Allowed

Sushruta Vishrathi Dhama Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jul 2022CRL.P/1971/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench allowed two criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC. The court quashed the FIR against specific accused Nos. 5 and 10, ruling that the charge sheet lacked essential ingredients and material evidence to constitute the alleged offences against them.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petitions allowed; impugned FIR in Cr.No.346/2018 quashed insofar as it relates to accused No.5 and accused No.10.

Sushruta Vishrathi Dhama Limited Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1488 OF 2019 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.1971 OF 2019

¶7

In Crl.P.No.1488/2019:

¶8

BETWEEN :

¶9

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

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. NALINA MAYEGOWDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF KAGGALIPURA POLICE STATION,

¶14

¶15

RAMNAGARA DISTRICT, REPTD. BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001

¶16

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

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

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.

¶20

In Crl.P.No.1971/2019:

¶21

BETWEEN :

¶22

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

¶23

ADDRESS AS PER FIR

¶24

¶25

NO.202, R V ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU CITY.

¶26

REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR MR. PRABHAKAR

¶27

...PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SMT. NALINA MAYEGOWDA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND :

¶30

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

¶31

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.

¶32

...RESPONDENTS

¶33

(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. K.G. RAGHAVAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶34

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.

¶35

¶36

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

¶37

ORDER

¶38

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.

¶39

FIR was lodged by the second respondent

¶40

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

¶41

¶42

03.10.2005 in favour of Sushrutha Vishranthi Dhama.

¶43

The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 406, 417, 419, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC.

¶44

The police during course of the investigation recorded the statement of the

¶45

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.

¶46

Nalina Mayagowda, Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in absence of any specific allegation as against the petitionersaccused that the sale deed was created by forging the signature of the second respondent, the registration of the FIR for the aforesaid offences is impermissible.

¶47

¶48

On the other hand, Sri.K.G.Raghavan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that though there was no allegation as against the petitioners-accused, however, during the course of investigation the material collected establishes that Petitioners-accused committed the offences alleged against them and the veracity of the said allegations can be considered only after full fledged trial and at this stage the same cannot be gone into.

¶49

Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondentNo.1-State would reiterate the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel for the second respondent.

¶50

A perusal of FIR lodged by the second

¶51

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

¶52

¶53

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.

¶54

ORDER

¶55

i. Criminal petitions are allowed.

¶56

¶57

ii. The impugned FIR in Cr.No.346/2018

¶58

registered by the Kaggalipura Police Station, insofar as it relates to accused No.5 and accused No.10 is

¶59

hereby quashed.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

RKA

Sushruta Vishrathi Dhama Limited v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushruta Vishrathi Dhama Limited 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

Mohammed Nisham @ Nisham Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D Yathiraju Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D Yathiraju Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Subbarao R Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sathyajeeth Surathkal Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sharan @ Sharan Pumpwell Vs the State of Karnataka