Allowed

Sri.Somalingappa Sannayarashi v. Sri.Veeranna Shivappa Kadagad

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2021CRL.P/100621/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the second information sheet/order recording the petitioner as an accused for cheating and forgery. The Court held that the private complaint contained no allegations implicating the petitioner, who was merely the brother-in-law of the main accused, making further proceedings an abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 11.01.2018 recording the petitioner as an accused No.2 for offences under Sections 406, 417, 418, 423, 424, 465, 468 r/w 34 IPC was quashed.

Sri.Somalingappa Sannayarashi Vs Sri.Veeranna… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT CRL.P. NO.100621 OF 2018

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI.SOMALINGAPPA SANNAYARASHI S/O. MAHABALESHWARAPPA SANNAYARASHI, AGE:42, OCC: ENGINEER, R/O. BANNIKOPPA, TQ:YELBURGA, DT:KOPPAL, NOW AT H.NO.409, H D KUMARSWAMY LAYOUT, I MAIN, BELAGAVI.

¶7

.. PETITIONER

¶8

(By Sri.NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

SRI.VEERANNA SHIVAPPA KADAGAD AGE:41, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NANDESHWAR NAGAR, KRISHNA HOSPITAL, KALASAPUR ROAD, GADAG.

¶11

… RESPONDENT

¶12

(By Sri. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE )

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 11.01.2018, PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC-I COURT, GADAG IN P.C.NO.41/2016 CC NO.66/2018 THEREBY REGISTERING & TAKING COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHALE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 417, 418, 423, 424, 465, 468 R/W 34 IPC.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The present petitioner is accused No.2 in C.C.No.66/2018 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC I Court, Gadag for offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 423, 424, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC and he prays for quashing of the same.

¶18

The respondent herein presented a private complaint before the said Court against the present petitioner as accused No.2, one Venkanagouda F. Toogadeli as accused No.1 and Smt. Gangawwa as accused No.3. Accused No.3 is the wife of accused No.1 and she is also the younger sister of the present petitioner. Allegation in the private complaint is to the effect that accused No.1 being an L.I.C. agent was acquainted with the complainant since many years prior to the agreement of sale executed and registered

¶19

¶20

by the said accused No.1 in favour of the complainant in respect of house property. The further allegation is that, accused No.1 was owner of a house property in Betageri town of Gadag Taluk and he pleaded some financial difficulty and persuaded the complainant to purchase the same for a consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and pursuant to the same, accused No.1 executed a registered agreement of sale on 09.07.2015 by receiving part of the consideration namely Rs.9,50,000/with only Rs.50,000/remaining due, out of the total consideration payable. It is also alleged in the complaint that accused No.3 who is the wife of accused No.1 had given separate consent letter for the transaction. It is alleged that after the registration of the agreement of sale, the complainant made several requests to accused No.1 to execute sale deed after receiving balance consideration of Rs.50,000/-, but accused No.1 went on postponing the execution of the sale deed on one pretext or the other. The further allegation in the private complaint is that when the matter stood at that, he received summons from the Court of Principal Civil Judge, Gadag in O.S.No.395/2015 and when he made enquiries regarding the said summons, he came to know that accused No.1 had executed an

¶21

¶22

agreement of sale in respect of the very same house property in favour of one Mahalingayya Channayya Naragundmath on 16.05.2013 for a total consideration of Rs.3,50,000/-. He also came to know that on 23.12.2013 accused No.1 had executed a registered sale deed in respect of the same house property in favour of accused No.2, the petitioner herein, who is his brother-inlaw for a consideration of Rs.25,00,000/-. The allegation is that, suppressing the agreement of sale dated 16.05.2013 executed in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.395/2013, the sale deed dated 23.12.2013 in favour of accused No.2, all in respect of the same house property, accused No.1 had executed the agreement of sale dated 09.07.2015 in favour of the complainant/respondent and received consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- and thereby he had committed various offences. In so far as the accused No.3 is concerned, it is alleged that she had given a consent letter dated 09.07.2015 in favour of the complainant for the sale agreement executed by her husband on 09.07.2015.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a grievance that

