Dismissed

Professor Dr. Dhirendra Kubair v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Mar 2021WP/12526/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 IPC. The court held that since the complaint disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence, the matter required police investigation under Dineshbhai Patel, and the writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; liberty granted to approach the Court after filing of the final report.

Professor Dr. Dhirendra Kubair Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

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

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.12526/2020 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PROFESSOR DR.DHIRENDRA KUBAIR S/O LATE PROFESSOR DR.V.G. KUBAIR AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, 81/1, PROFESSOR V.G. KUBAIR’S APARTMENTS 4^TH MAIN ROAD, MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003 PHONE NUMBER: 82776-44621 EMAIL: [email protected] … PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI DHIRNDRA KUBAIR, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 003. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

PROFESSOR DR.V.K.JAYARAGHAVENDRA RAO S/O LATE PROFESSOR DR.V.G. KUBAIR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, FLAT NO.248, 5^TH BLOCK, JANAPRIYA NIVAS, CHICKASANDRA BENGALOURU-560 0090. … RESPONDENTS

¶13

(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.DIWAKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶14

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CRIME No.0059/2020 DATED 08.08.2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXXII ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 448, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC INITIATED BY THE R-1 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.,

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. by a partyin-person praying this Court to quash the FIR filed by the respondent-police in Crime No.59/2020 dated 8.08.2020 pending on the file of XXXII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶19

The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant in the complaint dated 08.08.2020, an allegation is made against the petitioner and his family members that they trespassed into the property belongs to the complainant and when the same was questioned, they caused life threat on

¶20

¶21

10.05.2020. It is also an allegation in the complaint that though the property belongs to the complainant, the petitioner herein and his family members have executed the lease agreement in respect of the property without obtaining the permission of the complainant and have indulged in creation of the document and thereby committed an offence of cheating. They have also abused and caused life threat to the complainant and his family members. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and the matter is under investigation.

¶22

The petitioner, who is the party-in-person in his arguments would vehemently contend that first of all when the complainant is not in possession of the premises, the question of trespassing into the land of the complainant does not arise. The allegations made in the complaint are also baseless. There is a dispute between the parties in respect of the family property. Only with an intention to harass the petitioner, the present petition is filed. The respondent-police have also committed an error in registering the case of house trespass against the

¶23

¶24

petitioner and other accused. Hence, it requires interference of this Court.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent in his arguments would vehemently contend that detailed objection statement is filed stating that the property is allotted in favour of the complainant and his wife by way of gift and the documents produced along with the objection statement also discloses that the complainant is in occupation of the premises and the petitioner has trespassed into the property belongs to the respondent No.2 and indulged in creation of the documents in respect of the very same property. Hence, when the ingredients of the cognizable offences are disclosed in the complaint, the matter requires to be probed by the Investigating Officer.

¶26

Having heard the party-in-person and learned

¶27

counsel for respondent No.2 and so also looking into the contents of the complaint, while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR, the Court has to look into the contents of the complaint as held by the Apex Court in

¶28

DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF

¶29

¶30

GUJARAT reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104 , wherein it has been held that if the complaint averments discloses the prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, then the High Court should not venture to probe the matter but allow the investigating officer to probe and unearth the crime. The High Court also should not act like an Appellate Court and appreciate the material on record. It is the duty cast upon the investigating officer, after registering the case, if the complaint once prima facie discloses the cognizable offence, has to probe and unearth the crime.

¶31

Having perused the complaint in the case on hand, the specific allegations are made against the petitioner and his family members that they have not only trespassed the property of the complainant, but also executed the lease deed in respect of the property belongs to the complainant, caused life threat and abused in a filthy language. When such being the facts and circumstances of the case, when the complaint discloses the prima facie cognizable offence, it is not a fit case to exercise the

¶32

¶33

powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and so also the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.

¶34

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

¶35

following:-

¶36

ORDER

¶37

The petition is hereby rejected. However, the

¶38

petitioner is given liberty to approach this Court, if

¶39

need arises, after filing the final report.

¶40

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A., if any

¶41

does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

PYR

Professor Dr. Dhirendra Kubair v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Professor Dr. Dhirendra Kubair 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C Chandra Vs State of Karnataka

Narendra C N Vs State of Karnataka

Safeer @ Chappi Vs the State of Karnataka

Shadrach Solomon Vs Mahalakshmi Layout Ps

Smt. Malavika Hegde Vs Poornesh K

3M India Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes (Legal)