Allowed

Sri R S Yathisha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jun 2022WP/6940/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition under Article 226/226 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed to quash FIR and private complaint arising from forged lease deed allegations. Court held complaint non-maintainable due to lack of averment proving statutory compliance under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. FIR quashed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed and impugned proceedings in FIR are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioner-accused No.2.

Sri R S Yathisha Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

W.P.NO.6940/2018 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. R.S. YATHISHA S/O SADASHIVA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O NO. F-1, NURSES QUARTERS SRI CHAMARAJENDRA HOSPITAL HASSAN - 573 201.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI BHARATH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND :

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER HASSAN EXTENSION POLICE STATION HASSAN - 573 201 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶12

MR. SAGIL FIRDOSE S/O LATE ABDUL HAK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT OPP A.T.P.HALL AMEER MOHALLA HASSAN - 573 201

¶13

... RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. L.SUDARSHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT BEARING P.C.R.NO.1311/2016 PREFERRED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WHEREIN, THE PETITIONER HEREIN IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 465, 417, 420, 468, 471, 504 AND 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF I.P.C., PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C, HASSAN (ANNEXED VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

A private complaint was filed by the complainantrespondent No.2 alleging that accused No.1 by forging his signature has created lease deed in favour of one Jayaraj in respect of the subject property and allegation against accused No.2 is that accused No.1 has got the lease deed executed in favour of the Lessee, by falsely stating that the property belongs to accused No.2. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., and the police registered the FIR against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 417, 420, 468, 471, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC. Taking exception to this, the petitioner has filed this petition.

¶19

¶20

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioneraccused No.2 submits that the complaint filed by second respondent is not maintainable for non-compliance of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C and also for not filing an affidavit along with the complaint for having complied with Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. In support, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in PRIYANKA SRIVATSAVA AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH reported in 2015 6 SCC 287 .

¶21

On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State submits that allegation made in the complaint prima facie discloses the offences alleged against the petitioner-accused No.2 and registration of the FIR against the petitioner cannot be faulted with.

¶22

4. I have considered the submissions made by the

¶23

learned counsel for the parties.

¶24

¶25

Perusal of the complaint indicates that the complainant had approached the jurisdictional police on 26.11.2016 to register the FIR against the accused. But, the police refused to register the FIR stating that the dispute is purely civil in nature. However, there is no averment in the complaint that after refusal to register the FIR by the police the complainant had approached the higher official for taking appropriate action in accordance with law, by sending the complaint in writing through registered post acknowledgment due as specified under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. In the absence of any averment made in the complaint that Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C has been complied with, the complaint filed, without complying with the said requirement is not maintainable in view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivatsava stated supra. The complainant on the face of it having not complied with the requirement of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C., it would be a futile exercise if the matter is remanded to the learned Magistrate to enable the complainant to file an affidavit for having complied with the requirement of Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶26

¶27

ORDER

¶28

i) Writ Petition is allowed.

¶29

ii) The impugned proceedings in the First Information Report in Crime No.331/2016 registered at Hassan Extension Police Station, in so far it relates to the petitioner-accused No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

SKS

Sri R S Yathisha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri R S Yathisha 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S B Shadakshara Reddy Vs Additional Commissioner of Transport and Secretary Ksta

Sri Abdul Rawoof Vs the Regional Transport Authority

Sri H R Renuka Prasad Vs the State of Karnataka

S Swaraj Vs Karnataka State Transport Authority

Mr Rajakumara Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sachin Chandran Vs the Station House Officer