Allowed

Mrs. M. Dhanalakshmi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2022CRL.P/2386/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings in a cheating case as there were no specific allegations of dishonest intention from inception, the FIR was not maintainable due to non-compliance with Section 154 Cr.P.C., and the complainant had divested herself of property rights.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.57286/2016 are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioners.

Mrs. M. Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2386/2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

MRS.M.DHANALAKSHMI @ LAKSHMI RAJAN W/O MURALI RAJAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶9

MURALI RAJAN S/O RAMALINGAM AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH PERMANENT RESIDENTS AT:

¶10

D/O LATE C.R.MUTHU SWAMY NO.A-02, PRADHAN PELICON NAYANAPPANAHALLI MAIN ROAD AVANI SHRINGERI NAGAR, BTM 6^TH STAGE BENGALURU – 596 068

¶11

BOTH CURRENTLY RESIDING AT

¶12

NO.228, ENGLISH PL. BASKING RIDGE NEW-JERSEY-07920 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI.DHANUSH.M., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND :

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOTHANUR POLICE

¶16

¶17

REPRESENTED BY: STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU – 560 001

¶18

MRS.M.LAKSHMI PRIYA D/O LATE C.R.MUTHU SWAMY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.2373/L 3^RD ‘B’ MAIN ROAD, RPC LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR 2^ND STAGE BANGALORE – 500 040 ...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.DHARMAPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2017 PASSED BY THE XI ADDL. C.M.M., MAYOHALL, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.57286/2016 (PCR NO.52548/2014 TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 504, 506(B) R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506(B) read with Section 34 of IPC alleging that petitioner No.1/accused under the pretext of looking after the complainant got executed a power of attorney and affidavit in her favour. Subsequently without taking care of the complainant, the petitioner No.1 has entered into a sale agreement with one Mr.Ramachandraiah and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby has committed the aforesaid offence.

¶26

Learned Magistrate after accepting the charge took cognizance of the aforesaid offence and issued summons to the petitioners against which the present petition is filed.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶28

that as on the date of filing of the complaint, the

¶29

¶30

complainant had divested herself of the subject property by executing a registered deed of cancellation in favour of the original owner. He further submits that the allegation made in the complaint even accepting on the face of it, does not constitute the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioners-accused. He further submits that the complaint is not maintainable for not having complied with Section 154 Cr.P.C.

¶31

Learned HCGP and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submit that petitioner No.1 fraudulently got executed a power of attorney on the pretext of looking after her, but has not looked after her and has executed an agreement of sale in favour of Mr.Ramachandraiah by receiving a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as advance sale consideration, thereby committed the offences as aforesaid. The Police after

¶32

¶33

investigation have rightly filed the charge sheet and the same does not warrant interference.

¶34

I have considered the submissions made by the parties.

¶35

The perusal of the complaint discloses that the allegation against petitioner/accused No.1 is that she fraudulently got executed a power of attorney in her favour on the pretext of looking after the complainant and by misusing the power of attorney has executed an agreement of sale in favour of Mr.Ramachandraiah and received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and thereby committed the aforesaid offences.

¶36

The perusal of the power of attorney indicates that the complainant had executed the power of attorney since she was not in a position to manage the property due to her old age. There is no

¶37

¶38

recital in the power of attorney that the power of attorney was executed in favour of accused No.1 only on the ground that accused No.1 was required to look after her during her old age. In order to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, there must be specific allegation that from inception, there must be a dishonest intention on the part of the accused to cheat the complainant.

¶39

In the present case, there is no specific allegation that from the date of execution of power of attorney in favour of accused No.1, there was dishonest intention on the part of petitioner No.1/accused. In the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, the charge sheet filed against the petitioner No.1/accused is without any substance.

¶40

¶41

The perusal of the Police complaint filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C indicates that there is no compliance under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. The complainant having not complied with Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C., the complaint filed by the second respondent is not maintainable.

¶42

The complainant has executed registered cancellation deed dated 27.07.2013 divesting herself of all the rights over the subject property in favour of the original owner as on the date of filing of the suit. The complainant had no subsisting right interest over the subject property. In the absence of any loss or injury caused to the complainant, the filing of the complaint for the offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC is impermissible.

¶43

Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶44

¶45

ORDER

¶46

i) The Criminal petition is allowed.

¶47

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.57286/2016 pending on the file of XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bengaluru is hereby quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioners.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

AKC

Mrs. M. Dhanalakshmi v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. M. Dhanalakshmi v. 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

C Ankanna Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Xxxxxx (Letter Dated 16.03.2024) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anant G N Vs State of Karnataka

M.V. Nethrananda Vs State of Karnataka by

Mrs. Shylaja Iyer Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Bharathi v Vs the Regional Transport Authority