A criminal petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR and transfer investigation was dismissed. The court held that with seriously disputed facts, quashing is not warranted and the accused cannot choose the investigating agency, citing precedents on inherent powers.
Petition dismissed; prayer to quash FIR and transfer investigation not granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7427 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
S/O. M. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC: FARMER, R/AT DODDAGATTIGANABBE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU-562 114.
S/O. M. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
OCC: FARMER, R/AT DODDAGATTIGANABBE, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU-562 114.
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
… PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. DESHPANDE AMIT ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
… RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. MURTHY DAYANANDA NAIK, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI SANDEEP C.T., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1)
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.111/2022 REGISTERED BY TIRUMALASHETTY HALLI POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 25, 26 AND 27 OF THE INDIAN ARMS ACT AND SEC.504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 327, 307 OF IPC AND ALTERNATIVELY TO TRANSFER BOTH THE INVESTIGATIONS ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.111/2022 AND 112/2022 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427, 120B, 147, 148, 149, 307 OF IPC AND SEC.25, 26, 27 OF INDIAN ARMS ACT TO CID REGISTERED BY TIRUMALASHETTY HALLI POLICE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner calls in question the registration of a Crime in Crime No. 111/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 26, 27 of the Indian Arms Act and Sections 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 327, 307 of IPC.
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
Court in the subject petition as borne out from the
pleadings are as follows:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The
petitioners are accused Nos. 1 to 5. The incident on 22.07.2022 leads the complainant to seek treatment in a hospital, at which point in time renders his statement against the accused herein with regard to the incident of assault that had happened. The incident of assault happens when the complainant was in his field doing agricultural work. The petitioners are alleged to have come near the place and assaulted the complainant on the score that he did not vacate the land. The assault is by usage of deadly weapons and later, it transpires that the petitioners also drew up a dragger against the complainant and fled away from the spot. The complainant suffered certain injuries due to the alleged assault by the petitioners and therefore, the crime comes to be registered against the
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
petitioners in Crime No.111/2022 for the afore quoted offences.
also registered a crime against the complainant and others in Crime No.112/2022, which is pending investigation at the hands of the investigating officer. Therefore, the issue is a case and a counter-case based upon the incident of assault that has happened on 22.07.2022. The registration of crime and the transfer of crime to a different police station is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
"Heard the learned counsel Sri. Amit Anand Deshpande, appearing for petitioners. Learned High Court Government Pleader is directed to secure instructions/investigation papers on the next date of hearing.
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
Petitioners are directed to co-operate with the investigating officer and the investigating officer in the garb of investigation shall not take any coercive steps in the matter till the learned High Court Government Pleader produces documents or investigation papers.
List the matter on 12.08.2022.
Accordingly, I.A.No.1/2022 stands dismissed."
directed the investigating officer not to take any coercive steps, till the investigation papers are produced before the
Court. The investigation papers were produced and the matter was adjourned from time to time and the interim order granted earlier i.e., not to take coercive steps was extended from time to time.
deliberately in a way it would become the offences due to political rivalry between the two factions i.e., petitioners herein and the respondent - complainant and others and
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
therefore, the interference at the hands of this Court is necessary. He would further submit that both the investigations, one in Crime No. 111/2022 and the other in Crime No. 112/2022 should be transferred to a solitary investigating agency.
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
full blown proceedings and there is no warrant for interference at this juncture.
incident happening on 22.07.2022 is not in dispute as it is
a matter of record as two crimes emerge from the said incident, one in Crime No.111/2022 and the other in Crime No. 112/2022 forming it to become a case and a counter case. The allegations against the petitioners in Crime No.111/2022 are for the offences punishable under Sections 25, 26, 27 of the Indian Arms Act and Sections 504, 506, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 327, 307 of IPC. Therefore, the perusal of the complaint would clearly indicate that the offences are grave in nature and the incident of assault has happened between two factions
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
i.e., petitioners and the complainant and others. Based upon the very incident, the petitioners have also registered a crime No. 112/2022, which is pending investigation.
of fact and with regard to the incident of assault, the interference at the hands of this Court, at this stage is not warranted. Therefore, it is for the petitioners to face investigation or full blown proceedings as the case would be.
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
ROMILA THAPAR AND OTHERS vs. UNION OF INDIA
AND OTHERS1 has held as follows:
"23.1. (i) Should the investigating agency be changed at the behest of the named five accused?
24. Turning to the first point, we are of the considered opinion that the issue is no more res integra. In Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat [Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 526], in para 64, this Court restated that it is trite law that the accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of investigating agency. Further, the accused persons cannot choose as to which investigating agency must investigate the offence committed by them. Para 64 of this decision reads thus: (SCC p. 100)
“64. … It is trite law that the accused persons do not have a say in the matter of appointment of an investigating agency. The accused persons cannot choose as to which investigating agency must investigate the alleged offence committed by them.”
1 2018 (10) SCC Page 753
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
in the case of ROMILA THAPAR ( supra ) , the claim for transfer of the case to a particular Investigating Officer by the accused sans acceptance.
vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH2 . The relevant
portion of the said judgment is extracted as follows:
“9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the
2 2021 (9) SCC 35
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 :
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-102010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
at hand and the judgments rendered by the Apex Court, as afore quoted, I do not find any merit in the petition, the petition stands dismissed.
the course of this order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same would not influence or find investigation or any further proceedings against the
CRL.P No. 7427 of 2022
petitioners in Crime No.111/2022 or against the
complainant in Crime No.112/2022.
Sd/JUDGE
VP
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can quash criminal proceedings under S. 482 Cr.P.C. at a stage where investigation is pending.
Whether the accused have a right to demand transfer of investigation to a different police station or agency.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Romila Thapar and Others vs. Union of IndiaDistinguished¶77
2018 (10) SCC 753 · Who else cites this
Narmada Bai v. State of GujaratReferred¶79
Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat, (2011) 5 SCC 79 · Who else cites this
Kaptan Singh vs. The State of Uttar PradeshFollowed¶87
2021 (9) SCC 35 · Who else cites this
Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of GujaratReferred¶98
(2018) 3 SCC 104 · Who else cites this
Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶98
(2019) 18 SCC 191 · Who else cites this
CBI v. Arvind KhannaReferred¶98
(2019) 10 SCC 686 · Who else cites this
State of Telangana v. ManagipetReferred¶98
(2019) 19 SCC 87 · Who else cites this
XYZ v. State of GujaratReferred¶98
(2019) 10 SCC 337 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Rajesh and Others
State of Karnataka
M. Nagaprashanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
