rent regularly without fail to the defendants. 5. Defendants No. 1 came forward and offered the plaintiff to purchase the suit schedule property for the reasons stated in the agreement of sale dated: 23.07.2019. After negotiation the defendant no.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs. 15, 00,000/- which was the market value at that time. In this regard defendant No. 1 executed a agreement of sale on 29.07.2019 in favour of plaintiff in front of the Notary public, Hassan. Defendant no.1 executed and signed the sale agreement on his behalf and agreed to bring other defendants i.e., her mother and sister at the time of registration. On the same day the defendant no.1 received Rs.8,00,000/- towards earnest money by way of cash and further agreed to execute the registered sale deed by supply of all the documents pertains to the suit property. Further defendant no. 1 agreed that her name is N.Jayalakshmi @ Sujana Nittur. Both the names pertain to her only. 6. Now the katha of the suit property got changed by 1" defendant and Form 3 also came in her name. Now she suppressed the same and kept mom and not intimated the same to the plaintiff. After execution of registered sale agreement, and after got changed the katha, the defendant not come forward to execute the registered sale deed as agreed by her. The plaintiff had approached the defendants and requested them to execute the sale deed in respect of suit property. But, the defendants took time to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff as the documents were not ready. After some time again the plaintiff approached the defendants and requested them to execute the registered sale deed in respect ect of suit property. But, the defendants took time to execute the sale deed in favour of plaintiff as the documents were not ready. After some time again the plaintiff approached the defendants and requested them to execute the registered sale deed in respect ect of suit property. But they were not come forward to execute the registered sale deed and they now show any interest to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. But, the plaintiff always ready and willing to perform his part of work as per agreement. Though the plaintiff requested the defendants to execute the sale deed with respect to suit property, but the defendants being adamants is not in a position to concede legitimate request of the plaintiff. This is clear violation of the agreement of sale by the defendants and thus they cheated the plaintiff. 7. Finally plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 19.10.209 intimating them to execute the registered sale deed in pursuant to the agreement sale dated: 23.07.2019. After service of notice defendants sent a false reply notice on 25.10.2019 to escape from the liability. Even after service of notice, defendants not come forward to execute the registered sale deed and they violated the conditions of the agreement of sale and thus they cheated this plaintiff and not acted as per the agreement. This is illegal turn by the defendants. Further the defendants are trying to sell the suit schedule property to 3rd person even though they agreed to sell the same in favour of plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit for the relief of specific performance of contract & for alternative relief for recovery of earnest money. 8. On the other hand, plaintiff filed one original suit in number 0.5.182/19 the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as they are started interference with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property when plaintiff asked for registration of the property. The plaintiff intends to withdraw the said suit after filing of this suit. Copy of the same are placed herewith for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 9. The plaintiff is always and even now ready to get sale deed registered in favour of him and he has eveready to perform his part of contract in pursuant to the agreement dated: 29.07.2019. 10. The relevant documents are produced for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 9. The plaintiff is always and even now ready to get sale deed registered in favour of him and he has eveready to perform his part of contract in pursuant to the agreement dated: 29.07.2019. 10. The relevant documents are produced for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. The same may be marked as exhibits at the time of evidence on behalf of plaintiff and suit may be decree in his favour. 11. The cause of action for the suit arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court when the defendants violated the conditions of the sale agreement and even after legal notice was served on defendants; the defendants not come forward to execute the registered sale deed in pursuant to the agreement of sale dated: 29.07.2019. 12. The plaintiff is filed the present suit for relief specific performance of contract. The sale consideration amount is Rs. 15, 00,000/- and Court Fee is paid as per Sec. 40 of Karnataka Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act 1958. Separate Valuation Slip is also filed. 