Quashed

Basavva Alias Basamma D/O Basalingayya, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Oct 2023CRL.P/102749/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the quashing of proceedings against specific petitioners-accused. The court held that the private complaint was not maintainable as it lacked a mandatory affidavit, rendering the subsequent charge sheet vitiated due to absence of specific allegations regarding intent.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; proceedings in C.C. No.586/2021 quashed insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5.

Basavva Alias Basamma D/O Basalingayya, Vs the… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:12373 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102749 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BASAVVA @ BASAMMA D/O BASALINGAYYA, W/O ANDANAYYA NANDIKOLMATH, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KUSHTAGI, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583277

¶10

SHIVAYYA S/O. ANANDAYYA NANDIKOLAMATHA AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. OLD BAZAR, BB TEMPLE, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583277

¶11

SHANTA W/O. VIJAYMAHANTESH MATAD AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. OLD BAZAR, BB TEMPLE, TQ. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583277

¶12

… PETITIONERS

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶14

(BY SRI. HARSHAWARDHAN M PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Date: 2023.10.13 16:25:13 +0530

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KUSHTAGI POLICE STATION R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH-580008

¶18

GOPARAPPA S/O. SANGANABASAPPA KUDATANI AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. FARMING AND DEED WRITER, R/O. KUSHTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL-583277

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP)

¶21

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12373 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2023

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC., SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.113, 114, 120(B), 109, 406, 418, 420, 447, 465, 468, 409, 471, 511 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF HON BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT KUSHTAGI PS CRIME NO.292/2020 (CC NO.586/2021) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONERS 9ACCUSED NO.1,2 AND 4) ARE CONCERNED.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

Heard Sri. Harshawardhan M. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri.V.S.Kalasurmtah, learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1.

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that qua the accused Nos.3 and 5, this court has quashed the proceedings on the score that it is violation of law laid down by the judgment of Apex Court in the case of

¶27

Priyanka Srivastava and another V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2015)6 SCC 287. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.100618/2022 has held as follows:

¶28

“A private complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, alleging that the petitioners and other accused have purchased the property which has been earlier sold to the complainant. The learned Magistrate referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12373 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2023

¶30

police, after investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 511, 109, 120B, 418, 420, 447, 465, 468, 471, 113, 114 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and ordered issuance of summons to the petitioners. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet material do not disclose the commission of offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners. He further submits that the private complaint filed by the second respondent was not maintainable since it was not accompanied by an affidavit in compliance with Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. In support, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the Dr. Ravikumar Vs. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha reported in ILR 2018 KAR 1725.

¶32

The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent-State submits that the petitioners-accused having colluded with accused No.1 purchased the property so as to defeat the legitimate right of the second respondent over the property in question, and hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶33

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

¶34

A perusal of the complaint discloses that the second respondent purchased the property from accused No.1 and thereafter, accused No.1 and the petitioners-accused No.3 and 4 colluded with each other and the property, which was earlier sold to the second respondent,

¶35

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:12373 CRL.P No. 102749 of 2023

¶36

was purchased by the petitioners-accused so as to defeat the legitimate right of the second respondent.

¶37

To constitute an offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC, there must be a specific allegation that from the date of inception, the intention of the accused was to cheat the second respondent. In the absence of the said allegation and material, the charge sheet filed against the petitioners is without any substance. The allegations leveled against the petitioners do not constitute the commission of the offence alleged against them.

¶38

Even otherwise, the second respondent has not filed an affidavit along with the private complaint for having complied with the provisions of Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C., and therefore, the private complaint was not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2015)6 SCC 287, and consequently the filing of charge sheet stands vitiated.

¶39

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned proceeding pending against the petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5 requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

The criminal petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in C.C. No.584/2021 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Kushtagi, insofar as it relates to petitioners-accused Nos.3 and 5, is hereby quashed.

¶42