Allowed

P. Vijay Babu v. State by Kengeri P. S.

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023CRL.P/3026/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR for offences punishable under IPC Sections 149, 420, 471, 468, 448, and 465. The Court held that the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay of 15 years without explanation regarding a civil property dispute, constituting an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Crime No.451/2018 registered by Kengeri Police Station in so far it relates to accused No.1 is hereby quashed.

P. Vijay Babu Vs State by Kengeri P. S. — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40985 CRL.P No. 3026 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3026 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

P. VIJAY BABU S/O S H PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO 1504, 11 C CROSS, 4TH C MAIN ROAD, WEST OFF CHORD ROAD, NAGAPURA 2ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶9

SUNDARESH H S/O LATE HONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO 24, 1ST CROSS, BHAGIRATHI LAYOUT, KENGERI UPANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 060.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

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

¶14

STATE BY KENGERI P. S., KENGERI GATE SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE-560001 REP. BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

ABDULL ALEEM S/O LATE ABDUL MASID, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO 250, 5TH 'A' MIAN, HRBR LAYOUT, 24TH BOCK, BENGALURU -560 043.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKATSATYANARAYAN A, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40985 CRL.P No. 3026 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.12.2018 AND FIR DATED 14.12.2018 IN CR.NO.451/2018 REGISTERED BY KENGERI POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LVI A.C.M.M., NRUPATHUNG ROAD, BANGALORE CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 149, 420, 471, 468, 448, 465 OF IPC, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND A RESPECTIVELY.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

FIR was lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging that he had purchased a site in Sy.No.22/1 of Valagerahalli, Kengeri Hobli, Bengaluru from the Karnataka Minorities Building Owners Society and the petitioners-accused colluding with the Revenue authorities got the sub-division of the subject land in the name of Sanjeevappa who had already sold the land in the year 1946. By mutating the name of Sanjeevappa in the revenue records in collusion with the Revenue Officer, the petitioners got executed the sale deed in the name of his brother-in-law in the year 2003 from the grand children of Sanjeevappa. The Police registered the FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 149, 420, 471, 468, 448, 465 of IPC. Taking exception to the same, the petitioners-accused are before this Court.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:40985 CRL.P No. 3026 of 2023

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged fabrication of the documents and also the name of Sanjeevappa was mutated in the year 2003. However, the FIR was lodged after more than 15 years from the date of the alleged incident without offering any plausible explanation. He further submits that the dispute is with regard to the title over the subject property and the allegations made in the FIR clearly discloses that the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature however given a criminal texture so as to falsely implicate the petitioners-accused and to wreak vengeance.

¶25

On the other hand, learned HCGP for the State and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners-accused by fabricating the documents in collusion with the revenue authorities got mutated the name of Sanjeevappa who had already sold the subject land way back in the year 1946 and the allegations made in the FIR discloses the commission of cognizable offences and the same requires to be investigated by the Police and at this stage, the registration of the FIR cannot be interfered with and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2023:KHC:40985 CRL.P No. 3026 of 2023

¶28

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

¶29

Perusal of the FIR lodged by the 2nd respondent

¶30

discloses that in collusion with revenue authorities, the petitioners-accused got mutated the name of the deceased Sanjeevappa in the revenue records by virtue of the said mutation entries a sale deed was registered in favour of brother-in-law of the petitioners-accused. The allegation in the FIR is that the Karnataka Minorities Building Owner's Society had formed the layout in the subject land. The sites formed in the said land was allotted and sold in favour of the 2nd respondent.

¶31

It is further alleged that due to the torture and mental harassment meted out by the petitioners-accused, one of the site owner Venkatesh committed suicide in the year 2010 and it is suspected that the Venkatesh has not committed suicide but was murdered by the petitioners-accused.

¶32

The alleged fabrication of the documents and also the revenue entries in favour of Sanjeevappa had taken place in the year 2003. However, the FIR was lodged on 14.12.2018

¶33

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC:40985 CRL.P No. 3026 of 2023

¶35

without offering any plausible explanation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh –vsM.Madhusudhan Rao, reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 at para 30 has held as follows:

¶36

’’30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained.’’

¶37

The allegations made in the FIR clearly discloses

¶38

that the dispute is with regard to the title over the site formed in Sy. No.22/1 which is alleged to have been purchased by the brother-in-law of the petitioners-accused, which clearly implies that the dispute between the parties is with regard to the title over the said land. Even otherwise, the FIR was lodged after an

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:40985 CRL.P No. 3026 of 2023

¶41

in-ordinate delay of 15 years from the date of the alleged incident without giving any plausible explanation for the delay.

¶42

The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghai &

¶43

Ors -Vs- The State of West Bengal and Ors., reported in at para 21 held as follows:

¶44

This Court has time and again cautioned about converting purely civil disputes into criminal cases. This Court in Indian Oil Corporation (Supra) noticed the prevalent impression that civil law remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interests of lenders/creditors. The Court further observed that:-

¶45

"13. XXXX any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged."

¶46

Hence, the respondent No.2 instead of availing civil remedy has lodged the FIR to pressurize the petitionersaccused to arrive at a settlement.

¶47

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered view that the FIR was lodged with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance against the petitioners-accused.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC:40985 CRL.P No. 3026 of 2023

¶50

12. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed

¶53

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.451/2018 registered by the Kengeri Police Station in so far it relates to accused No.1 is hereby quashed.

¶54