13. PRAYER FOR JUDGEMENT AND DECREE;- Wherefore, the plaintiff prays for a Judgment and Decree in his favour and against defendants:- Direct the defendants to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff in pursuant to the agreement of sale dated: 23.07.2019 executed on 29.07.2019 by receiving the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 7,00,000/-, Failing which this Hon'ble court pleased to appoint a court commissioner to execute the registered sale deed in favour of plaintiff after permitting him to deposit the balance sale consideration amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- in the court, The plaintiff by alternative relief prays this Hon'ble court to direct the defendants to repay the earnest money of Rs. 08, 00,000/- Paid by him under sale agreement with 18% interest p.a. from the date of agreement i.e. from 23.07.2019 till its realisation & for costs and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity. SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY Mangalore tiled house with site property measuring East - West 56 feet and South - North 39 feet having katha number 822/D/741 situated at Ward No. 5, Sakaleshapura Town bounded by:- East: Private property West: Road No. 501 South: 5 feet common conservancy North: Property of A.S. Narayanashetty and family” 9. SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTY Mangalore tiled house with site property measuring East - West 56 feet and South - North 39 feet having katha number 822/D/741 situated at Ward No. 5, Sakaleshapura Town bounded by:- East: Private property West: Road No. 501 South: 5 feet common conservancy North: Property of A.S. Narayanashetty and family” 9. In response to the same, respondent No.2 has filed written statement as under: Written Statement filed on behalf of the defendants under Order VIII Rule 1, CPC Defendants 1 to 3 beg to submit as follows: 1) Defendant-2 being aged lady staying at Bengaluru and defendant-3 having been staying abroad, are not in a position to attend the Hon'ble court on all dates of hearing. Hence, they have executed a Special Power of Attorney in favour of defendant No.1. Hence, defendant No.1, on her own behalf and also on behalf of defendant Nos.2 and 3, is filing this written statement. 2) The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. 3) The averments made in Para-2 of the plaint that the suit schedule property is situated at Sakaleshpura town and it is a house and site property with its katha number, measurement and boundaries described in the plaint Schedule are true, hence admitted. 3) The averments made in Para-2 of the plaint that the suit schedule property is situated at Sakaleshpura town and it is a house and site property with its katha number, measurement and boundaries described in the plaint Schedule are true, hence admitted. 4) The averments made in the para-3 of the plaint that the defendants are the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and that the documents pertain to the suit property are standing in the name of the 1st defendant and that initially Shanthamma filed original suit in O.S.No.127/1972 for the relief of partition and separate possession and that the said suit was dismissed on 12-5-1974 and that late the same was questioned before the appellate court in R.A.No.29/1976 and that the said appeal was allowed in part and that later the said judgment and decree was questioned before the High Court of Karnataka in RSA 603/1977 and that the same came to be dismissed on 24-08-1987 and that later after lapse of 3 years from the date of disposal of RSA, FDP No. 13/2013 was instituted to effect partition pursuant to the decree passed in R.A.No.29/1976 and that at that time, the suit schedule property came to the share of the defendants and thus the defendants became the absolute owners and possessors of the suit schedule property, but the katha of the property was standing in the name of the defendants only with the consent of the other defendants, are all true and correct, hence admitted. 5) The averments made in para-4 of the plaint that during the lifetime of the family members of the defendants gave the suit schedule house to one Mohammed Jaffar who is none other than the father of the plaintiff for a monthly rent or that since then he was residing in the suit property or that after his death, plaintiff and his family members continued as tenants in the said house, i.e., suit schedule property or that they paid the rent regularly without fail to the defendants are all false and incorrect, hence denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. 6) The averments made in para-5 of the plaint that defendant No.1 came forward and offered the plaintiff to purchase the suit schedule property for the reasons stated in the agreement of sale dated 23-07-2019 or that after negotiation defendant No.1 agreed to sell the suit schedule property for a consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- which was the market value at that time or that in that regard, defendant no.1 executed an agreement of sale on 29-07-2019 in favour of the plaintiff in front of the Notary Public, Hassan or that defendant No.1 executed and signed the sale agreement on his behalf and agreed to bring other defendants, i.e., her mother and sister at the time of registration or that on the same day, defendant No.1 received Rs.8,00,000/-towards earnest money by way of cash and further agreed to execute the registered sale deed by supply of all the documents pertains to the suit property or that further defendant No.1 agreed that her name is N.Jayalakshmi @ Sujana Nittur or that both the names pertain to her only. are all false and incorrect, hence denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. are all false and incorrect, hence denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. 