Allowed

Smt. Elizabeth v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2023CRL.P/2406/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petitioner sought quashing of orders restricting alienation of seized sale deeds and documents belonging to her, non-accused in an underlying cheating case. Court allowed petition, quashed impugned orders, and directed release of documents.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 24.01.2022 and 26.03.2021 quashed; application for release of documents allowed; Sub-Registrar directed to delete revenue entries.

Smt. Elizabeth Vs State of Karnataka — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39963 CRL.P No. 2406 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2406 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT.ELIZABETH, W/O CHINNAPPA, AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT NO.215, 2^ND BATTERY PENSION LINE, MAYABAZAR, VIVEKANAGAR, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU – 560 047.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. R.V.SHIVANANDA REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY GIRNAGAR POLICE, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

SRI.TEJAS A.M., S/O MALLESH, AGED 21 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, 1^ST CROSS, KAMALA BUILDING, MNESHWARA BLOCK,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2023:KHC:39963 CRL.P No. 2406 of 2022

¶16

BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU – 560 085.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO 1.SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.01.2022 AND ALSO ORDERS DATED 26.03.2021 IN C.C.NO.30849/2021 (IN CR.NO.149/2020, GIRINAGAR POLICE) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 32ND A.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner's son has been charge sheeted along with the other accused who are the staff officials of the Railway Department for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 198, 417, 420, 464, 465, 468, 471, 472, 473 475, 476 read with Section 34 of IPC alleging that they induced the defacto complainant to part with money for securing employment in the Railway Department.

¶23

During the course of the investigation, the sale deeds of the property belonging to the petitioner were seized in P.F.No.81/2020. The Investigating Officer obtained intimation from the trial court dated 26.03.2021 to the effect that the properties which are the subject matter of the sale deeds seized cannot be alienated till the disposal of the case. The

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:39963 CRL.P No. 2406 of 2022

¶26

petitioner filed an application under Section 451, 457 of Cr.P.C for release of sale deed, Khata and revenue documents and direction to the Sub-Registrar, Attibele to delete the entries made in the revenue records. The said application came to be rejected by the trial Court. Hence, this petition.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondent-State.

¶28

Admittedly, the petitioner is neither the accused nor a witness in the criminal prosecution launched against the son of the petitioner herein. During the course of investigation, the documents belonging to the petitioner which were in his custody were seized. There is no allegation that the said properties were acquired through the proceeds of the crime. Even if the accused No.1 i.e., the son of the petitioner is convicted for the offences alleged against him, the State cannot proceed against the said property for recovering the amount alleged to have been received by the accused from the defacto complainant. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the trial Court is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶31

ii. The impugned order dated 24.01.2022

¶32

and also the order date 26.03.2021 in C.C.No.30849/2021 arising out of the Cr.No.149/2020 registered by the Girinagar Police Station pending on the file of 32nd Addl. Chief

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:39963 CRL.P No. 2406 of 2022

¶35

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru stands quashed, and the application is allowed.

¶36

iii. The petitioner is entitled for release of the documents seized in P.F.No.81/2020 by respondent No.1-Police.

¶37

iv. It is needless to state that the SubRegistrar to delete the entries made in respect of the property bearing No.559/60/1A1/54, site No.54, situated at Kachanayakanahalli, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Smt. Elizabeth v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Elizabeth 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Aparna Sanjeev Khatri Vs State of Karnataka

Ranjit Kumar Chaudhuri Vs State of Karnataka

Mr.Manjunath M.S. Vs State of Karnataka

Mahammad Jaufar Vs State by

Ms. Simi Kalakamba Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Jayaprakash M. U. Vs State by Peenya Police Station