Dismissed

Sri S a Puttaraju v. Smt Bhagyamma

Karnataka HC5 Sept 2022CRL.P/1587/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash proceedings for cheating and forgery. The court held that since the underlying facts are disputed questions of fact, it was not appropriate to exercise its summary powers to ascertain veracity. The court dismissed the plea, leaving the matter for trial.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings was dismissed. The criminal case is left for trial.

Sri S a Puttaraju Vs Smt Bhagyamma — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 1587 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1587 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. S.A. PUTTARAJU S/O SRI. P. ANJINAPPA R/AT MAHESHWARAMMA TEMPLE ROAD MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE K.R.PURAM HOBLI BENGALURU-48

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. Y.R. SADASHIVA REDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. R.V. SHIVANANDA REDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O MUNIRAJU D/O LATE VENKATAPPA @ CHIKKABBAIAH R/AT MAHADEVAPURA VILLAGE WHITEFIELD ROAD FRONT OF PATEL NARASIMHAIAH HOUSE BENGALURU-48

¶12

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. PRABHUGOUDA B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE LOWER COURT RECORDS IN C.C.NO.53507/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 10^TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, MAYO HALL UNIT AT BENGALURU AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.53507/2018, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BENGALURU.

¶16

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

CRL.P No. 1587 of 2019

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶22

a. Call for the lower court records in C.C.No.53507/2018 pending on the file of the 10^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit at Bengaluru.

¶23

b. Quash the entire proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.53507/2018, pending on the file of the 10^th A.C.M.M., Mayo Hall Unit, at Bengaluru.

¶24

c. Pass such any orders deems fit to this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.

¶25

The respondent had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., before the 10^th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore for the offences under Sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 423, 465, 468, 471 of IPC.

¶26

The contention of the complainant was that the complainant is the owner of 16,200 square feet in Sy.No.28/1 situated at Mahadevapura Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The complainant alleged that her brothers and sister colluding with the petitioner had created a GPA dated

¶27

¶28

CRL.P No. 1587 of 2019

¶29

25.02.2008 wherein her signature has been forged and in pursuance thereof, a sale deed came to be executed in favour of the petitioner in order to defraud the rights of the complainant. This being done while O.S.No.15867/2006 was pending. It is alleged that the complainant was an illiterate lady having no legal knowledge. The petitioner and other family members have colluded with each other to deprive and cheat the complainant of her rights. The trial Court has taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused therein including the petitioner who has arrayed as accused No.4. It is aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶30

Sri.Y.R.Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit:

¶31

4.1. That the entire matter is a civil dispute inasmuch as there was a suit in

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 1587 of 2019

¶34

O.S.No.15867/2006 where the parties have

¶35

entered into a compromise except for the share of one Mr.Ramakrishna, and all the brothers and sister had agreed to sell the property in favour of the petitioner. In regard thereto, a power of attorney was executed so also an agreement of sale and subsequently by using the power of attorney, a sale deed came to be executed in favour of the petitioner.

¶36

4.2. That valuable consideration has been paid by way of cheques which have been encashed by the complainant and therefore, it is thereafter that the present complaint has been filed which establishes malafides on the part of the complainant.

¶37

4.3. That by making use of the monies advanced by the petitioner, the respondent had entered into an agreement of sale with one Sri.Murugan to purchase another property. The passbook of the complainant would disclose both the

¶38

¶39

CRL.P No. 1587 of 2019

¶40

payment made by the petitioner to the complainant as also the complainant to Mr.Murugan. In this regard he submits that the transactions being established, the present complaint has been filed only to extort monies from the petitioner. He submits that the other brothers and sister have also executed deeds of confirmation which would establish that the transaction entered into by the petitioner with the family members is proper and correct and as such, he submits that the petition needs to be allowed and PCR required to be quashed.

¶41

Per contra, Sri.Prabhugouda B.Tumbigi, learned counsel for respondent would submit that: 5.1. There are serious allegations which have been made in the complaint as regards the fabrication of the documents by forging the signature of the complainant.

¶42

¶43

CRL.P No. 1587 of 2019

¶44

5.2. The complainant had never executed the power

¶45

of attorney and/or agreement. The signatures are required to be referred to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The complainant has produced a report of the handwriting expert which indicates that the signature found on the power of attorney is not that of the complainant and therefore the petitioner could not have made use of the power of attorney for execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner.

¶46

5.3. That the very fact that the deeds of confirmation have been executed

¶47

contemporaneously with the complaint which has been filed by the complainant would indicate that there are disputes as regards the documents inasmuch as the deeds of confirmation have been executed on 26.11.2013 and thereafter by making payment of various amounts of money therein. As such,

¶48

¶49

CRL.P No. 1587 of 2019

¶50

he submits that there is a credibility in the complaint which has been filed and therefore the same requires trial and if need be the learned Magistrate may refer it for investigation after the appearance of the accused.

¶51

Heard Sri.Y.R.Sadashiva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Prabhugouda B.Tumbigi, learned counsel for respondent and perused the papers.

¶52

The short point that is raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the dispute between the parties are civil in nature and there being various documents which have been executed, the contentions and arguments have been reproduced hereinabove.

¶53

A perusal of the documents and the contentions would indicate that there are several aspects of the matter which requires trial inasmuch as most of

¶54

¶55

CRL.P No. 1587 of 2019

¶56

these contentions which have been urged by the learned Senior Counsel are disputed questions which are not admitted by the complainant. In such a background, it would not be proper for this Court to exercise powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to dwell into those contentions to ascertain the veracity or otherwise of the same. In such a background, leaving all contentions and defences of the petitioner open to be agitated before the trial Court, the petition stands dismissed.

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Prs* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

Sri S a Puttaraju v. Smt Bhagyamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S a Puttaraju v. Smt Bhagyamma

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

D K Malleshappa Vs the Divisional Controller

Nirmala @ Basalingavva Vs the Managing Director

N. Nagaraj Vs the Divisional Controller

Mr. M N Devaraju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Rekha Prasad Vs State Represented by

Smt Sujitha Rai Vs the State of Karnataka