Dismissed

Smt Neelamba C Sekaran v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Nov 2020CRL.P/5691/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The court held that the petitioner, as President of an association, was actively involved in facilitating the alleged cheating by introducing accused persons to complainants and advising site purchases, making the case fit for trial rather than quashing.

What did the court decide?

Petition for quashing of proceedings is dismissed. Plaintiff has liberty to apply for discharge.

Smt Neelamba C Sekaran Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

CRL.P. No.5691 OF 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5691 OF 2020

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. NEELAMBA C. SEKARAN W/O SHEKARAN AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT VILLAGE NO.351 CONCORDE NAPA VALLEY KANAKAPURA MAIN RAOD GANDHINAGAR BENGALURU-560082 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.NARAYAN S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVCOATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560001

¶12

MRS. VATHSALA W/O LATE G WILFRED AGED ABOUT .. YEARS R/A NO.71, 1^ST CROSS 1^ST MAIN, LALJI NAGAR BENGALURU-560030. ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

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

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN

¶15

CRL.P. No.5691 OF 2020

¶16

¶17

C.C.NO.796/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL AND FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 420, 427, 447, 448, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶18

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.796/2017 pending on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Anekal for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 427, 447, 448, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶22

2^nd respondent filed a complaint on 28.11.2013 on which basis a Crime No.612/2016 came to be registered on 25.11.2016. In the said complaint, allegations are made that the petitioner who is the President of the Indian Institute of Management-Bengaluru Welfare Association had called for a meeting of all the members of the said association and she

¶23

CRL.P. No.5691 OF 2020

¶24

¶25

informed the members that accused No.1 – Sri.Mohammed Illiyas and accused No.2 – Sri.M.B.Babu were running the business in the name of M/s.Classic Associates and were forming sites in property bearing Sy.Nos.76 and 79 of Maragondanahalli, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk. While doing so, she had informed the members that they could purchase the sites therein.

¶26

On the basis of the said representation made by the petitioner, the complainant along with others had visited the office of the petitioner where she had introduced said Mohammed Illiyas and M.Babu, they had taken them to the office of the Classic Associates as also to Maragondanahalli where the sites were being formed.

¶27

It is on the basis of the statements made by the petitioner, it is alleged that the complainant and others made payment of advance to purchase

¶28

CRL.P. No.5691 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

sites being formed by Classic Associates. Despite the said payments, it is alleged that sites were not formed or not handed over to the complainant. As such, complaint came to be filed.

¶31

Sri.Narayana S, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no particular allegation made against the petitioner inasmuch as she is only the President of Association. The sites were being formed by M/s.Classic Associates i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner has nothing to do with it and seeks for quashing of the proceedings.

¶32

Sri. K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP on the other hand would submit that there are serious allegations made against the petitioner insofar as her involvement in the sale of the property. If the petitioner did not make the recommendation, the various members of the

¶33

CRL.P. No.5691 OF 2020

¶34

¶35

association would not have purchased the sites offered for sale by Classic Associates and therefore her involvement being established, the present matter is not one which is fit for exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the petitioner would have to stand trial.

¶36

Heard Sri.S.Narayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for the State and perused the records.

¶37

A perusal of the complaint would indicate that it is the petitioner who had called for the meeting wherein the petitioner had introduced the accused Nos.1 and 2 and advised the complainant to purchase the sites from the said accused Nos.1 and 2. It is thereafter that the

¶38

sites were not formed and sale deed not executed in favour of the purchaser. The purchasers have alleged that if not for the petitioner, they would not have purchased the

¶39

CRL.P. No.5691 OF 2020

¶40

¶41

said sites. They further alleged that the petitioner and other accused from the very beginning had no intention to form the sites and sell the same to the complainant and therefore, they committed an offence of cheating which comes within the purview of Section 420 of IPC.

¶42

On the complaint being filed and investigation being completed, a charge sheet has also being laid on 01.02.2017 implicating the petitioner herein for the said offences on the basis of the various statements of the witnesses recorded.

¶43

In view of the above it cannot be said that the petitioner is not involved in the offences alleged against her. The offences being serious in nature inasmuch as several people having alleged to have purchased the sites, the matter would require trial. As such, the present proceedings is not one where the powers under

¶44

CRL.P. No.5691 OF 2020

¶45

¶46

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of this Court is required to be exercised.

¶47

In view thereof, the petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file an application for discharge if so advised.

¶48

In view of disposal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2020 also does not survive for consideration. As such, the same is dismissed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

Prs*

Smt Neelamba C Sekaran v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Neelamba C Sekaran v. the 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

Sri. Suresh Vs State of Karnataka

Gurav Rajendra Mittal Vs Sakshi Mittal

Sri Bojegowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Praveen Shigganvi Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. R P Umadevi Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri Umeshgowda Vs the State of Karnataka