Criminal Petition filed to quash FIR alleging forgery of a registered lease deed. Court observed the dispute is purely civil and the allegations of forgery are improbable given the registration process and prior conduct of the complainant.
Proceedings pursuant to registration of FIR in Crime No.227/2020 are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.676 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
…Petitioners
(By Sri R.B.Sadasivappa, Advocate)
AND:
:: 2 ::
W/o Chandrappa, Aged about 25 years, R/at Lakshmi Ranganatha Nilaya, Siddaruda Nagar, Davangere-577301.
…Respondents
(By Sri K.S.Abhijith, HCGP for R1; Sri Umesh Moolimani, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the proceeding in FIR No.227/2020 on the false complaint lodged by the 2nd respondent (Annexure-A) pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Honnali, Davanagere for the offence punishable under Section 465, 468, 471 read with 34 of IPC.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, through video conferencing, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri R.B.Sadasivappa, learned counsel
for the petitioners 1 and 2, Sri Umesh Moolimani, learned counsel for the second respondent and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.
No.227/2020 registered by the first respondent
:: 3 ::
police for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.
That on 08.12.2020, the second respondent
made a report to the police stating that the property bearing Assessment No.5083/3 4525/3 and 4525/3 belongs to her, and that in the year 2009, she let out that property to one Channappa for running a military hotel and thereafter she let the said property to one Siddappa for running a wine shop. In January, 2012, the petitioners came to her house and asked her to lease the property to them and told her that they could share the rental income. The second respondent told at that time to the petitioners that since she had leased the property to one Channappa already, she would not lease the said property to them and she was also thinking of constructing a building there. It is alleged in this context that the petitioners
:: 4 ::
stealthily took her photo, created a lease deed in their favour and got it registered by using the photo. She has stated that somebody affixed her thumb impression on the document of lease. Thus she alleged that the petitioners committed forgery by creating a false document. On the basis of
this, FIR came to be registered.
R.B.Sadasivappa that the lease deed dated 08.08.2012 is a registered instrument. Second respondent is the executant and it contains her photo as well as thumb impression. If really the lease deed was forged, the second respondent should have made a complaint within a reasonable time after registration, rather she took 8 years to make a report to the police regarding forgery. It is his further submission that the petitioners were in possession of the property on the basis of the lease deed and for a short duration when they
:: 5 ::
were out of town, the second respondent took illegal possession of the property and inducted a tenant by name Siddappa. Therefore the petitioners had to go to police station on 30.10.2020 to make a complaint against the second respondent. But the police did not register FIR, rather issued an acknowledgment regarding non-cognizanble offence. Then on 08.12.2020, the second respondent made a report to the police based on which the FIR came to be registered against the second respondent. Therefore it is his submission that given a plain reading to the FIR, offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC cannot be made out. 8 years delay in making complaint itself is sufficient to doubt the veracity of the contents of the FIR. If really there is forgery of the lease deed, the second respondent has to institute a suit challenging the lease deed. Initiating criminal action against these petitioners under these circumstances is
:: 6 ::
abuse of process of law. Hence there is a case for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
submits that the offences alleged in the FIR are very serious. The lease deed actually was not executed by the second respondent. It is a case of impersonation. Just because the photo of the second respondent is printed in the lease deed, no inference can be drawn that the second respondent visited the Sub-Registrar office for executing the lease deed. The matter requires thorough investigation. FIR cannot be quashed to stall the investigation. Therefore he argues for dismissing the petition.
FIR and the document of lease deed, it may be stated that the dispute appears to be purely civil
:: 7 ::
in nature. Lease deed is a registered instrument. Sanctity is attached to it. Second respondent is none other than the own sister of the first petitioner. In the FIR it is stated that the petitioners stealthily took the photo of the second respondent for executing the lease deed. It is also stated that her thumb impression was affixed by somebody else. If these two sentences are read, it can be very well stated that merely accepting the photo of the executant, no Sub-Registrar will register a document. The Sub-Registrar should also ascertain about the identity of the executant of the document before registering it. If somebody else presents document for registration by producing a photo, no Sub-Registrar will register the document. In this view, the contents of the FIR cannot be believed. Moreover, before the second respondent made a report against the petitioners, the latter went to police station on 30.10.2020 itself to report to the police that they
:: 8 ::
were dispossessed by the second respondent and that one Siddappa was inducted as a tenant. Surprisingly, the police did not take action. Therefore if all these circumstances are seen, it becomes very clear that the dispute between the parties can be very well decided by a Civil Court. If ultimately the Civil Court gives a finding that the lease deed is a forged one, then the second respondent is at liberty to initiate action. At this stage, the offences as alleged against the petitioners are not forthcoming. In this view I am of the opinion that prosecuting the petitioners for the said offences is nothing but abuse of process of Court. Hence jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., can be exercised. Therefore the
following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
Proceedings pursuant to registration
of FIR in Crime No.227/2020 by the first
:: 9 ::
respondent police against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC are quashed.
JUDGE
Kmv/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal proceedings for alleged forgery of a registered lease deed should be quashed as they involve a dispute of purely civil nature and potential abuse of process.
Whether the delay in lodging the forgery complaint and prior conduct of the second respondent justify quashing the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Chennamma
Sri M.Babu
The State of Karnataka
Smt. Manjula
Sreenivas Harish Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
