Dismissed

Sri Kemparaju B H v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2021CRL.P/7077/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court rejected four criminal petitions seeking quashing of an FIR. The allegations involved impersonation, fraudulent execution of a sale deed, and obtaining a sale agreement through threats, which the court held disclosed a cognizable offence.

What did the court decide?

The petitions seeking quashment of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. were dismissed and rejected.

Sri Kemparaju B H Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7357/2020 C/W. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7077/2020 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7349/2020 CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7803/2020

¶7

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7357/2020:

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

1 . SRI VENUGOPAL S/O M. PATELAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDABELE, TYAMAGONDALU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-562132

¶10

2 . SRI LOKESH R, S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT TADASIGATTA VILLAGE, TYAMAGONDLU HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU-562132

¶11

… PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001

¶16

2 . SRI P. NAGASUNDARAMURTHY S/O M. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45, MIG K.H.B. COLONY, I STAGE, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560079

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI RAJASHEKAR SEERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT No.1 IN CR.NO.164/2020 ON THE COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT No.2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 419, 420, 465, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND C.J.M.COURT, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AS ILEGAL AND ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW, SO FAR AS THESE PETITIOENRS ARE CONCERNED.

¶20

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7077/2020:

¶21

BETWEEN:

¶22

SRI KEMPARAJU B.H., S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

¶23

¶24

RESIDING AT No.46, “PADUKA NILAYA” BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABAGERE POST, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562 162.

¶25

… PETITIONER

¶26

(BY SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)

¶27

AND:

¶28

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001

¶29

2 . SRI P. NAGASUNDARAMURTHY S/O M. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45, MIG K.H.B. COLONY, I STAGE, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560079

¶30

… RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI RAJASHEKAR SEERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶32

¶33

¶34

AND C.J.M.COURT, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AS ILEGAL AND ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶35

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7349/2020:

¶36

BETWEEN:

¶37

SRI BASAVARAJU B.H., S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT No.46, “PADUKA NILAYA” BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABAGERE POST DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562 162.

¶38

… PETITIONER

¶39

(BY SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)

¶40

AND:

¶41

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001

¶42

2 . SRI P. NAGASUNDARAMURTHY S/O M. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45, MIG K.H.B. COLONY,

¶43

¶44

I STAGE, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560079

¶45

… RESPONDENTS

¶46

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI RAJASHEKAR SEERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶47

¶48

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7803/2020:

¶49

BETWEEN:

¶50

SRI NAGARAJU B.H., S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT No.46, “PADUKA NILAYA” BETTAHALLI VILLAGE, KADABAGERE POST DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU-562 162.

¶51

… PETITIONER

¶52

(BY SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)

¶53

¶54

AND:

¶55

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001

¶56

2 . SRI P. NAGASUNDARAMURTHY S/O M. PUTTASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.45, MIG K.H.B. COLONY, I STAGE, AGRAHARA DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560079

¶57

… RESPONDENTS

¶58

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI RAJASHEKAR SEERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶59

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT No.1-POLICE IN CR.NO.164/2020 ON THE COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT No.2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 419, 420, 465, 506 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND C.J.M., NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AS ILEGAL AND ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶60

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

¶61

O R D E R

¶62

These petitions are filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C,

¶63

praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.164/2020 on the

¶64

¶65

complaint of respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM Court, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶66

The factual matrix of the cases is that the second respondent has lodged a complaint vide his complaint dated 10.10.2020 that he is the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.107/5 to the extent of 1 acre 5 guntas and accused No.1 had obtained the Sale Deed by impersonation vide Sale Deed dated 29.10.2018 in his favour. Hence, he has lodged a complaint on 01.06.2019 and the police have summoned the accused and he gave an undertaking that he is going to cancel

¶67

the sale agreement. Hence, an endorsement was issued on 01.07.2019. Accused No.1 instead of executing the cancellation of sale deed as agreed took him to the Dasanapura SubRegistrar office and got the sale agreement in favour of his brother from accused No.1 and the complainant and the same has been clandestinely obtained the said sale agreement. The petitioners herein not only obtained the document fraudulently

¶68

¶69

and also caused the threat. Having come to know that the fraud committed by accused No.1 and other persons, who have been indulged in obtaining the document of Sale Deed as well as the sale agreement, he has lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and the matter is under investigation.

