Allowed

Sri. Shaik Abdul Haseeb v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2021CRL.P/658/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment quashes criminal proceedings and the charge sheet regarding alleged forgery and cheating in a land title dispute. The Court held that continuing criminal proceedings after a civil suit dismissal, based on a belated complaint, constituted an abuse of the Court's process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in the complaint, the first information report, and the charge sheet are quashed.

Sri. Shaik Abdul Haseeb Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W Crl.P.Nos.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.40629/2014(GM-RES) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION Nos.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

IN W.P.No.40629/2014

¶10

SRI.SHAIK ABDUL HASEEB S/O SHAIK ABDUL RAHAMAN AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.114 NISHAT MANZIL 7^TH B – CROSS, A.E.C.S. LAYOUT SANJAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 094 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADV.)

¶11

IN Crl.P.No.1590/2013

¶12

M.N.RAMESH S/O NARAYANA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT NUGALABANDA MULBAGAL TOWN MULBAGAL KOLAR DISTRICT – 567 101 … PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI.VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT, ADV.)

¶14

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶15

¶16

IN Crl.P.No.1012/2013

¶17

SRI.P.NAGARAJAIAH S/O LATE PARTHEEVA DEEKSHITH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT SOMESWARAPALYA MULBAGAL TOWN – 568 101 … PETITIONER

¶18

(BY SRI. P.M.NARAYANASWAMY, ADV.)

¶19

IN Crl.P.No.658/2013

¶20

SRI.SHAIK ABDUL HASEEB S/O SHAIK ABDUL RAHAMAN AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.114 NISHAT MANZIL 7^TH B – CROSS, A.E.C.S. LAYOUT SANJAYANAGAR BANGALORE – 560 094 … PETITIONER

¶21

(BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND A., ADV.)

¶22

AND :

¶23

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE MULBAGAL POLICE STATION MULBAGAL TOWN KOLAR DISTRICT – 563 127

¶24

SRI.R.L.MANJUNATH S/O R.LAKSHMINARAYANA SETTY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.100 BRAHMIN STREET NEAR VISHNU LODGE KOLAR TOWN – 563 101 … RESPONDENTS (COMMON)

¶25

(BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.S.SHANKARAPPA, ADV. FOR R2 (ABSENT))

¶26

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W Crl.P.Nos.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶27

¶28

WRIT PETITION NO.40629/2014 IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FINAL REPORT/CHARGE SHEET FILED UNDER SECTION 173 OF CR.P.C. BEARING A.NO.252/2013 DATED 25.11.2013, PURSUANT TO FIR NO.456/2012 BY THE R1, POLICE AT ANN-A, IN PCR NO.47/2012 AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULABAGAL.

¶29

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1590/2013 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.R.NO.47/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL INSTITUTED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AS PER ANNEXURE – A AND QUASH THE FIR BEARING CRIME NO.456/2012 DATED 17.12.2012 REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE, PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MULBAGAL ALLEGING COMMISSIONING OF VARIOUS OFFENCES.

¶30

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1012/2013 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MULBAGAL, KOLAR DISTRICT IN CRIME NO.456/2012 IN PCR NO.47/2012 IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS CONCERNED. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.658/2013 IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN P.C.R.NO.47/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MULBAGAL INSTITUTED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT IN SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AS PER ANNEXURE – A AND QUASH THE FIR BEARING CRIME NO.456/2012 DATED 17.12.2012 REGISTERED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE ALLEGING COMMISSIONING OF VARIOUS OFFENCES.

¶31

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ‘DICTATING OF ORDERS’ THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶32

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W Crl.P.Nos.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶33

¶34

O R D E R

¶35

Petitioners in Crl.P.Nos.658/2013, 1012/2013 and 1590/2013 are accused Nos.2, 4 and 1 respectively in Crime No.456/2012 of Mulbagal Police Station. Respondent No.2 filed complaint in PCR No.47/2012 before the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mulbagal against the petitioners and accused No.3 – Sampangiramaiah Setty.

¶36

For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be henceforth referred to according to their ranks in the first information report. Respondent No.2/complainant is the son of one Tejavathamma, accused No.1 is the son of sister-in-law of Tejavathamma. Tejavathamma’s husband Lakshminarayana Setty and his brothers acquired land bearing Sy.No.215 measuring 3 acres 4 guntas of Siddlagatta Village by way of succession.

¶37

Lakshminarayana Setty died on 19.10.1992. After his death, the khata of the said land was transferred to the name of Tejavathamma. Tejavathamma died on 21.01.2005. After the death of Tejavathamma, accused No.1 got changed the katha of the said lands from the

¶38

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W Crl.P.Nos.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶39

¶40

name of Tejavathamma to his name in the year 2009 on the basis of an unregistered Will dated 13.12.2001. At the time of such change of katha, accused No.4 was the concerned village accountant.

¶41

On the basis of such Will and katha, accused No.1 entered into an agreement of sale with accused No.2. In the said agreement, the complainant purportedly signed as a consenting party receiving Rs.1,50,000/-. Accused No.1 based on the agreement of sale executed a registered sale deed in favour of accused No.2 on 06.02.2010. After such sale, the katha of the property was changed in the name of accused No.2.

¶42

The complainant and his sister Gowramma filed O.S.No.5/2011 before the Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mulbagal against accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking declaration of their title to the aforesaid land and the declaration that a sale deed executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.2 is null and void and for permanent injunction. The suit was instituted on 20.12.2010 and

¶43

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W Crl.P.Nos.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶44

¶45

later it was numbered as O.S.No.5/11 and assigned to the Court of Additional Civil Judge, J.M.F.C., Mulbagal.

