Dismissed

Sri Krishnamurthy N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2020CRL.P/4461/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal petition seeking to quash an FIR under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. involving allegations of fraud regarding KIADB compensation. The court held that since the matter was at the investigation stage regarding serious allegations of fraud, it was not a fit case for judicial intercession. An associated interim application was also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The petition for quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 58/2020 was dismissed; the interim application I.A.No.1/2020 was also dismissed.

Sri Krishnamurthy N Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.P. No.4461 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4461 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY N AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS S/O LATE NANJAPPA

¶10

R/AT CHEEMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK

¶11

BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110 ... PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI.P. DHANANJAYA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNARAYAPATNA POLICE STATION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT REP. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER/SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶15

C.R. RAVIKUMAR

¶16

S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶17

C.S. MANJUNATH

¶18

S/O SUBASH CHANDRA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS

¶19

BOTH RESIDING AT

¶20

CHEMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE CHENNARAYANAPATNA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK

¶21

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135 ... RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶23

CRL.P. No.4461 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.58/2020 (ANNEXURE-B) OF CHANNARAYAPATNA POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 465, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶26

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.58/2020 of Channarayapatna Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶30

The complaint is said to have been filed on 01.09.2020 by respondent Nos.2 and 3 alleging that the petitioner by fabricating documents, received compensation from KIADB to an extent of Rs.4,26,25,000/-. In the said complaint, it is alleged that the property as regards which the acquisition was initiated was not belonging to the

¶31

CRL.P. No.4461 OF 2020

¶32

¶33

petitioner. The petitioner by fabricating the documents contended that he is the owner of the property and received the compensation.

¶34

Sri.P.Dhananjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the property has been granted in his favour in the year 1966 and from then, he is in possession, occupation, enjoyment of the property. Therefore, allegation is not sustainable.

¶35

Per contra, Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP has filed the statement of objections and contends that even according to the petitioner grant being made in the year 1966, as per the investigation sofar done, the petitioner is stated to be born in the year 1959, the question of any grant being made in the year 1966, when the petitioner was aged 7 years does not arise. There are serious allegations which are required to be investigated by the jurisdictional police inasmuch

¶36

CRL.P. No.4461 OF 2020

¶37

¶38

as there are allegations that the petitioner has defrauded the government including KIADB. In view thereof, he submits that the petition cannot be sustained and is liable to be dismissed.

¶39

Heard Sri.P.Dhananjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the papers.

¶40

Having perused the complaint filed as also the objections, it is seen that the grant is of the year 1966. The School Certificate of the petitioner indicates that date of birth of the petitioner as 20.05.1959 that is to say as on the date of grant, the age of the petitioner was 7 years. The petitioner contends that the said date is not correct and the said school records cannot be relied upon. In proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., there cannot be a finding on fact given by this Court.

¶41

CRL.P. No.4461 OF 2020

¶42

¶43

Having considered rival submissions made, I am of the considered opinion that since the matter is at the investigation stage, at the stage requiring investigation, it is not a fit case to intercede. Hence, petition is dismissed.

¶44

In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2020 is also dismissed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Prs*

Sri Krishnamurthy N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Krishnamurthy N v. State of Karnataka

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

B Dharmaraju Vs Julappa

Sri. C S Nilugal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Punati Sridhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K Shivaram Vs Smt. Kamala Shivaram

Ameen Khan Vs State of Karnataka by

V N Ramalingam Vs State by Banaswadi Women Ps