The High Court of Karnataka quashed the FIR against petitioners accused Nos.5 and 10 as the charge sheet lacked specific allegations or material evidence constituting the offences of forgery and cheating.
FIR in Cr.No.346/2018 is quashed insofar as it relates to accused No.5 and accused No.10.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1488 OF 2019 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.1971 OF 2019
In Crl.P.No.1488/2019:
BETWEEN :
DR SUBBARAO R S/O RAMA RAO RESIDING AT NO.1631-1 DHATREE, 32ND CROSS, BSK 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560070 ALSO AT: AS MENTIONED IN FIR MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S. SUSRUTHA VISHRANTH DHAMA BANGALORE CITY KARNATAKA
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NALINA MAYEGOWDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
2
RAMNAGARA DISTRICT, REPTD. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001
2 . MR. M.P.SOMPRASAD S/O M.K.PRABHAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.12, MANTRI ALTIUS, NO.17, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 06.11.2018 AT ANNEXURES-A AND B ALONG WITH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO IN CR.NO.346/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II A.C.J.M., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
In Crl.P.No.1971/2019:
BETWEEN :
SUSHRUTA VISHRATHI DHAMA LIMITED A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT SY.NO.18/4, THALAGHATTAPURA UTTARAHALLI MANAVARTHE KAVAL UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 109
ADDRESS AS PER FIR
3
NO.202, R V ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU CITY.
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. PRABHAKAR
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. NALINA MAYEGOWDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE OF KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION RAMNAGARA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY ITS SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001
2 . DR. M.P. SOMPRASAD S/O M K PRABHAKARAN AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12, MANTRI ALTIUS, NO.17, RAJBHAVAN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, FIR AND COMPLAINT DATED 06.11.2018 AT ANNEXURES B AND C RESPECTIVELY, IN CRIME NO.346/2018 PENDING ON THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BANGALORE.
4
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Since these petitions are filed challenging the registration of same FIR in Cr.No.346/2018, both the petitions are taken up together, heard and disposed by a common order.
alleging that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy.No.18 measuring 12 acres and New Sy.No.18/4 measuring 15 acres in all 27 acres and that the subject properties were entrusted to accused No.1 to look after the properties, since he was staying abroad and by misusing the said document, he created a power of attorney in favour of Alexander by forging his signature and who in turn sold the subject property in favour of accused No.10. The accused No.10 in turn executed a registered sale deed dated
5
03.10.2005 in favour of Sushrutha Vishranthi Dhama.
The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 417, 419, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC.
complainant and submitted the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 419, 420, 465, 468, 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and the Petitioner was arrayed as an accused alleging that he wrongfully confined respondent No.2 and gave life threat.
6
respondent discloses that the allegation of forgery is as against accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused No.5 who is the former Managing Director of the company
7
which had purchased the subject property from accused No.1. Except the allegation that the accused No.5 as Managing Director of the said company has purchased the subject property through a registered sale deed executed by the accused No.1, there is no specific allegation as against the petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 10 for having connived with the other accused in creating the said document. In the absence of any essential ingredients and any material produced along with the charge sheet, so as to constitute the commission of the aforesaid offence alleged against the petitioners-accused Nos.5 and 10, the charges sheet filed against the petitioner-accused is without any substance. Accordingly, I pass the following.
ORDER
i. Criminal petitions are allowed.
8
ii. The impugned FIR in Cr.No.346/2018
registered by the Kaggalipura Police Station, insofar as it relates to accused No.5 and accused No.10 is
hereby quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
RKA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the registration of FIR against petitioners accused Nos.5 and 10 was permissible given the absence of specific allegations or material evidence regarding their complicity in forgery.
Whether the charge sheet against the petitioner-accused lacks substance to constitute the alleged offences.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
DR SUBBARAO R S/O RAMA RAO
SUSRUTHA VISHRANTH DHAMA
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
MR. M.P.SOMPRASAD
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
