Partly allowed

Sri B.Malleshappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2021CRL.P/2839/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two criminal petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIRs linked to alleged forgery and cheating. The FIR under Crl.P. No.2839/2017 was quashed due to potential abuse of process, while proceedings in Crl.P. No.2065/2018 against third-party accused and attesting witnesses were quashed due to lack of material, leaving the trial against primary accused intact.

What did the court decide?

FIR in PCR No.4/2017 quashed; proceedings against accused Nos. 3 to 9 in Crime No.20/2018 quashed; trial against accused Nos. 1 and 2 to continue.

Sri B.Malleshappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2065 OF 2018

¶7

C/W.

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2839 OF 2017

¶9

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2065 OF 2018:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. KENCHAMMA, W/O LATE KOPPALADA ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT 8^TH WARD, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN, DAVANAGERE - 583 131.

¶12

B. MALLESHAPPA, S/O BHARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. NO.61 A-BLOCK, SHIVA ASHRAYA, VIDYANAGAR, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE - 577 601.

¶13

H.K. HALESH, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT53 YEARS,

¶14

¶15

OCCUPATION:LAWYER RESIDING AT 8^TH WARD, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN, DAVANGERE DISTRICT PIN-583 131.

¶16

P. DURGAPPA, S/O AALURU BASAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT 8^TH WARD, VALMIKI NAGAR, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN, DAVANGERE - 583 131

¶17

AALURU DHOWDAPPA, S/O KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT 8^TH WARD, VALMIKI NAGAR, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN, DAVANGERE- 583 131

¶18

K. THIMAPPA, S/O CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT 8^TH WARD, VALMIKI NAGAR, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN, DAVANGERE- 583 131

¶19

H. SHIVAPPA, S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT 8^TH WARD, VALMIKI NAGAR, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN, DAVANGERE- 583 131

¶20

ANJEENAPPA, S/O KUNTA OBANNA,

¶21

¶22

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT 8^TH WARD, VALMIKI NAGAR, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN, DAVANGERE- 583 131 9. VENKATESH. M, S/O BORAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT 6^TH WARD, EEJARI SHIRASAPPA LAYOUT, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN, DAVANGERE- 583 131

¶23

... PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI.C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

¶25

AND:

¶26

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶27

KOPPALADA VEERESHA, S/O MARIYAPPA. K, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RTI ACTIVIST, R/O WARD NO.8, NEELGAARA ONI, HARAPANAHALLI TALUQ, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. PIN - 583131.

¶28

... RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH.B.G., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. GANESH NAG.B.V., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶30

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGANST THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., HARAPANAHALLI IN CR. NO.20/2018 BROUGHT OUT OF P.C.R. NO.10/2018 ON THE FILE OF HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 418, 419, 465, 469 AND 420 OF IPC.

¶32

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2839 OF 2017:

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

B. MALLESHAPPA, S/O BHARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. NO.61 A-BLOCK, SHIVA ASHRAYA, VIDYANAGAR, HARIHARA, DAVANAGERE - 577 601.

¶35

SMT. KENCHAMMA, W/O LATE KOPPALADA ERANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST RESIDING AT 8^TH WARD, HARAPANAHALLI TOWN, DAVANAGERE - 583 131.

¶36

... PETITIONERS

¶37

(BY SRI.C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)

¶38

AND:

¶39

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶40

¶41

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶42

SRI. T.SRIDHARA, S/O LATE T.UCHANGEPPA, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC:UNKNOWN R/O. 8^TH WARD, HARIHARA TOWN, DAVANGERE -577 601.

¶43

... RESPONDENTS

¶44

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH.B.G., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶45

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGANST THE PETITIONER IN PCR NO.4/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HARAPANAHALLI (AND IN CR.NO.17/2017 ON THE FILE OF HARAPANAHALLI P.S.) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 418, 419, 420 OF IPC.

¶46

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

Crl.P. No.2839/2017:

¶49

This criminal petition challenges a FIR registered in furtherance of a private complaint in PCR No.4/2017 and Crime No.17/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 419 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short).

¶50

¶51

Heard Sri. C. H. Jadhav, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Namitha Mahesh B. G., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Ganesh Nag B. V., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶52

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present

¶53

petition are as follows:

¶54

Husband of the 2^nd petitioner by name Koppalada Earanna died on 03.06.1983 after which, the subject land is granted by the Government by an order of the Tahsildar in the name of the father of Earanna. The allegation against the 1^st petitioner is that he has created and forged genealogy tree showing him to be the member of the family of the Koppalada Earanna and approached the revenue Authorities for change of khata. On the strength of the said genealogy tree, the revenue Authorities have changed the khata on 15.07.2014.

