Allowed

K. Lakshman Bhat v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Jun 2023CRL.P/1920/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Karnataka quashed proceedings against the petitioner, the complainant's father-in-law, for forgery and cheating. The court held that facts did not support allegations against him regarding a property valuation report.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in C.C. No. 37248/2022 pending on the file of learned 30th ACMM, Bengaluru stood quashed.

K. Lakshman Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:20467 CRL.P No. 1920 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1920 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

K. LAKSHMAN BHAT, S/O SRI RAM BHAT KOTA, AGED: 67 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS ADD-NO.42, VINOTH VAHINI APARTMENTS, F.NO.AF-1, IST MAIN ROAD, SVS NAGAR, VALASARAVAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 087. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.16/68, COODE STREET, SOUTH PERTH-6151, AUSTRALIA.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. VENKATESH P DALWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY PUTTENAHALLI PS, Digitally signed by REPRESENTED BY PADMAVATHI B K STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Location: HIGH HIGH COURT BUILDING, COURT OF BANGALORE-560 001. KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI RAGHAVENDRA SHIMOGA DAMODAR KAMATH, S/O SRI DAMODAR KAMATH, AGED: 46, R/A DOOR NO.004, MBM ELEGANCE, 18^TH MAIN, 18^TH CROSS, GOWRAMMA LAYOUT, J.P. NAGAR, 5^TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. UDAYA KUMAR .G, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:20467 CRL.P No. 1920 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC, PRAYING TO QUASH ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.37248/2022 BY PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED 30TH ACMM BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 465, 471, 417 R/W SEC. 340 OF IPC, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in CC No.37248/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 417 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶22

Heard Sri. Venkatesh P Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri. Udaya Kumar.G, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶23

Brief facts that leads the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

¶24

The Second respondent is the complainant. The second respondent and daughter of the petitioner get married and travel to Australia for their avocation and have been in Australia throughout. The case does not concern the dispute between the husband and the wife. The petitioner brings before

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:20467 CRL.P No. 1920 of 2023

¶26

this Court a strange dispute. A property is owned by the husband and the wife. The husband and the wife have dispute amongst themselves which is pending consideration before the Competent Court at Australia. In the Court at Australia it transpires that valuation of the property that was in the joint name of the petitioner’s daughter and the husband-second respondent was sought for. In terms of what was sought for, accused No.3 was hired to value the property and submit the report. Accused No.3 submits his report on 05.06.2020 giving a particular valuation of the property. This is placed before the Court at Australia. At the point in time, when the daughter of the petitioner places the valuation document before the Court at Australia, the husband alleging that there has been fabrication in the valuation report seeks to register private complaint, in India, invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

4 The learned Magistrate refers the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. which becomes a crime in Cr. No.91/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 471, 417 r/w 34 of IPC. The Police after investigation have filed the charge sheet, filing of the charge

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:20467 CRL.P No. 1920 of 2023

¶29

sheet is what drives the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri. Venkatesh P. Dalwai would take this Court to the documents appended to the petition to demonstrate that the petitioner-accused No.2 cannot be even hauled for any of the offences as none of the ingredients would meet the allegations against the petitioner. The statement of Accused No.3 who is the valuer who has submitted the valuation does not indicate that the petitioner had goaded the valuer to submit a particular valuation of the property. It is his submission that the tenants in the property did not permit the valuer to enter the property for an appropriate measurement. Therefore, the valuer had to tender his valuation on identical property and that is placed before the concerned Court in Australia. No allegations of the kind that is laid against the petitioner can be laid in the facts and circumstances of the case is his submission.

¶31

On the other hand the learned counsel representing the second respondent would seek to refute the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner contending that without

¶32

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:20467 CRL.P No. 1920 of 2023

¶33

the active support of the petitioner, who is the father of the daughter, the valuer could not have given such valuation because of the grant of such valuation, the alimony that the complainant was entitled to before the Australian Court is likely to be largely reduced and therefore, he would submit that it is a matter of trial that the petitioners to come out clean.

¶34

I have given my anxious consideration submissions made by respective learned counsels and have perused the material on record.

¶35

The aforequoted facts are not in dispute. The issue lies in a narrow compass, as to whether the petitioner can be hauled into the web of crime for the aforesaid offences, in the teeth of the peculiar facts obtaining in the case. A private complaint comes to be registered by the second respondenthusband of the daughter of the petitioner. The complaint assumes and presumes that a false valuation report is submitted at the behest of the petitioner, only to cheat the complainant. There are allegations made against several accused. The petitioner is one of them. The petitioner is the complainant’s father-in-law. The other accused is the one who

¶36

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:20467 CRL.P No. 1920 of 2023

¶37

has submitted the valuation. The complaint leads to reference by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and the reference leads to registration of a crime in Cr.No.91/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 420 and 464. The police conduct investigation where all the offences that were alleged initially at the stage of crime are dropped and new offences, the ones punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 417 of the IPC are charged. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Col.No.7 reads as follows:

¶38

“CAPÀt-2 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀÄªÀ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ 1£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ ºÉAqÀwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀ ªÉÊªÁ»PÀ fÃªÀ£ÀzÀ°è PÀ®ºÀ GAmÁV 1£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦ ªÉ¸ÀÖç£ï D¸ÉÖçÃ°AiÀiÁzÀ°è£À PËlÄA©PÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÝ zÁªÉ ºÀÆr «ªÁºÀ «ZÉÒÃzÀ£À ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ 1£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄ «ªÁºÀªÀÅ »AzÀÆ ¸ÀA¥ÀæzÁAiÀÄzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ D¸ÉÖçÃ°AiÀiÁ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀÝ «ZÉÒÃzÀ£À DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àæ²ß¹ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ PËlÄA©PÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è N.J¸ï.£ÀA.148/2020 gÀAvÉ zÁªÉ ºÀÆrzÀÝgÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ FUÁUÀ¯ÉÃ ¤ÃrzÀÝ «ZÉÒÃzÀ£À DzÉÃ±ÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ ¥Àr¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ§A¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 1£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15/10/2014 gÀAzÀÄ dAnAiÀiÁV ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¨ÉÃUÀÆgÀÄ ºÉÆÃ§½, ¸ÁgÀQÌ CUÀæºÁgÀ UÁæªÀÄ, ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.10/5, ¸ÀÄªÀÄÄR N¥Á®, 1£ÉÃ ªÀÄºÀr, ¥Áèmï £ÀA.J¥sï.J¥sï-119 C£ÀÄß RjÃ¢ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj D¹ÛUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ ¨ÁåAQUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸Á® ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÁUÀzÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä vÀAzÉAiÀÄªÀjUÉ f.¦.J ªÀiÁrPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj D¹ÛUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖAvÉ 1£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦ ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄªÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV J-2 DgÉÆÃ¦UÉ w½¹zÀÝjAzÀ J-2 DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ 3£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦UÉ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ.

¶39

3£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ ¸ÀzÀj D¹ÛAiÀÄ ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£À ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV PÀlÖqÀzÀ ªÁ¸ÀÛ¥À ¹ÜwUÀwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ¤¸ÀzÉÃ ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 CxÀªÁ CªÀgÀ vÀAzÉ f.¦.J ºÉÆÃ®Øgï gÀªÀjUÉ

¶40

¶41

NC: 2023:KHC:20467 CRL.P No. 1920 of 2023

¶42

ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃqÀzÉ D£ï ¯ÉÊ£ï £À°è ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAmï £À°è£À ¥ÁèmïUÀ¼À°è£À ¤dªÁzÀ ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß 1£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦ qË£ï ¯ÉÆÃqï ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀPÀ®ÄªÀiÁr E-ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀÄÆ®PÀ 3£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦UÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ, EzÀgÀ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É 3£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦ vÁ£ÀÄ ªÀQÃ® ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀzÀAvÉ µÀgÀwÛzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ 2£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦ CPÀæªÀÄªÁV 1£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦UÉ CPÀæªÀÄ ¯Á¨sÀ GAlÄªÁrPÉÆqÀÄªÀ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝÃ±ÀªÀ¤ßlÄÖPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£À ªÀiÁr ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß 1£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦UÉ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ PÁ®zÀ°è 3£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦ ¤ÃrzÀ ºÉÃ½PÉ¬ÄAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-2 & ¸ÁQë-3 gÀªÀgÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ¬ÄAzÀ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ

¶43

J-1 jAzÀ J-3 DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À C¥ÀgÁ¢üPÀ zÀÄgÀÄzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ D¹ÛUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÀéwÛ£À ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£À ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄªÀ°è PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¤AiÀÄªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Á°¸ÀzÉÃ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÁQë-1 CxÀªÁ CªÀgÀ vÀA¢ f.¦.J ºÉÆÃ®Øgï gÀªÀgÀ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀgÀzÉ M¼À¸ÀAZÀÄ £ÀqÉ¹ ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£À ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ªÉÃ¼É ¥Àæw¤¢ü¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ ¸ÀÜ¼ÀPÉÌ ¨ÉÃn ¤ÃqÀ¢zÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¨ÉÃn ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ ¸ÁQë-1 gÀªÀjUÉ DPÀæªÀÄ £ÀµÀÖ GAlÄªÀiÁr DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼ÀÄ CPÀæªÀÄ ¯Á¨sÀUÀ½¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä vÀªÀÄUÉ ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ºÁUÉ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî/£ÀPÀ° ªÀiË®å ªÀiÁ¥À£À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈµÀÖ£É ªÀiÁr ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄgÉªÀiÁa £ÉÊdªÁV PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ §zÀÝªÁV vÀAiÀiÁj¸ÀgÁV®è¢zÀÝgÀÆ £ÉÊdªÁzÀÄzÉAzÀÄ 1£ÉÃ DgÉÆÃ¦ D¸ÉÖçÃ°AiÀiÁ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹gÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ½AzÀ zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶44

DzÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦UÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÝ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ PÀ®AUÀ¼À jÃvÁå F gÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀnÖ.”

¶45

The allegation is that accused No.3 who is an advocate could not have valued the property and such valuation should have no value in the Court of law. If that be so, it is for accused No.3 who has conducted that valuation to justify his action, against the petitioner what his alleged is conspiracy. Conspiracy with regard to the preparation of the valuation report which according to the complainant is grossly under valued. The

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:20467 CRL.P No. 1920 of 2023

¶48

statement of accused No.3 rendered on 09.10.2021 reads as follows:

¶49

“ºÉÃ½PÉ:-

¶50

²æÃ. ®QëöäÃ £ÀgÀ¹AºÀ ©£ï ¹.PÉ C£ÀAvÀ 58 ªÀµÀð ªÁ¸À ®QëöäÃ ¤ªÁ¸À 36 ¥ÀÄlÖtÚ gÀ¸ÉÛ §¸ÀªÀ£ÀUÀÄr ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ-04. ªÉÆ.¸ÀA 9845535438.

¶51

¢£ÁAPÀ-09-10-2021

¶52

£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ ¸ÀéAvÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀA¸ÁgÀ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ªÁ¸ÀªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ C¥ÀÄæqï ¥Áæ¥Ànð ªÁå®ÄªÉÃlgï DV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

¶53

¢£ÁAPÀ: 18-05-2020gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃvÁ®PÀëöät JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ D¸ÉÖçÃ°AiÀiÁ zÉÃ±À¢AzÀ [email protected] ¤AzÀ £À£Àß F ªÉÄÃ¯ï Lr [email protected] UÉ E-ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÉÄÃ¸ÉÃeï PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ PÁªÀÄvï £ÀqÀÄªÉ PËlÄA©PÀ PÀ®ºÀ«zÀÄÝ D¸ÉÖçÃ°AiÀiÁ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®zÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À ºÉ¸Àj£À°è eÉ.¦. £ÀUÀgÀ 5£ÉÃ ºÀAvÀ 17 ¹ PÁæ¸ï ¸ÀÄªÀÄÄR N¥ÉÃ¯ï C¥ÁlðªÉÄAmï£À ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃ ªÀÄºÀrAiÀÄ°è J¥sïJ¥sï 199 ¥Áèmï EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. EzÀ£ÀÄß £À£Àß ªÀiÁªÀ £ÉÆÃrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÀÛzÁÝgÉ, £À£ÀUÉ ¥Áèmï §½ ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä ©qÀÄwÛ¯Áè, £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¥Áèmï£À ªÁå°ªÉÃµÀ£ï j¥ÉÆÃmï D¸ÉÖçÃ°AiÀiÁzÀ PËlÄA©PÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¸À®Ä ¨ÉÃPÁVzÉ £À£ÀUÉ ªÁå°ªÉÃµÀ£ï ªÀiÁrPÉÆr JAzÀÄ PÉÆÃjPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ ¥Áèmï£À qÁPÀÄªÉÄAmï PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÃ½zÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ E-ªÉÄÃ¯ï£À°è ¥Áèmï£À ¸ÉÃ¯ï CVæªÉÄAl£ÀÄß PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ.

