Allowed

Sri P Y Venugopal v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Jun 2022WP/22028/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition and quashed an FIR registered under Section 420 IPC. The Court held that since a civil suit challenging the same property documents was filed four years prior, registering the FIR constituted an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR registered by Pulakeshinagar Police Station insofar as it relates to accused No.3 is quashed.

Sri P Y Venugopal Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO.22028 OF 2019 (GM - RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. P.Y. VENUGOPAL S/O LATE P.R.YUVARAJ, AGED 83 YEARS

¶8

SRI.V.RAMESH S/O SRI. P.Y. VENUGOPAL, AGED 52 YEARS

¶9

SRI.V. SRINIVAS S/O SRI. P.Y. VENUGOPAL, AGED 49 YEARS

¶10

PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ALL ARE R/AT NO.97, OLD NO.17, VEERANNA GARDEN, 'C' STREET, 2^ND CROSS, CLEVELAND TOWN, FRAZER TOWN, BENGALURU-560005

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI RANGARAMU V., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

ITS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARIATARY OF THE HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001

¶17

¶18

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BY PULAKESHI NAGAR POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PULAKESHI NAGAR, BENGALURU, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 005

¶19

SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE P.R. SRINIVASA NAIDU @ SRINIVASALU, AGED ABOUT 84 YEARS, R/AT NO.60/1, 2ND MAIN, PALACE GUTTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶20

… RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; R4 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

¶22

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH / SET ASIDE THE POLICE NOTICE (AS PER 41(a) CRPC) DATED: 20.05.2019 ISSUED BY THE R-3 ON BASIS OF THE FIR DATED 08.03.2015 IN CRIME NO.87/2015 OF PULAKESHI NAGAR POLICE STATION AT BENGALURU FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE U/S 420 OF IPC; THE COPY AT ANNEURE-A & G AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR 'ORDERS' THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

First Information Report (FIR) was lodged by respondent No.4 alleging that subject property is the ancestral property and accused Nos.1 to 3 colluding with each other have created a partition deed in respect of the subject property and thereby sold the property

¶26

¶27

without informing to respondent No.4 on 28.02.2013 and accused Nos.1 to 3 with a malafide intention to grab the subject property have falsely stated to accused No.4 that the husband of the complainant was not married and he had no children and he died as bachelor and thereby entered into a Joint Development Agreement with accused No.4. The police registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, against which the present petition is filed by the petitioner/accused Nos.1 to 3.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the

¶29

petitioners submits that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature, however, given a criminal texture which is evident from O.S.No.4153/2015 filed by respondent No.4 against the petitioners/accused for partition and separate possession of the subject property. Hence, he submits that the FIR was lodged as an afterthought with ulterior motive so as to pressurize the petitioners/accused to arrive at a settlement.

¶30

On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1-State submits that the

¶31

¶32

allegations made in the FIR clearly discloses that the petitioners/accused have cheated respondent No.4 by creating documents and as such the registration of FIR against the petitioners/ accused cannot be faulted with.

¶33

Respondent No.4 though served with notice

¶34

has remained absent.

¶35

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

¶36

Perusal of the plaint in O.S.No.4153/2015 filed by respondent No.4 and others indicates that the suit is filed for partition and separate possession in respect of the subject property against the petitioners/accused and the issue involved in this petition and the allegations made in the FIR is also agitated by respondent No.4 in the said suit.

¶37

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Sukesh.N and Others Vs. The State of Karnataka and Another reported in ILR 2021 KAR 4291 has held that the FIR lodged after four years from the date of initiation of the suit by respondent No.4, is a

¶38

¶39

clear attempt to file a civil dispute in Criminal nature despite, absence of ingredients and it amounts to abuse of process of law.

¶40

In the present case, respondent No.4 had filed a suit in 2015 and after four years have lodged the FIR making similar allegations which are made in the suit and it clearly implies that dispute which is civil in nature has given a criminal texture so as to wreak vengeance against the petitioners.

¶41

To constitute the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, there must be specific allegations from inception and that there must be dishonest intention to cheat the complainant. In the present case, the only allegation is that the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 have falsely stated that the husband of respondent No.4 was not married and has entered into a Joint Development Agreement with accused No.4. In the absence of any specific allegation i.e., from date of execution of the Joint Development Agreement, the intention of the petitioners/accused was to cheat the respondent No.4, the registration of the FIR for the

¶42

¶43

offences punishable under Section 420 of IPC in the absence of essential ingredients to constitute the commission of the said offence is without any substance. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The petition is allowed.

¶46

ii) The impugned FIR in Cr.No.87/2015 registered by the Pulakeshinagar Police Station insofar as it relates to accused

¶47

No.3 is hereby quashed.

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49