Quashed

Sri. K P Manjuprakash v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2023CRL.P/3780/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings regarding alleged forgery of a sale agreement. The Court held that since the substantive dispute over the agreement's genuineness was pending in a civil suit, continuing the criminal prosecution would be an abuse of process and would prejudice the parties.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned proceeding in Crime No.46/2022 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court, Tumakuru.

Sri. K P Manjuprakash Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:36659 CRL.P No. 3780 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3780 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. K P MANJUPRAKASH S/O LATE PUTTACHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/At "SHIVA KRUPA" 3RD CROSS S.I.T EXTENSION, TUMAKURU-572 103.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. V.B. SIDDARAMAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶13

REP. BY TUMKUR TOWN POLICE STATION TUMKUR TOWN CIRCLE, TUMAKURU-572 101 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶14

SMT. GANGAMMA W/O EERAIAH SINCE DEAD BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

¶15

2(A) SHIVAMMA

¶16

D/O GANGAMMA

¶17

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RESIDING AT: 80 FEET ROAD 11^TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI EXTENSION (BATAWADI) TUMKUR TOWN

¶19

DISTRICT: TUMKURU, KARNATAKA.

¶20

2(B) JOGGAIAH

¶21

S/O LATE ERAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDENT OF: HOSAHATTI VILLAGE GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA.

¶22

(R-2(A) AND R-2(B) AMENDED VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 4.4.2024)

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. G. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶25

Page No.1 is retyped and replaced vide court order dated 04.04.2024

¶26

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:36659 CRL.P No. 3780 of 2022

¶27

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.46/2022, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR. DIVISION) AND CJM COURT, TUMAKURU, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, TUMKUR TOWN POLICE STATION, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S 120B, 465, 467, 468, 420 OF IPC, INITIATED ON THE COMPLIANT OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶28

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

¶29

ORDER

¶30

The petitioner claims that an agreement of sale dated 8.1.2010 was entered into with the respondent No.2, under which, the petitioner agreed to purchase the subject property for Rs.48,00,000/- subject to certain terms and conditions and in lieu of the same, an advance sale consideration of Rs.45,00,000/- was paid to the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 having not come forward to perform her part of the contract, the petitioner issued a notice calling upon the respondent No.2 to register the sale deed. The respondent No.2 by reply dated 19.3.2022 has specifically stated that the agreement of sale was created by forging signature and the said agreement is not binding on her. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 lodged the first information report on 21.3.2022 alleging that the petitioner by forging the signature has created the agreement of sale purportedly to show that the respondent No.2 agreed to convey the subject property for valuable sale consideration. Thereafter, the petitioner filed OS No.291/2022 on 24.3.2022 for specific performance of the agreement of sale. The said suit is pending consideration.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:36659 CRL.P No. 3780 of 2022

¶33

The registration of FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 465, 467, 468, 420 of IPC is impugned in this petition.

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶35

In reply dated 19.3.2022, the respondent No.2 though has denied that she executed the agreement of sale, however, has narrated the contents of the agreement of sale including that the stamp paper was not purchased by him. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the contents of the agreement of sale was made known to her by police on 15.3.2022, in the absence of any material to establish that the petitioner produced the copy of the agreement of sale with the police, is not acceptable.

¶36

The specific performance of the agreement of sale in question is the subject matter of the suit pending between the parties. In the said suit, the respondent No.2 has categorically stated that the agreement of sale is created by forging the signature and has filed an application to reject the plaint.

¶37

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Venkatesh and others -vs- State of Karnataka and others 2022 0 (SC) 153 at para-22 has held as follows:

¶38

"22. We find that in the present case, though civil suits have been filed with regard to the same transactions and though they are contested by the respondent No.2 by filing written statement, he has chosen to file complaint under Section 156(3) of

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:36659 CRL.P No. 3780 of 2022

¶41

the Cr.PC after a period of one and half years from the date of filing of written statement with an ulterior motive of harassing the appellants. We find that, the present case fits in the category of No.7, as mentioned in the case of State of harayana v. Bhajan Lal (supra)"

¶42

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others -vs- Bhajan Lal and others (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) has held that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge, the High Court under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code may prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

¶43

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Mulkbhai Patel and others Vs. State of Gujurat and another (2020) 3 SCC 794 has held that when issue as to genuineness of documents, forgery of which was the basis of criminal proceedings, was pending consideration in civil suit, FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue in present case as it would prejudice the interest of parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit.

¶44

In view of the preceding analysis, the dispute between the parties having been ceased before the jurisdictional Court, the continuation of criminal proceeding will

¶45

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:36659 CRL.P No. 3780 of 2022

¶46

be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶49

ii) The impugned proceeding in Crime No.46/2022 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court, Tumakuru, Tumakuru District, is hereby quashed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

BKM

Sri. K P Manjuprakash v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. K P Manjuprakash 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

M/S. Sai Nireeha Power Project Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sjr Prime Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

Sri Tammaiah a M Vs State of Karnataka

A Alok Sharma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Kamala Joshi Vs Mrs. Ranjana Joshi

Mr. Prashant Joshi Vs Mr. Ranjana Joshi