Allowed

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

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2022CRL.P/101162/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka quashed an FIR registered for offences under Sections 465 and 468 IPC regarding false representation of place of death and alleged forgery, holding no injury was caused merely by altering the death place and no signature forgery was proven.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No.230/2019 is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners-accused.

Shri Suresh S/O Kalappa Kammar Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 101162 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.101162 OF 2022

¶8

Between:

¶9

Shri Suresh S/O Kalappa Kammar Age. 53 Years, Occ. Social Worker, R/O Hiekumbi, Tq. Saundatti, Dist. Belagavi-591126.

¶10

Smt. Sushila D/O Devindrappa Badiger Age. 75 Years, Occ. Retired Teacher, R/O Hirekumbi, Tq. Saundatti, Dist. Belagavi-591126.

¶11

…Petitioners

¶12

(By Sri. G R Turamari, Advocate)

¶13

And:

¶14

The State Of Karnataka By Its Police Inspector Of Saundati P.S Represented By S.P.P High Court Building Dharwad-580011.

¶15

Shri. Shiddappa S/O. Kalappa Kammar Age-55 Years, Occ- Teacher, R/O. Hirekumbi, Tq-Saundatti, Dist-Belagavi. Pin-591126

¶16

…Respondents

¶17

(By Sri. V.S.Kalasurmath, HCGP for R1) (R2 - served)

¶18

This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the entire proceedings in Saundatti P.S. Crime

¶19

¶20

CRL.P No. 101162 of 2022

¶21

No.230/2019 dated 12.07.2019 filed against these petitioners for the offences punishable under sections 465 and 468 of IPC on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC Saundatti in so for these petitioners herein/arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively.

¶22

This criminal petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The second respondent lodged a first information report alleging that his father died on 05.07.2014 at Shirur Village. However, the petitioner No.1, who is his brother, and the petitioner No.2, who is his mother, by misrepresenting have obtained a death certificate to the effect that his father died at Yakkundi village of Savadatti Taluk. The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶25

Respondent No.2, though served with the notice, has remained absent.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1State.

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 101162 of 2022

¶29

To constitute an offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC, a false document should have been created with intent to cause damage or injury to any person. In the instant case, there is no allegation that by misrepresenting the place of death of the father of the second respondent, the petitioners got issued death certificate and gave the same to any forum so as to cause any injury to the second respondent. Merely obtaining of the death certificate by falsely showing the place of death of the deceased does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC having regard to the fact that by using the said death certificate, the petitioners have not caused any loss or injury to the second respondent.

¶30

A perusal of the application and also the affidavit submitted by the petitioner before the competent Court indicates that the same does not bear the signature of the second respondent which is alleged to have been forged by the petitioners. In the absence of any materials to show that the petitioners, by forging the signature of the second respondent, have got issued the death certificate, the registration of the FIR

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 101162 of 2022

¶33

for the aforesaid offences is impermissible. Accordingly, I pass

¶34

the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The criminal petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in Crime No.0230/2019 registered by the Saundatti Police Station, is hereby quashed, insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused herein.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

KMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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. Mahaveer S/O. Bharamu Chougala Vs the State of Karnataka

Adamsab S/O Ghudusab Tekadi Vs State of Karnataka

Kalamesh Mallikarjuna Pujar Alias Hugar Vs State of Karnataka