¶70

The main contention of the learned counsel

¶71

appearing for the petitioners is that in respect of these petitioners, there is no specific averments in the complaint against each of the petitioners and only an allegation made in the complaint is that on 10.10.2019, these petitioners took him to the office of Dasanapura Sub-Registrar Office, causing threat

¶72

and by playing fraud obtained the sale agreement and forcibly deposited the amount to his account. Based on this complaint, the police have impleaded these petitioners as accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 & 8. These petitioners have not played any role either in execution of the sale agreement and also the Sale Deed. Hence, if the proceedings are continued against these petitioners, it

¶73

¶74

amount to an abuse of process and it leads to miscarriage of justice.

¶75

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

¶76

No.2/Complainant would submit that these petitioners are also the signatories as well as witnesses to the Sale Deed dated 29.10.2018. The very sale deed is obtained by impersonation at the instance of accused Nos.6 and 7. Petitioner No.1 in Criminal Petition No.7357/2020 is also the signatory as witness to the sale agreement dated 10.10.2019. Hence, it is clear that all these persons, who are joined together and subjected the complainant for threat and obtained the document fraudulently. When the investigation is commenced and yet to file the charge sheet, there cannot be any order under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶77

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

¶78

for respondent No.1/State would submit that accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4 & 8, who are the petitioners herein are all joined together in creation of documents of Sale Deed and sale agreement and these petitioners are also signatories to both the Sale Deed as

¶79

¶80

well as the sale agreement. Hence, the matters have to be probed.

¶81

Having heard the arguments of the respective

¶82

counsel and on perusal of the complaint dated 10.10.2020, complainant has made the allegation in the complaint against all these petitioners that they fraudulently obtained the Sale Deed by impersonation on 29.10.2018. It is also in the complaint that he gave the complaint on 01.06.2019 and the Police have not taken any action and only an endorsement was issued that they have agreed to cancel the Sale Deed, but no action was taken. Subsequently, they obtained the sale agreement on 10.10.2019 fraudulently.

¶83

Having perused the complaint averments, specific allegations are made against each of these petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, brought to the notice of this Court that the Sale Deed in question, which was obtained by impersonation, two petitioners are the signatories to the said sale deed. The learned counsel also brought to the

¶84

¶85

notice of this Court that one of the petitioners is also the signatory as witness to the sale agreement also.

¶86

Having perused the material available on record and also the complaint averments, specific allegations are made with regard to obtaining of Sale Deed by impersonation as well as the complaint, which was filed earlier was closed on account of the statement given before the Police that they are going to execute the cancellation of sale deed, subsequently, sale agreement obtained by causing threat by fraudulent Act.

¶87

Having perused all these averments though the learned counsel for the petitioners contend that it is a civil dispute when the specific allegations are made by impersonation the sale deed is obtained and to that sale deed, two petitioners are the witnesses, the matter has to be probed since the complaint discloses the cognizable offence against these petitioners also. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that these petitioners have not played any role cannot be accepted at this juncture.

¶88

¶89

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

¶90

in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of LALITA

¶91

KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF U.P. AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 , it requires a preliminary enquiry.

¶92

The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that once the cognizable offence is taken place, the Investigating Officer has to register the case and the same is mandatory under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the very contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted and no need to make any preliminary enquiry as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Here it is not a case of contractual violations, but, it is a case of impersonation, obtaining a sale deed in the name of the complainant at the behest of accused Nos.6 and 7, those who have impersonated.

¶93

The learned counsel for the petitioners also would submit that there is a delay in lodging the complaint. Here is a case of allegation of impersonation and some of the petitioners in a case of impersonation went to the Sub-Registrar Office and

¶94

¶95

attested the documents as witnesses knowing fully well that the persons, who have not been the executants of the documents. Hence, the very delay will not take away the case of the complainant and on the ground of delay, the cases have been registered. The very fact of delay and all these aspects have to be considered only during the course of trial and the complainant has to explain the delay is concerned. The delay is purely mixed question of fact and law. The other contention is that accused No.2 is only the brother of accused No.1 and accused No.8 is only a purchaser. The same cannot be accepted because in the complaint the allegation of threat is also alleged calling them to their house.

¶96

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶97

following:

¶98

ORDER

¶99

The petitions are rejected.

¶100

Sd/-

¶101

JUDGE

¶102

cp*

Sri Kemparaju B H v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Kemparaju B H 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Chandrashekaraiah Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Nalini N Vs State by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station

Mr. Somashekar K M Vs Anti Curruption Bureau

Sri. Nagaraju B H Vs the State of Karnataka

Bandi Sundeep Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Upendra Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka