Dismissed

Sri. Aravind T M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2022CRL.P/671/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court criminal bench dismissed multiple criminal petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR alleging forgery and grabbing government land. The court held that the prior quashing of a writ petition regarding administrative review powers did not negate charges of forgery and instructed police to investigate before judicial interference. The petitioners were directed to approa

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions stood dismissed. Liberty was reserved to approach the Court on a charge sheet being filed.

Sri. Aravind T M Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1557 OF 2018

¶8

C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 671 OF 2018 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 672 OF 2018 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1558 OF 2018 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1559 OF 2018 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1560 OF 2018 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1561 OF 2018 CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1562 OF 2018

¶9

IN CRL.P.No.1557/2018

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SMT. ANITHA W/O LATE VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT HESARUGHATTA RAJANGUNTE BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by POORNIMA SHIVANNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS

¶17

¶18

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶19

BENGALURU-560 001

¶20

SRI. MANJUNATH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR TAHASILDAR TALUKA OFFICE YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)

¶23

IN CRL.P.No.671/2018

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI. ARAVIND T.M., S/O. T. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT: DODDA TUMAKURA

¶26

BENGALURU DISTRICT NOW AT: NO. 1004 A-BLOCK, GAURI APARTMENT, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001

¶27

…PETITIONER

¶28

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶31

¶32

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶33

SRI. MANJUNATH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN FOR THE PETITIONER AGED MAJOR TAHASILDAR TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)

¶36

IN CRL.P.No.672/2018

¶37

BETWEEN:

¶38

SRI. SHRICHARAN S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560064

¶39

…PETITIONER

¶40

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V.,ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶43

BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS

¶44

BENGALURU-560 001

¶45

SRI. MANJUNATH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR TAHASILDAR

¶46

TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA

¶47

¶48

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶49

BENGALURU-560 064

¶50

…RESPONDENTS

¶51

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)

¶52

IN CRL.P.No.1558/2018

¶53

BETWEEN:

¶54

SMT. LAKSHMI W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HESARUGHATTA, RAJANGUNTE BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064

¶55

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)

¶56

AND:

¶57

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶58

SRI. MANJUNATH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR TAHASILDAR TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064

¶59

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)

…PETITIONER

…RESPONDENTS

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶64

IN CRL.P.No.1559/2018

¶65

BETWEEN:

¶66

SMT. SAVITHA W/O SANTOSH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT: HESARUGHATTA, RAJANGUNTE BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064

¶67

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V.,ADVOCATE)

¶68

AND:

¶69

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶70

SRI. MANJUNATH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR TAHASILDAR TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064

¶71

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)

…PETITIONER

…RESPONDENTS

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶76

IN CRL.P.No.1560/2018

¶77

BETWEEN:

¶78

SMT. KAVITHA W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT HESARUGHATTA, RAJANGUNTE BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064

¶79

…PETITIONER

¶80

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)

¶81

AND:

¶82

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶83

SRI. MANJUNATH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR TAHASILDAR TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064

¶84

…RESPONDENTS

¶85

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)

¶86

IN CRL.P.No.1561/2018

¶87

BETWEEN:

¶88

SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O. NARASIMHAIAH

¶89

¶90

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶91

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT HESARUGHATTA, RAJANGUNTE BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064

¶92

…PETITIONER

¶93

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)

¶94

AND:

¶95

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶96

BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶97

SRI. MANJUNATH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR TAHASILDAR TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064

¶98

…RESPONDENTS

¶99

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)

¶100

IN CRL.P.No.1562/2018

¶101

BETWEEN:

¶102

SMT. RADAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT HESARUGHATTA, RAJANGUNTE

¶103

BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064

¶104

¶105

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶106

ASLO AT NO.4/1, LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK, 11TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560032.

¶107

…PETITIONER

¶108

(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)

¶109

AND:

¶110

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY 1562 POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001

¶111

SRI. MANJUNATH FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN AGED MAJOR TAHASILDAR TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA BENGALURU-560 064

¶112

…RESPONDENTS

¶113

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)

¶114

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 05.1.2018 IN CRIME NO.2/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 44TH A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN ANNEXURE-A. .

