Allowed

Shri. Mahaveer S/O. Bharamu Chougala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022CRL.P/100694/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash F.I.R. regarding partition deed forgery. The High Court quashed the proceedings against petitioners (drafting and notarizing) due to lack of specific allegations of conspiracy or impersonation, deeming continued investigation an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned First Information Report in Crime No. 40/2022 registered by the Chikkodi Police Station insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused Nos. 7 and 8.

Shri. Mahaveer S/O. Bharamu Chougala Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 100694 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100694 OF 2022 (482-)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SHRI. MAHAVEER S/O. BHARAMU CHOUGALA AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. CHIKODI TOWN, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201

¶10

SHRI. SHANKARANAND S/O. GIRIMAL DABARE AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE AND PUBLIC NOTARY, R/O. CHIKODI TOWN, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201

¶11

(BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH CHIKODI POLICE STATION, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH,

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

¶16

CRL.P No. 100694 of 2022

¶17

DHARWAD-580008

¶18

PAYGOUDA S/O. APPASAB PATIL AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GALATAGA, TQ. NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591301 NOW RESIDING AT MIG-4, GANGAKRUPA BUILDING, NEAR LAXMI TEMPLE, HUDCO COLONY, RAJIV NAGAR, CHIKODI-591201 DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1, SRI.A.S.PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CRIME NO.40/2022 OF CHIKODI POLICE STATION FOR THE COMMISSION OF THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 120B, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 AND SECTION 59 OF THE KARNATAKA STAMP ACT, 1957 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.7 AND 8 ARE CONCERNED.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

CRL.P No. 100694 of 2022

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The First Information Report was lodged by the 2^nd respondent alleging that accused Nos.1 to 6 got created memorandum of partition deed in the name of the 2^nd respondent and by impersonation, relinquished the share in favour of accused Nos.1 to 6.

¶27

The allegation against the present petitioners-

¶28

accused Nos.7 and 8 is that the accused No.7 drafted the memorandum of partition deed and accused No.8 notarized the document by identifying the 2^nd respondent as an executant of the document. The Police registered the First Information Report for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 406, 420, 465, 468, 471, 477, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 59 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the absence of any specific allegation so as to constitute the commission of the aforesaid offences, the registration of the First Information Report against the petitioners-accused is impermissible.

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 100694 of 2022

¶32

On the other hand, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners-accused in connivance with the other accused, got created the memorandum of partition deed and as such, have committed the aforesaid offences and registration of the First Information Report against the petitioners does not warrant any interference.

¶33

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

The allegations made against the petitioner-accused No.7 is that he drafted the memorandum of partition deed and the petitioner-accused No.8 has notarized the said document by identifying the 2^nd respondent as executant of the said partition deed. Even accepting the said allegation on the face of it, there is no specific allegation that the petitioners-accused herein connived with other accused so as to create the memorandum of partition deed and by impersonation, got notarized the said document so as to deprive the 2^nd respondent of his share in the property.

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 100694 of 2022

¶37

In the absence of any specific allegation so as to

¶38

constitute the allegation for the aforesaid offences, the registration of the First Information Report against the petitioners is impermissible and it will be an abuse of process of law, if the investigation is allowed to be continued against the petitioners-accused. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶41

The impugned First Information Report in Crime

¶42

No.40/2022 registered by the Chikkodi Police Station insofar it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.7 and 8 is hereby quashed.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

RSH

¶45

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 73

Shri. Mahaveer S/O. Bharamu Chougala v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Mahaveer S/O. Bharamu Chougala 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

Basavaraj S/O Shankrappa Akkivalli Vs the State of Karnataka

Progressive Education Trust, Vs the State of Karnataka

Yalaguradappa Bhimappa Goudar Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Suresh S/O Kalappa Kammar Vs the State of Karnataka by Its

Adamsab S/O Ghudusab Tekadi Vs State of Karnataka

Kalamesh Mallikarjuna Pujar Alias Hugar Vs State of Karnataka