Dismissed

Vishalakshi Anand v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jun 2022CRL.P/741/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to consider a petition to quash an FIR for cheating and forgery relating to a bank account closure. Holding that the matter was under investigation with no final report filed, the Court found no ground to interfere at this stage and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was disposed of without quashing the FIR, finding no ground for interference at the investigation stage.

Vishalakshi Anand Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.741 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

VISHALAKSHI ANAND D/O LATE G. SRINIVASA MURTHY W/O ANAND AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/AT: NO.480, 6^TH MAIN, HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE 560 032 ... PETITIONER

¶9

[BY DR. SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADV.]

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CUBBON PARK P.S REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSEUCTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001

¶12

2 . SRIKANTH GHANTASALA S/O LATE G. SRINIVASA MURTHY NO.B103, OASIS NINE APARTMENT 7^TH CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT BANGALORE 560 078 ... RESPONDENTS

¶13

[BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. S.VIVEKANANDA, ADV. FOR R2]

¶14

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.231/2019 REGISTERED BY CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420,468 AND 471 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF VIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND IMPOSE EXEMPLARY COSTS ON RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR ABUSING THE PROCESS OF LAW AND FOR ENGAGING IN FORUM SHOPPING.

¶16

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

¶17

ORDER

¶18

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.231/2019, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC.

¶19

Heard Dr.Sruti Chaganti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K.S. Abhijith, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri. S.Vivekananda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶20

¶21

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present

¶22

petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

¶23

The petitioner and the complainant are siblings. Several proceedings are pending between the two before the Civil Court with regard to the property of their father who had died intestate. The subject petition does not concern any of the issues relating to dispute regarding property. The complainant resides in the United States. The allegation of the complainant is that the petitioner has forged the signature of the complainant and on a no objection certificate presents it to the UCO Bank. The UCO Bank on that No Objection Certificate has closed the account of their father and transferred the amount which was in the account of the father, to the account of the petitioner. Several such allegations are made in several complaints. What drives the petitioner to this Court is the registration of the crime in Crime

¶24

¶25

No.231/2019 for offences punishable under Sections 468, 471 and 420 of IPC.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend with vehemence that respondent No.2 is putting pressure to settle the issue amongst themselves by registering several complaints every now and then. Most of the complaints have been closed by the Police filing ‘B’ report after investigation and few of the cases are pending before the Civil Court concerning disputes with regard to property of their father. She would submit that the matter is purely civil in nature, as civil proceedings are pending consideration.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that he came to know of the fact that the account in UCO Bank is closed on account of his forged signature produced on the no objection certificate and has registered the complaint with alleging forgery.

¶28

¶29

He would submit that the matter yet to be investigated

¶30

and would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶31

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶32

contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶33

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.

¶34

The complaint so registered by the complainant, reads as follows:

¶35

“To SHO cubbon park police station Bengaluru – 5600

¶36

From,

¶37

Srikanth Ghantasala Currently staying at B-103, Oasis Nine Apartments 7 cross, Isro Layout Bengaluru – 560078

¶38

Respected Sri,

¶39

My name is Srikanth Ghantasala, 48 years S/O G.Srinivasa Murthy and G.Vijayalakshmi. I’am presently residing in the USA. My father unfortunately passed away on 10.11.2015. I came down to

¶40

¶41

perform the last rites and returned to the US around the 24.11.2015.

¶42

I have two sisters Vishalakshi Anand who resides in Australia and Leelavathy Ghantasala who resides in the US.

¶43

On my visit to India in August 2018, It has come to my attention that Vishalakshi Anand has forged my signature in several documents. This complaint is regarding an No Objection Document submitted to the UCO bank MG road branch where my late father had an account.

¶44

Through a court order in 2018 for a pending civil case, UCO bank MG ROAD branch submitted to the court, documents that were submitted at the time of closing my father’s account as he died intestate.

¶45

On 1 January 2016, My sister Vishalakshi Anand has created and submitted a NOC in my name requesting

¶46

¶47

the bank to close my father’s account and forged my signature on it.

¶48

This has been done to clearly cheat me of my father’s inheritance and for her unlawful financial gain.

¶49

Since I reside in the US and haven’t been able to come down to Bengaluru till now I did not have a chance to file this forgery complaint earlier.

¶50

I kingly request you to please file this complaint for cheating, forgery, breach of trust, and take appropriate legal action against Vishalakshi Anand.

¶51

She resides at the below address when she visits India.”

¶52

(Emphasis added)

¶53

Pursuant to the registration of the said

¶54

Crime, the Police registered FIR for offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. The alleged forgery takes place on account of the petitioner

¶55

¶56

producing a document before the UCO Bank, which reads as follows:

¶57

“Dear Sir

¶58

BANK – UCO BANK ACCT – SB6098

¶59

Sub: No Objection Document

¶60

My name is G.Srikanth and I am the Son of G. Srinivasa Murthy. I regret to inform my father G.Srinivasa Murthy’s sad demise on 10^th November 2015. He has made deposits in this bank. I would request your esteemed bank to know that he has not made any nomination for his account. We request you to kindly settle the proceeds of closing the account and issue a check to my mom G.VijayaLakshmi.

¶61

I have no objection in this regard and request this bank to issue my dad’s account cheque to my mom.

¶62

Thanks and regard G. Srikanth Sd/-

¶63

¶64

This signature is made by my brother G.Srikanth. I attest the genuinity.”

¶65

(Emphasis added)

¶66

The petitioner attests the genuinity of the communication from the complainant and the complainant disputes the same and on that ground has registered the crime for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of IPC.

¶67

Since the petitioner has confirmed the genuinity of the signature, it becomes a matter of evidence as to whether there has been a forgery of the signature of the petitioner or not. The matter is still under investigation. The police have not even filed their final report in the matter. Therefore, it is not a stage where this Court would interference or interject with the proceedings of filing a final report.

¶68

Therefore, finding no ground to interfere at this stage and reserving liberty to the petitioner to

¶69

¶70

approach the appropriate forum at the relevant point in time, if need arises, the criminal petition stands disposed.

¶71

I.A.No.1/2022 stands disposed, as a consequence.

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

Vishalakshi Anand v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishalakshi Anand 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

Smt. Nandini Matiyani Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Venkatesh M Vs State by

Mr Sharad Jayaprakash Vs the State by

K Gangadhara Vs State by

K R Prasanna Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Baddu Hemalatha Vs Revathi M