Allowed

Sri Varapasad Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jul 2022CRL.P/229/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioner sought quashing of proceedings where he was listed as an accused for forgery and cheating. The court found he was merely the builder executing permissions obtained by others via forged documents. The petition was allowed to quash proceedings against him to avoid harassment.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No.175/2021 quashed qua the petitioner.

Sri Varapasad Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 229 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 229 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI VARAPASAD REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O LATE HANUMAREDDY R/AT NO.12, SRI KOUSTUBAM 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, KANAKA LAYOUT BENDRE NAGAR, PADMANABHA NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 070

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K. SUMAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. SIDDHAARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHU KATTU POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY - 560 085 REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶14

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O K S SRINIVASAPPA

¶16

¶17

CRL.P No. 229 of 2022

¶18

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, B.B.M.P OFFICE, 9TH MAIN, JAYANAGARA 2ND BLOCK, BENGALURU - 560 011

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. PRAKASH A., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARAVIND M. NEGLUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT - CHANNAMMANAKERE ACHU KATTU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU IN CR.NO.175/2021 DATED 06.09.2021 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 465, 468, 471, 420, 34 OF IPC i.e., ANNEXURE-A AND THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.09.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT FILED WITH THE 1ST RESPONDENT i.e., ANNEXURE-B AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

CRL.P No. 229 of 2022

¶25

ORDER

¶26

Heard the learned Senior, Sri. K. Suman, appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Prakash A., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶27

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.175/2021 registered on 06.09.2021 for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of the IPC. The petitioner is accused No.3.

¶28

Brief facts that leads to the petitioner to this petition before this Court is that:

¶29

The petitioner claims to be a builder, who has developed the various properties in and around Bangalore. In furtherance of his business activities, a joint development agreement dated 15.04.2013 was entered into between one K. Vasantha Kumar and his wife

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 229 of 2022

¶32

V. Jayalakshmi for developing the property in Site Nos.30, 49 and 50, Municipal No.9 at 5th Main, Ittamadu, Banashakari 3rd stage, Bengaluru. The site was measuring about 5,131 sq.ft. The other factors of the transactions are not germane for consideration of the present lis . In terms of joint development agreement, accused Nos.1 and 2, the owners of the property had to get all the requisite permissions for construction of building, and such construction would be done by accused No.3 - petitioner, developer. Construction in terms of the permission that was sought at the hands of the competent authority was completed by the petitioner in the year 2014-15.

¶33

A crime comes to be registered against accused Nos.1 and 2 by one Venkatesh, Executive Engineer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as 'the BBMP' for short) alleging, both K. Vasantha Kumar and V. Jayalakshmi - accused Nos.1 and 2 had submitted forged documents to the BBMP and had secured the necessary permission for such construction and had

¶34

¶35

CRL.P No. 229 of 2022

¶36

undertaken construction of a multistoried building. The petitioner was later roped in as accused No.3. The allegations against the petitioner is that he is the builder of the property, to which, necessary permissions for construction was obtained by accused No.1 by playing fraud, except saying that the petitioner was the builder, there is no allegation against the petitioner.

¶37

Since the entire springs from the complaint, the

¶38

complaint is extracted for the purpose of ready reference:

¶39

" «µÀAiÀÄ: §ÈºÀvï ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄºÁ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥Á°PÉ¬ÄAzÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁw £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÀPÀ° ªÀiÁr ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðj PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ PÀlÖqÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸ÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

¶40

G¯ÉèR: 1) ²æÃ ºÉZï.«. gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀægÁªï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£À« ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08/03/2021.

¶41

G¥À ªÀÄÄRå «zÀÄåvï ¥Àj«ÃPÀëPÀgÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ (zÀQët) gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå:C.ªÀÄÄ.«.¥À/¨É.zÀ/GªÀÄÄ«¥À/¸À.«.¥À2/zÀÆgÀÄPÀqÀvÀ/1286-84/2021-22, ¢£ÁAPÀ:08/07/2021.

¶42

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, £ÀA.9, ºÀ¼ÉÃ £ÀA.49, 5£ÉÃ ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ, ElÄÖªÀÄqÀÄ, §£À±ÀAPÀj 3£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀ, ªÁqïð ¸ÀASÉå.183, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ – 560 085 E°è£À ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ°è ªÀ¸Àw PÀlÖqÀ ¤«Äð¸À®Ä £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁw PÉÆÃj ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ.PÉ.ªÀ¸ÀAvï PÀÄªÀiÁgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃªÀÄw «.dAiÀÄ®QëöäÃ gÀªÀgÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀAvÉ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ £Á®ÄÌ

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 229 of 2022

¶45

WÀlPÀUÀ¼À ªÀ¸Àw G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ ¹Ö¯ïÖ, £É®, MAzÀ£ÉÃ, JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ mÉÃgÉÃ¸ï CAvÀ¹Û£À PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ J¯ï.¦.¸ÀASÉå. Ad.com/SUT /1345/12-13, ¢£ÁAPÀ:26/06/2013 gÀAvÉ PÀlÖqÀ £ÀPÉë ªÀÄAdÆgÁw ¤ÃqÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶46

¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ°è£À PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÁw £ÀPÉëUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV £ÀqÀÄeÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©qÀzÉÃ ºÁUÀÆ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV ªÀÄÆgÀ£ÉÃ ºÁUÀÆ £Á®Ì£ÉÃ CAvÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤«Äð¹gÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ zÀÈqsÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÀåwjPÀÛ ¨sÁUÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ ºÉZÀÄÑªÀj CAvÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉgÀªÀÅUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÁðºÀPÀ C©üAiÀÄAvÀgÀgÀÄ (¥ÀzÀä£Á¨sÀ£ÀUÀgÀ) G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, ©©JA¦ gÀªÀgÀÄ vÁvÁÌ°PÀ DzÉÃ±À 321 (1), (2) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹ÜjÃPÀgÀt DzÉÃ±À 321(3) £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥sÉ§æªÀj 2018 gÀ°è eÁj ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, EzÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹ ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ¹n ¹«¯ï £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, O.S.No. 25236/2018 gÀAvÉ ªÉÄAiÉÆÃ ºÁ¯ï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°è zÁªÉ ºÀÆrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶47

¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉÃ±À£ÀzÀ°è£À PÀlÖqÀPÉÌ °¥sïÖ ZÁ®£Á ¥ÀgÀªÁ¤UÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À PÀlÖqÀ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄ ©©JA¦ ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆgÁzÀ £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¸ÀzÉÃ, ¹Ö¯ïÖ, £É®, MAzÀ£ÉÃ, JgÀqÀ£ÉÃ, ªÀÄÆgÀ£ÉÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ mÉÃgÉÃ¸ï CAvÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ½gÀÄªÀ £ÀPÀ° £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ G¥À ªÀÄÄRå «zÀÄåvï ¥Àj«ÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ, C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå «zÀÄåvï ¥Àj«ÃPÀëPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, £ÀA.53/2, ¤dUÀÄt PÉëÃvÀæzÀ »AzÀÄUÀqÉ, §Ä¯ï mÉA¥À¯ï gÀ¸ÉÛ, §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄr, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ E°èUÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ²æÃ ºÉZï.«.gÁªÀÄZÀAzÀæ gÁªï JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR (1) gÀAvÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 08/03/2021 gÀAzÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj £ÀPÀ° £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß Dgï.n.L PÁAiÉÄÝ ªÀÄÄSÉÃ£À C¥ÀgÀ ªÀÄÄRå «zÀÄåvï ¥Àj«ÃPÀëPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÁV w½¹, ¸ÀzÀj £ÀPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À°è¹, ¸ÀéwÛ£À ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹ PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À®Ä PÉÆÃjgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶48

6. The entire narration in the complaint does not

¶49

point at any allegation against the petitioner. It is only

¶50

¶51

CRL.P No. 229 of 2022

¶52

against accused Nos.1 and 2, where the allegation is that they have produced forged documents and obtained those permissions for construction.

¶53

Learned Senior counsel, Sri. K. Suman

¶54

appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the joint development agreement, which is appended to the petition to buttress the submission of innocence of the petitioner. The joint agreement development insofar as obtaining of necessary permissions from the BBMP was the onus of accused Nos.1 and 2. The said condition reads as follows:

¶55

"Whereas, on an application made to the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), Katha of both Item Nos.I, II and III of Schedule Property has been clubbed as per the Special Notice under Sec.108A, Sub-Sec.8 and 9, of Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 and communicated under No.DA/183/KTR/158/1213, MTR.38/12-13, dated:21-12-2012 and a new BBMP Municipal No.9 (Old No.49), having a Property PID No.55-491-9, has been assigned to

¶56

¶57

CRL.P No. 229 of 2022

¶58

the composite property as described in Item No.IV of the Schedule Property hereunder Accordingly, the First Parties have paid the assessment upto date. And they are in enjoyment and possession of the same without any claim by any other successors. To develop the schedule property, the first parties have applied for plan sanction to BBMP for construction of multi-storied apartment building on the schedule property."

¶59

(emphasis supplied)

¶60

Accused No.1 having agreed to get all the documents and other construction related permissions from the BBMP, the complainant could not have hailed the petitioner as accused No.3, who had only constructed the building in accordance with the permission obtained from the BBMP by accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶61

The agreement is clear in unequivocal terms that accused Nos.1 and 2 will have to get necessary permission. The petitioner was not entrusted to the responsibility of communicating with the BBMP. Accused

¶62

¶63

CRL.P No. 229 of 2022

¶64

Nos.1 and 2 are alleged to have committed fraud by producing forged documents with regard to the property, of which, construction is undertaken by the petitioner. Finding no role of the petitioner in any of the allegations, permitting any further proceedings to continue against the petitioner, would degenerate into further harassment, more than what the petitioner has already undergone, and would result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, the impugned crime warrants appropriate interference only against the petitioner.

¶65

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶68

ii. Proceedings pending in Crime No.175/2021 stands quashed qua the petitioner.

¶69

It is made clear that the observations made in the

¶70

course of this order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

¶71

10 -

¶72

CRL.P No. 229 of 2022

¶73

against the petitioner the same shall not bind or influence the criminal Court in the conduct of further proceedings

¶74

against any other accused.

¶75

Sd/JUDGE

¶76

SJK

Sri Varapasad Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Varapasad Reddy 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

Sri B N Govindappa Vs the State by Bagalgunte Police

Apsar Pasha Vs the State by Pulikeshinagar Police Station

Sri Sanyam Gulati Vs State of Karnataka

Prathap H G Vs the State of Karnataka

Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

B L Nagendra Prasad Vs State of Karnataka