¶24

there is absolutely no allegation in the private complaint in so far as

¶25

¶26

any role played by the present petitioner who is accused No.2, either in regard to persuading the respondent to enter into the agreement of sale with accused No.1 or in the matter of suppressing any facts which persuaded the respondent to enter into the agreement of sale with accused No.1 by parting with a sum of Rs.9,50,000/-. He also submits that the only reference to accused No.2 in the private complaint is regarding accused No.1 having already sold the property to the present petitioner – accused No.2 by registered sale deed dated 23.12.2013. He therefore submits that proceeding further with this case against the petitioner will be abuse of process of law insofar as he is concerned and therefore, the complaint should be quashed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the respondent/complainant on the other hand, strenuously contended that accused No.2 – the petitioner herein being the brother-in-law and family member of the main accused No.1 has actively participated in defrauding the complainant and therefore the process of law should be allowed to be continued and the petition should be dismissed.

¶28

¶29

Perusal of the complaint shows that the sum and substance of the allegation is that accused No.1 being an old acquaintance of the complainant had told him that he had a house property in Betageri town of Gadag Taluk and because of his financial difficulties, he wanted to sell the same and he persuaded the complainant to purchase the same for a total consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and on such persuasion, he executed the registered agreement of sale on 09.07.2015 by taking the part consideration of Rs.9,50,000/- from him. The further allegation is that, soon after the same, he came to know that one Mahalingayya Channayya Naragundmath had filed a suit in O.S.No.395/2015 before the learned Civil Judge, Gadag, with the complainant as one of the defendants alleging that accused No.1 had already executed an agreement of sale on 16.05.2013 in his favour in respect of the same house property for a consideration of Rs.3,50,000/- Further enquiries by the complainant/respondent revealed that thereafter on 23.12.2013 accused No.1 had executed a registered sale deed in respect of the same house property in favour of the present petitioner who is accused No.2. It is also disclosed that the present petitioner happens to be the brother of the wife of accused No.1.

¶30

¶31

The wife herself is arraigned as accused No.3 in the private complaint. In so far as the present petitioner is concerned, in the entire complaint there is no allegation of any nature that the present petitioner had participated either in the negotiations leading to the complainant entering into an agreement of sale which is a registered document with accused No.1 or that he had made any representations resulting in the complainant being persuaded to enter into the said transaction. The only reference to petitioner in the complaint is in the context that, prior to the agreement of sale executed by accused No.1 in favour of the complainant, he had already sold the said property in favour of the present petitioner on 23.12.2013.

¶32

In that view of the matter, I do not find any ingredients of the various offences alleged in private complaint made out against the present petitioner and in fact all these allegations are relating to accused No.1 and accused No.3 only and in such an event, proceeding further with the complaint against the petitioner will be sheer abuse of process of law. In that view of the matter, the

¶33

¶34

complaint in so far as the present petitioner is concerned, is liable to be quashed.

¶35

Hence, I pass the following :

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

The present petition is allowed.

¶38

The order dated 11.01.2018 passed by the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC-I Court, Gadag, in P.C.No.41/2016, C.C.No.66/2018 thereby registering and taking cognizance against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 423, 424, 465, 468 read with 34 of IPC is quashed.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Mgn/-

Sri.Somalingappa Sannayarashi v. Sri.Veeranna Shivappa Kadagad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.Somalingappa Sannayarashi v. Sri.Veeranna Shivappa Kadagad

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

Basavraj S/O Chanabasappa Hombali Vs State of Karnataka

Basappa Gulappa Ramdurg Vs the State of Karnataka

H.M. Manjunath S/O Gangadharayya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Vanita D/O. Veerabhadrappa Hittalamani Vs State of Karnataka

Manjunatha T. Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Seema D/O Ishwar Jakati Vs the State of Karnataka