¶55

¶56

Pursuant to the change of khata, the 2^nd petitioner purchased the property from the hands of the 1^st petitioner, who had got his name entered into the genealogy tree as being a member of the family of Koppalada Earanna. The 2^nd petitioner therefore comes in possession of the subject property having purchased it from the 1^st petitioner.

¶57

On 27.12.2016, the 2^nd respondent files a private complaint against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 419, 420 and 465 read with Section 34 of IPC. The complainant claims to be a RTI activist, the land i.e., sold or purchased are private properties either of Koppalada Earanna or his family and the purchaser is the 1^st petitioner, who is also an agriculturist. The complainant, who is no way connected to the land in question or the transaction in question being an RTI Activist having no interest in the

¶58

¶59

property could not have registered a complaint in FIR being registered against the petitioner in this case.

¶60

It is germane to notice that the very same complainant has registered another complaint against the 1^st and 2^nd petitioner On 18.01.2017 which is verbatim similar to complaint, afore-narrated in PCR No.76/2016, which is under investigation.

¶61

Insofar as it concerns PCR No.76/2016, it transpires that cognizance is taken and the matter is pending trial. Therefore, the second complaint by the RTI activist for the reasons indicated hereinabove is unsustainable as, if the trial is permitted to go-on, on the strength of the second complaint filed by complainant it would, without doubt, result in abuse of process of law. Therefore, criminal petition No.2839/2017 deserves to be allowed.

¶62

¶63

Crl.P. No.2065/2018:

¶64

Facts narrated hereinabove are the same as the in the companion petition, as it involves the same sale and purchase of the land as is narrated hereinabove. The difference is that the complainant in this case claims to be the grandson of Koppalada Earanna and who has interest in the property.

¶65

In this complaint, the entire transaction is sought to be questioned and several others are arrayed as accused in this complaint. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.20/2018. They are the very accused in PCR No.76/2016. The addition of accused are accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, who are alleged to have helped the sale transaction between the 1^st and 2^nd petitioners.

¶66

Against the said accused, there is no material produced or placed on record to contend that what kind of help is rendered by accused Nos.3 to 7 to

¶67

¶68

make the transaction. Therefore, the allegations against accused Nos.3 to 7 are bereft of material and are vague. On such lack of material and vagueness, the trial cannot be permitted to continue against accused Nos.3 to 7. Lack of material is admitted even by the complainant. Therefore, the proceedings against accused Nos.3 to 7 is rendered un-continuable.

¶69

Insofar as accused Nos.8 and 9 are concerned, the accused Nos.8 and 9 have no relation to accused Nos.1 and 2. They are the attesting witnesses to the document of sale. There is no allegation against accused Nos.8 and 9 that they knew the entire transaction and also were aware of the alleged impersonation by the 1^st accused. Therefore, merely because the accused Nos.8 and 9 are attesting witnesses to a document which the complainant now alleges forgery and fabrication by accused No.1 by adding his name in the genealogy tree, the accused

¶70

¶71

Nos.8 and 9, who were only witnesses, cannot be bought to trial. Therefore, the trial against accused Nos.8 and 9, who are attesting witnesses also cannot be permitted to continue.

¶72

Insofar as accused Nos.1 and 2 are

¶73

concerned, there are direct allegations in the complaint against accused of impersonation and forging the genealogy tree pertaining to the family of the complainant and are beneficiaries of such act. Therefore, the complaint directly links to the offences alleged against accused Nos.1 and 2, it is for the accused Nos.1 and 2 to come out clean in the trial and the proceedings against accused Nos.1 and 2 impugned in-terms Crime No.20/2018 will have to continue.

¶74

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶75

ORDER

¶76

i. Criminal petition No.2839/2017 is allowed. FIR against the petitioners in PCR

¶77

¶78

No.4/2017 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge and JMFc, Harapanahalli (and in Crime No.17/2017 on the file of Harapanahalli PS) for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 419 and 420 of IPC stands quashed.

¶79

ii. Criminal petition No.2065/2018 is allowedin-part. Proceedings against accused Nos.3 to 9 stands quashed. The trial against

¶80

accused Nos.1 and 2 shall continue.

¶81

It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order is only in consideration of petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and cannot be taken

¶82

as a finding against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶83

Sd/JUDGE

¶84

VBS

Sri B.Malleshappa v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B.Malleshappa 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 H S Papanna Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ravi Vs State of Karnataka

Dr S Shobha Vs the Commissioner Bbmp

M/S. Sainandana Developers Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Mohammed Meraj Ul Haq Taqui Vs the Commissioner

Sri Gururaju Vs State of Karnataka