¶115

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

¶116

¶117

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶118

ORDER

¶119

Learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) accepts notice for respondents in all the matters. Registry is directed to print the name of the learned

¶120

HCGP, as that appearing for respondents.

¶121

In all the above matters, petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs (COMMON):

¶122

a. Quash the First Information Report dated 05.1.2018 in Crime No.02/2018 pending on the file of the 44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A.

¶123

b. Grant such other relief/s, pass such other Order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶124

The allegation is that the petitioners in all the above matters and certain others have created certain documents, obtained a false death certificate from Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and

¶125

10 -

¶126

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶127

have grabbed the valuable Government land, as such, committing offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 470, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KLR Act' for short).

¶128

The submission of Sri. A.V.Nishanth, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in a proceeding in W.P.No.50129/2012, the said Narasimhaiah, whose death certificate is alleged to have been forged, had approached this Court challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner and this Court, considering that the Deputy Commissioner did not have power to review his own order, had quashed the said order, allowed the petition and directed the name of Narasimhaiah to be restored in the revenue records.

¶129

11 -

¶130

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶131

The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.178/2016 had dismissed the Writ Appeal on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have exercised his power on the facts and circumstances of the case without giving any opinion on whether the Deputy Commissioner had power to review his own order or not.

¶132

The matter being taken up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil Appeal) Nos.2847-2489/2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that there was a lack of proper assistance on the part of the Government authorities in canvassing the case, resulting in neither a Single Judge nor the Division Bench giving its opinion on the power of a Deputy

¶133

12 -

¶134

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶135

Commissioner to review his own order and as such, remitted the matter to the Single Judge to do so.

¶136

Upon such remittal, this court in W.P.No.50129/2012 has allowed the writ petition by quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 06.10.2022 by holding that the Deputy Commissioner would not have the power to review by relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of N. Raghavendra Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.22658-

¶137

22662/2015 and connected matters .

¶138

In that background, Sri. A.V.Nishanth, learned counsel submits that the orders of review of the Deputy Commissioner having been quashed, the criminal proceedings cannot survive and on that basis, he submits that the above petitions are

¶139

13 -

¶140

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶141

required to be allowed and the criminal proceedings

¶142

are required to be quashed.

¶143

Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP would however contend that the subject matters of the Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and Civil Appeal are different from that of the criminal complaint. In those matters what was in question was the power of the Deputy Commissioner to review his own order. Whereas in the present complaint, what is in question are the serious offences alleged under Sections 465, 466, 468, 470, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC as regards the creation of false documents as also an offence under Section 192-A of the KLR Act, 1964 for grabbing the land of the government. The aspect of whether there is any forgery, fabrication of documents is required to be investigated and as

¶144

14 -

¶145

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶146

such, he submits that the above petitions are required to be dismissed.

¶147

Heard Sri. A.V.Nishantha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP for the respondents and perused papers.

¶148

The conspectus of the proceedings in the Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and Civil Appeal have been stated herein above.

¶149

A perusal of all the orders would indicate that there is no reference made or discussion as regards any fabrication or forgery of documents. The only question which was involved in those matters was whether the power of review under Section 25 of the KLR Act said to have been vested in the Deputy Commissioner. The power to review or not would

¶150

15 -

¶151

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶152

stand on a different footing that the allegations in the compliant as regards the offences of forgery and fabrication of documents. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the said orders would not come to the rescue of the petitioners in the present matters.

¶153

There being serious offences which have been alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that unless an investigation is conducted, this Court cannot opine ex-facie as to whether any offences are committed or not, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶154

M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 31 , this Court ought not to intercede and/or interrupt any ongoing investigation

¶155

16 -

¶156

CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018

¶157

when this Court is of the opinion that such an

¶158

investigation is required. Hence, I pass the following:

¶159

::ORDER::

¶160