7) The averments made in para-6 of the plaint that now the katha of the suit property got changed by the 1" defendant and Form 3 also came in her name or that now she suppressed the same and kept mum and did not intimate the same to the plaintiff or that after the execution of the registered sale agreement, and after got changed the katha, the defendant did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed as agreed by her or that the plaintiff had approached the defendants and requested them to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property, ba the defendants took time to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff as the documents were not ready or that after some time again the plaintiff approached the defendants and requested them to execute the registered sale deed in respect of the suit property, but they were not come forward to execute the registered sale deed or that now they do not show any interest to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff, but the plaintiff is always ready and willing to perform his part of work as per agreement or that though the plaintiff requested the defendants to execute the sale deed with respect to the suit property, but the defendants being adamant is not in a position to concede legitimate request of the plaintiff or that this is clear violation of the agreement of sale by the defendants or that thus they cheated the plaintiff are all false and incorrect, hence denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. 8) The averments made in para-7 of the plaint that finally the plaintiff issued a legal notice to the defendants on 19-10-209 intimating them to execute the registered sale deed pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 23-07- 2019 or that after service of notice defendants sent a false reply notice on 25-10-2019 to escape from the liability or that even after service of notice, defendants not come forward to execute the registered sale deed of that they violated the conditions of the agreement of sale or that thus they cheated the plaintiff and not acted as per the agreement or that this is illegal turn by the defendants or that further the defendants are trying to sell the suit schedule property to third person even though they agreed to sell the same in favour of plaintiff or that hence the plaintiff filed the present suit for the relief of specific performance of contract and for alternative relief for recovery of earnest money are all false and incorrect, hence denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. 9) The averments made in para-8 of the plaint that on the other hand, plaintiff filed one original suit for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as they started interference with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property when plaintiff asked for registration of the.. property or that the plaintiff intends to withdraw the said suit after filing of this suit are all false and incorrect, hence denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. 10) The averments made in para-9 of the plaint that the plaintiff is always and even now ready to get sale deed registered in his favour and he has ever ready to perform his part of contract pursuant to the agreement dated 29-07-2019 are all false and incorrect, hence denied and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The case of the defendants is as under: - 11) The suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the defendants. The defendants have got this property in the family partition through Final Decree Proceedings No.13/2013 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Hassan and they have got changed the katha of the property to their joint names. The defendants have got this property in the family partition through Final Decree Proceedings No.13/2013 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Hassan and they have got changed the katha of the property to their joint names. 12) The defendants have filed an execution petition seeking possession of the Schedule house which has been allotted to the defendants in FDP No.13/2013 by the Hon'ble Court. On the basis of the Decree, the defendants have also got changed the katha to their joint names. In the said house, the plaintiff has been running a flour mill by name Bharath Flour Mill. The plaintiff had been illegally using the schedule property for running a cycle shop and other commercial purposes, for which he was not authorized and he has also caused extensive damages to the house. To make the house fit for human dwelling, it requires more than Rs.8,00,000/-. After the defendants got the schedule property in the partition, since they needed the house for their personal occupation, several times the defendants requested the plaintiff to vacate the house, but the plaintiff did not heed to their requests. At the initial stage, the plaintiff went on postponing the same under one pretext or the other. Thereafter on 12-10-2019, the defendants went near the schedule house and asked the plaintiff to vacate the mill and hand over the possession to the defendants. Then, he started to behave in a rude manner and challenged stating that he will not vacate the house. He also abused them in vulgar language and also threatened them with dire consequences. In that regard, the 1ª defendant has lodged a complaint in Sakaleshpura Town Police Station. 13) Later, to the utter surprise of the defendants, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendants by creating and concocting a false and bogus sale agreement. The defendants do not have any knowledge about the said sale agreement. The defendants have never entered into any agreement of sale at any point of time and they have not received any earnest money from the plaintiff nor they have affixed their signature to any document, much less sale agreement. However, on the basis of the same fake document, he had filed a suit for bare injunction against the defendants in O.S.No.182/2019 before the Addl. Civil Judge, Sakaleshpura, only to harass the defendants and protract the illegal possession. However, on the basis of the same fake document, he had filed a suit for bare injunction against the defendants in O.S.No.182/2019 before the Addl. Civil Judge, Sakaleshpura, only to harass the defendants and protract the illegal possession. The said Hon'ble Court has rejected the plaint in O.S.No.182/2019 holding that the same is not maintainable. The defendants have never entered into any agreement with the plaintiff or with any other person at any point of time. Hence, the defendants have filed Execution Petition No.21/2020 on 7-3. 