Dismissed

Chinnamma W/O Muniyappa v. Srinivas B M S/O Late Munikondappa

Karnataka HC21 Oct 2020CRL.P/3500/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR for cheating and forgery in property dispute. Court held that allegations of forged documents require investigation via forensic report before concluding criminal version. Petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed reserving liberty to approach court after filing of charge sheet.

Chinnamma W/O Muniyappa Vs Srinivas B M S/O Late… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3500 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

CHINNAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, ARASANAHALLI VILLAGE, H.HOSAKOTTE POST, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISRTRICT-563 101.

¶8

YOGENDRA.B. S/O BYRALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, SUVARNA NAGARA, BEHIND G.M.COTTAGE, DODDABIDARAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST, BANGALORE-73.

¶9

PROMOD S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDENT OF NO.158/B, ESHWAR NILAYA, KUBATUR VILLAGE, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT-577413.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. GIRISH.B.BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

SRINIVAS.B.M S/O LATE MUNIKONDAPPA, R/O OF BAGALAKUNTE VILLAGE, NAGASANDRA POST, YESHWANTHAPUR HOBLI, BANGALORE DISTRICT.

¶14

Crl.P.No.3500/2020

¶15

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA, STATE BY PEENYA POLICE STATION, YESWANTHPUR SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

(SRI. MADHUKAR DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R1, SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF THE FIR IN CR.NO.156/2020 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY THE PEENYA POLICE BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 468, 471, 420, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 31^ST A.C.M.M., COURT NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU CITY.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE :

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.156/2020 registered by Peenya Police Station for the offences punishable under Section 468, 471, 420, 506 R/w 34 of IPC now pending on the file 31^ST A.C.M.M., Court Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru City.

¶23

Crl.P.No.3500/2020

¶24

¶25

Respondent No.1-complainant lodged a complaint on 27.06.2020 alleging that his brother along with other accused had fabricated certain documents in relation to the property covered under the survey No.28/1 situated at Nagasandra village. Petitioner No.2 started to interfere with his possession over the property in which he was residing. On enquiry, he came to know that petitioner No.1 has executed a sale deed in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in pursuance of General Power of Attorney alleged to have been executed by respondent Nos.1 and his brother in favour of petitioner No.1 on 10.03.1996 in pursuance of which a sale deed is alleged to have been fabricated in favour of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 on 04.06.2020 by the said petitioner No.1.

¶26

In the complaint, it is alleged that there is no such power of attorney which has been executed by respondent No.1 in favour of petitioner No.1, the same is fabricated and forged at the instance of

¶27

Crl.P.No.3500/2020

¶28

¶29

brother of respondent No.1 as above stated and as such investigation is sought for.

¶30

Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 contend that they are bona fide purchasers of property and aforesaid power of attorney and the partition deed dated 08.05.2002 executed between respondent No.1 and his brother Ramakrishnappa, wherein there is specific statement made that site Nos.10 to 21 in survey No.28/1 of Nagasandra Village. There is GPA issued regarding those sites that respondent Nos.1 and his brother would execute necessary sale deed in relation thereto when called upon.

¶31

Sri Girish B Baladare learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that complaint as filed relates to civil dispute between the parties more so between respondent No.1 and his brother, the same cannot be given a criminal tint and a criminal complaint cannot be filed in relation thereto.

¶32

Crl.P.No.3500/2020

¶33

¶34

Sri Madhukar Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.1 would submit that on ex-facie examination of the signature of respondent No.1 in power of attorney comparing to the one on the admitted partition deed, it is evident to the naked eye that signature of respondent No.1 differs and they are not belonging to same person. He submits that the said power of attorney is not a registered power of attorney and it is only notarized power of attorney and created for the purpose of transfer of the property to cause harm and injury to respondent No.1 by his brother M Ramakrishnappa. On the basis of complaint filed investigation has substantially progressed and there are further fabrication and forgeries which have come to light which one created by the petitioner jointly along with M Ramakrishnappa. He, therefore submits that matter requires investigation and it is not a civil dispute inasmuch as there is fabrication of document which has been alleged. As such, he

¶35

Crl.P.No.3500/2020

¶36

¶37

submits that petition as filed is liable to be dismissed.

¶38

It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 is also owner of the site which is the subject matter of the complaint. Only issue is whether there was a power of attorney which had been executed for sale of the said property by respondent No.1. However, a perusal of power of attorney indicates that the same is not registered, it is only a notarized and signature of respondent No.1 on the said power of attorney compared to partition deed appears to be different. Whether they are indeed the same or not is to be ascertained after obtaining necessary report

¶39

from handwriting experts or Forensic Science Laboratory. The power of attorney had been executed in the year 1960 as a result of which a sale deed in the year 2020 appears to be executed post the commencement of dispute between respondent No.1 and his brother M

¶40

Crl.P.No.3500/2020

¶41

¶42

Ramakrishnappa. The above facts would not lead to conclusion whether there are offences made out or not, the same would have to be investigated. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that it would not be a proper case to interfere by this Court by exercising its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

¶43

Petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court after the filing of charge sheet.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

nms

Chinnamma W/O Muniyappa v. Srinivas B M S/O Late Munikondappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinnamma W/O Muniyappa v. Srinivas B M S/O Late Munikondappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr D Krishna Reddy Vs M/S Binny Mill Labours Association

Ms Jaikiran Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Vishalakshi Bhat Vs the Inspector of General and

Anantha Kumar Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr Shivakumar M Algud Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Suneel Subas Pattenevar Vs State of Karnataka