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC:20467 CRL.P No. 1920 of 2023

¶56

¤ÃvÁ®PÀëöäuï PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆlÖ zÁR¯ÁwAiÀÄ°èzÀÝ C¥ÁlðªÉÄAmï «¼Á¸ÀzÀ §½ £Á£ÀÄ ¢: 24-05-2020gÀAzÀÄ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ C¥ÁlðªÉÄAmï ¸ÉPÀÄåjn £À£Àß£ÀÄß M¼ÀUÉ ºÉÆÃ®Ä ©qÀ°®è. ¸ÉPÀÄåjn UÁqÀðUÉ £Á£ÀÄ §A¢gÀÄªÀ «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß w½¹zÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß M¼ÀUÉ ©qÀ°®è. F «ZÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¤ÃvÁ ®PÀëöäuïgÀªÀjUÉ w½¹zÁUÀ ¸ÉPÀÆåjnUÀ¼ÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ ©qÀÄwÛ®èªÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆgÀV¤AzÀ¯ÉÃ j¥ÉÆÃmïð vÀAiÀiÁj¹PÉÆr JAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½zÀgÀÄ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ EAlgï£Émï£À°è ¸ÀÄªÀÄÄR N¥É¯ï C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAn£À ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼À£ÀÄß qË£ï¯ÉÆÃqï ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ EAlgï£Émï£À°è ¹PÀÌ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ºÁUÀÆ DV£À ¥Àæ¸ÀÄÛvÀ ªÀiÁgÀÄPÀmÉÖ ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ DzsÁgÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É £Á£ÀÄ ªÁå®ÄªÉÃµÀ£ï gÀ¥ÉÆÃmïð£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹ CzÀ£ÀÄß ¢:05-06-2020 gÀAzÀÄ ¤ÃvÁ ®PÀëöäuïgÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ E-ªÉÄÃ¯ï LrUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

¶57

£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAn£À J¥sï.J¥sï.-119 ¥Áèmï M¼ÀUÉ ºÉÆÃV ¥ÉÆÃmÉÆÃUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉUÉ¢gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. C¥ÁmïðªÉÄAn£À M¼À¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ¥ÀæªÉÃ²¹gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¤ÃvÁ ®PÀëöäuïgÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ ªÀiÁ»w ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÁå®ÄªÉÃµÀ£ï gÀ¥ÉÆÃmïð vÀAiÀiÁj¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. £À£ÀUÉ ¤ÃvÁ ®PÀëöäuï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ PÁªÀÄvï gÀªÀgÀ PËlÄA©PÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ £À£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÉÊAiÀÄQÛPÀ »vÁ¸ÀQÛ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÁUÀ PÀgÉzÀgÀÆ vÀ¥ÀàzÉ ºÁdgÁUÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

¶58

£À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ N¢ £ÉÆÃrzÉ, ¸Àj¬ÄzÉ, ¸À»/¸À»/(²æÃªÀÄw AiÀÄ®èªÀÄä) ¦J¸ïL”

¶59

A perusal at the statement nowhere indicates that the petitioner had directed accused No.3-valuer to submit a report

¶60

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:20467 CRL.P No. 1920 of 2023

¶61

of particular nature what is to be placed before the concerned Court.

¶62

The allegations for offences punishable under Sections 465, 471 and 417 of the IPC. Section 465 deals with punishment for forgery. Ingredients of forgery are found in Sections 463 and 464 of IPC. Therefore, whoever is guilty of dishonesty and fraudulently signing or making or executing a document or a part of the document is would become liable for punishment of forgery. It is not the case of the complainant even that the petitioner is responsible for creation of the document, which according to the complainant is allegedly undervalued. The other provision that is invoked is Section 471 of IPC, which directs using a genuine document as forged. The petitioner cannot be hauled for this action as well.

¶63

The other offence is Section 417 of IPC which deals with cheating the ingredients of which is found in Section 415 of IPC. A perusal of the complaint at the summary of the charge sheet cannot lead to offence against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC as well. Therefore all the offences alleged against the petitioner would tumble

¶64

11 - NC: 2023:KHC:20467 CRL.P No. 1920 of 2023

¶65

down, in the light of the peculiar facts as narrated hereinabove, and in the summary of the charge sheet. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner cannot be permitted to be continued and if permitted would amount to an abuse of process of law and resulted in miscarriage of Justice. For the aforesaid reasons the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶68

ii. The proceedings in C.C.No.37248/2022 pending on the file of learned 30^th ACMM, Bengaluru stands quashed.

¶69

It is made clear that the observation made in the force of this order is only for the purpose of consideration in the case of the petitioner accused No.2 in exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under 482 of Cr.P.C. the same would not point or influence proceedings against any other accused in any other forum.

¶70

Sd/JUDGE

¶71

DS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 64

K. Lakshman Bhat v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Lakshman Bhat 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 Pushpavathi R Hegde Vs the State by

Vijay Mohan Agarwal @ Vijay Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M Mariyappa Vs State of Karnataka by

J K Anil Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Kareem Shariff Vs the State of Karnataka

G. Shankar Vs Mrs. P. S. Jayanthi