2020 before the Addl. Civil Judge, Hassan. Upon coming to know the same, the plaintiff has filed the present suit on 13-3-2020 before this Hon'ble Court by making a false claim by virtue of a fake sale agreement. 14) Except the suit Schedule property, the defendants do not have any other house property for their accommodation. Hence, the defendants are in dire need of the schedule house property in Sakaleshpura town. 15) The plaintiff has not come to the Court with clean hands and he has filed this false, frivolous and vexatious suit with a view to make wrongful gain for himself. 16) There is no cause of action for the suit and the one pleaded by the plaintiff is imaginary and created by the plaintiff for the purpose of filing the present suit. 17) The other averments of the plaint which are not specifically admitted or denied in the written statement are hereby denied as false and incorrect and the plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. - 18) The defendants reserve their right to file additional written statement in future in case of necessity and under changed circumstances of the case. 19) Wherefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs, in the ends of justice.” 10. The aforesaid suit is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court. A perusal of the pleadings of the parties, in particular, written statement filed by respondent No.2 is sufficient to come to conclusion that at the earliest point in time in 2020 itself, respondent No.2 specifically contended that sale agreement relied upon by the petitioner is concocted and fabricated document. It is also pertinent to note that the practicing advocate, who represented is petitioner No.2, while petitioner No.3 is notary, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the witnesses to the said alleged sale agreement. It is also pertinent to note that the practicing advocate, who represented is petitioner No.2, while petitioner No.3 is notary, petitioner Nos.4 and 5 are the witnesses to the said alleged sale agreement. as stated supra in the written statement in 2020 itself, the genuineness, legality and validity of the aforesaid sale agreement relied upon by petitioner No.1 and involving the petitioner Nos.2 to 5 has been specifically denied by respondent No.2, who specifically contended that the same is concocted and fabricated document. It is also pertinent to note that in the entire impugned complaint, details alleged to have collected by respondent No.2 during the time he filed the written statement in 2020 and till he filed the complaint are entirely absent. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that the legality, validity, genuineness, correctness etc., of the sale agreement relied upon by petitioner No.1 has been seized and pending before the competent Civil Court from 2020 itself. In the absence of any explanation whatsoever, question of respondent No.2 filing the instant complaint belatedly after lapse of almost five years would not arise in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Chanchalpati Das Vs. State of West Bengal - 2023 SCC Online SC 650 , the Apex Court has held as under: “16. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been recently observed by this Court in Hashmukhlal D Vora and Anr., Vs. State Of Tamilnadu that though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint. 17. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent- complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle the personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-accused.” 12. As stated earlier, having filed the written statement in the year 2020, the impugned complaint was filed in 2025 belatedly without offering any explanation as to why complaint was being lodged five years thereafter and in the light of the principles laid down in Chanchalpati Das’s case supra, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. It is also pertinent to note that the evidence has already commenced in the Civil suit and it is always open for the Civil Court to file the complaint and in the event, the Civil Court accepts the plea of respondent No.2 and comes to the conclusion that the sale agreement is concocted and fabricated document, it is always open for the Civil court to give findings in this regard and file a complaint to the Magistrate as contemplated under Section 379 of BNSS (340 of Cr.P.C). Viewed from this angle also, impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed. 13. In the result, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is hereby allowed ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.32/2025 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn) and CJM, Sakaleshapura, insofar as the petitioners are concerned are hereby quashed. iii) All rival contentions on all aspects of the matter are kept open to be decided by the competent Civil court and no opinion is expressed on the same. iv) Liberty is reserved in favour of respondent No.2 to file appropriate application before the Trial Court urging all contentions put forth in the present petition, which shall be considered in accordance with law.