¶46

In that suit it was contended that accused No.1

¶47

in collusion with accused Nos.2 and 4 forged the signatures of his mother and created a Will. He further alleged that forging his signature on the agreement of sale, accused Nos.1 to 4 created the sale deed to gulp the property.

¶48

The complainant and his sister claimed that on the death of their mother they have become the absolute owners of the property and thus sought declaration of their title, declaration with regard to the Will and permanent injunction. The defendants in that suit contested the suit. On adjudication, the Civil Court held that the execution of the Will was not proved by examining the attester. The Court further held that the plaintiffs were the title holders of the property. However, dismissed the suit on the ground that they were not in possession of the property and in view of bar of Section 34 of Specific Relief’s Act, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief. The complainant

¶49

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W Crl.P.Nos.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶50

¶51

and his sister did not challenge the said judgment and decree. Therefore, the said judgment and decree attained finality.

¶52

As already pointed out, the suit was dismissed on 09.08.2012. After dismissal of the suit, on 17.12.2012 complainant filed complaint before the Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mulbagal in PCR No.47/2012 seeking prosecution of accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 261, 463 to 465 and 420 of IPC. He alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 in collusion with each other forging the signature of his mother created the Will and forging his signature created the agreement of sale. Thereby, they have committed forgery, cheating etc.

¶53

The learned Magistrate acting under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., referred the said compliant to Mulbagal police for investigation. On the basis of the such order, Mulbagal police registered first information report in Crime No.456/2012 against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 463 to 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.

¶54

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W Crl.P.Nos.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶55

¶56

Accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed

¶57

Crl.P.No.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013 seeking quashing of the proceedings in PCR No.47/2012 and first information report in Crime No.456/2012. In Crl.P.No.1590/2013, this Court granted interim stay of further proceedings in PCR No.47/2012 / first information report No.456/2012. Despite such interim order, respondent No.1 police proceeded with the investigation and filed charge sheet to the Court on 25.01.2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 463 to 465, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.

¶58

Accused No.2 field W.P.No.40629/2014 for quashing of the said charge sheet in addition to the grounds urged in the criminal petition on the ground that the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation in violation of the interim order granted by this Court.

¶59

While filing charge sheet, accused No.4 was dropped. Therefore, the proceedings in Crl.P.No.1012/2013 have become infructuous.

¶60

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶61

¶62

Accused Nos.1, 2 seek quashing of the

¶63

impugned proceedings on the following grounds:

¶64

i) The dispute was purely civil in nature;

¶65

ii) Having failed in O.S.5/2011 and accepting the said decree, false complaint was filed only to harass him;

¶66

iii) Since the charge sheet filed is in violation of the interim order of this Court, that is vitiated;

¶67

iv) In the complaint there are no allegations of forgery against accused No.2;

¶68

v) Accused No.2 is a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration; and

¶69

vi) The complaint was highly belated.

¶70

Despite granting sufficient opportunity, learned

¶71

counsel for the complainant did not appear and argue the matter.

¶72

Learned HCGP submits that though the charge

¶73

sheet was filed during the operation of the interim stay, in

¶74

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W Crl.P.Nos.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶75

¶76

the charge sheet there is handwriting expert’s opinion implicating the accused.

¶77

Having regard to the rival contentions, the question that arises for consideration is “whether the proceedings in PCR No.47/2012 / first information report No.456/2012 and the ultimate charge sheet filed in the said case are abuse of the process of the Court?”

¶78

The relationship between the complainant, Tejavathamma and accused No.1 was admitted. Admittedly, the land in question was the ancestral land of Tejavathamma’s husband. The complainant filed O.S.No.5/2011 alleging that the Will was forged and his signature on agreement of sale was forged. Though he sought declaration of his title and regarding the sale deed, the suit was dismissed. Since the said decree went unchallenged, the complainant was bound by the decree.

¶79

The perusal of the judgment in O.S.No.5/2011 shows that there was no affirmative finding that the Will and agreement of sale were forged documents. Those documents were held invalid on the ground that

¶80

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W Crl.P.Nos.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶81

¶82

Tejavathamma had no absolute interest in the property to bequeath the same and attesting witnesses were not examined. Further, on the ground that when the title of accused No.1 by virtue of the Will was not proved, he had no right to sell the property or execute the agreement of sale. It was also held that the agreement of sale required registration, therefore, that was not acceptable.

¶83

That judgment and decree in O.S.No.5/2011 in no way advances the case of the complainant. So far as accused No.2, in the complaint, absolutely there was no allegation constituting the offence of forgery and cheating. Further, the charge sheet was submitted violating the interim order of this Court that amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶84

From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it becomes clear that having lost the Civil suit, the complainant resorted to criminal remedy after six years of death of his mother. Under such circumstances, continuation of the impugned proceedings after so many

¶85

W.P.No.40629/2014 C/W Crl.P.Nos.1590/2013, 1012/2013, 658/2013

¶86

¶87

years against the petitioners amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶88

Crl.P.No.1012/2013 is disposed of as having become infructuous. Crl.P.Nos.658/2013, 1590/2013, W.P.No.40629/2014 are allowed. The complaint in PCR No.47/2012 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Mulbagal, the first information report in Crime No.456/2012 of Mulbagal police station and the charge sheet in the said case are hereby quashed.

¶89

Sd/JUDGE

¶90

Sri. Shaik Abdul Haseeb v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Shaik Abdul Haseeb 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

Smt Bhavana Aggarwal Vs Sri Chandrashekar Gopal

M/S Public Tv Vs Mr D Lakshmi Venkatesh

Pruthvi Raju B L Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. P. Nagarajaiah Vs State of Karnataka

M N Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Mario Leon Raymond Kasi Vs State of Karnataka