Allowed

Smt Prabhadevi v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC30 May 2023CRL.P/461/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings in a fraud complaint against legal heirs. The court held that continuing the trial against unaware heirs, after civil courts declared their father the purchaser and confirmed against the complainant, would cause a miscarriage of justice.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of proceedings in Crime No.245 of 2021 against the petitioners in Doddaballapura police station.

Smt Prabhadevi Vs the State of Karnataka by — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 461 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 461 OF 2022

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. PRABHADEVI, D/O LATE B.LAKHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/4, 3^RD FLOOR, MILLERS ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 045.

¶8

SRI. RAJESH SINGH, S/O LATE B.LAKHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,

¶9

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

¶10

SMT. KAJAL SINGH, D/O LATE B.LAKHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶11

SRI. RAKESH SINGH, S/O LATE B.LAKHAN SINGH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶12

PETITIONERS NO.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT: NO.22/1, MILLERS ROAD, 1^ST CROSS, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 046.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. RAVINDRA PRASAD B, ADVOCATE)

¶15

¶16

CRL.P No. 461 of 2022

¶17

AND :

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶19

SRI K.V.VENKATESH, S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH, R/AT NO.4/3, HOSAHATTI LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI H.MALATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE INVESTIGATION AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.245/2021 REGISTERED BY THE DODDABALLAPURA RURAL P.S., FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 420, 406, 465, 149 OF IPC, NOW THE CASE IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JrDn) AND JMFC, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question registration of crime of crime No.245 of 2021 for offences punishable under Sections 149, 406, 420 and 465 of the IPC.

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 461 of 2022

¶28

Heard Sri Ravindra Prasad B., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri Mahesh Shetty, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri H. Malatesh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶29

The petitioners are accused Nos.6 to 9. The 2^nd

¶30

respondent is the complainant. It transpires that the complainant enters into an agreement to sell of the property in Sy.Nos.4 and 21/1 totally measuring 14 acres and 20 guntas situated in Thammashettihalli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru with accused Nos.1 and 2 one VasanthKumari and Vijay Kumar. The agreement to sell was entered into on 08-06-2007. Pursuant to the agreement to sell, the said Vasanth Kumari and Vijay Kumar are said to have sold the portion of the property in Sy.No.21/1 measuring 2 acres and 22 guntas, which they were

¶31

in possession of, in favour of the father of petitioners, therefore, petitioners claim to be in possession of the property.

¶32

¶33

CRL.P No. 461 of 2022

¶34

The 2^nd respondent/complainant institutes a suit

¶35

seeking specific performance of the agreement so entered into with accused Nos.1 and 2 on 08-06-2007 in a suit instituted in O.S.No.71 of 2012, which comes to be dismissed. Against the dismissal of the suit complainant files a Civil Revision Petition before this Court in CRP No.299 of 2021 which also comes to be dismissed in terms of the order dated 11-08-2022. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the original purchaser/ the father of the petitioners, who had purchased it from the hands of one Vasanth Kumari and Vijaykumar/accused Nos.1 and 2 dies and subsequently, the mother of petitioners also dies. Who remain in the present proceedings are accused Nos.6 to 9, the petitioners herein. When the petitioners herein attempted to take possession of the property, the subject complaint comes to be registered. It is the continuation of investigation against the petitioners, the petitioners have knocked at the doors of this Court in the subject petition.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the petitioner are legal heirs of the subsequent purchaser of the property in question and do not have any

¶37

¶38

CRL.P No. 461 of 2022

¶39

knowledge of what has transpired earlier. He would submit that anyways the petitioners are before the Civil Court in which the respective parties can get their rights declared. The petitioners being unaware of the earlier proceedings cannot be hauled into the web of the crime.

¶40

Learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent/complainant would however seek to refute the submissions to contend that the petitioners are beneficiaries of certain fraud played by accused Nos.1 and 2 and deceased Lakhan Singh. Therefore, seek dismissal of the petition.

¶41

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

¶42

The afore-narrated facts insofar as the petitioners are concerned lie in a narrow compass. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are legal heirs of one Lakhan singh who is the purchaser of the subject property from one Vasantha Kumari and Vijay Kumar with whom the complainant had an agreement to sell. Alleging that the agreement to sell or the subsequent

¶43

¶44

CRL.P No. 461 of 2022

¶45

documents are fraudulently executed by Lakhan Singh, the complainant had knocked at the doors of the civil Court in O.S.No.71 of 2012 which comes to be dismissed and the dismissal of which is confirmed by this Court in the aforesaid Civil Revision Petition No.299 of 2021.

¶46

The other set of proceedings instituted is by Lakhan Singh during his lifetime in O.S.No.77 of 2013. The said suit is decreed in favour of Lakhan Singh wherein he is declared to be in possession of the property that is purchased from the hands of Vasantha Kumari and Vijay Kumar. Therefore, in the teeth of the aforesaid facts and in the light of the fact that the petitioners are only legal heirs of the subsequent purchaser who are not in the know of any of the facts that have happened prior to the death of Lakhan Singh have been unnecessarily hauled into the web of the crime, therefore, permitting further proceedings against the petitioners, on the aforesaid facts would undoubtedly result in miscarriage of justice, for it would be abuse of the process of law.

¶47

¶48

CRL.P No. 461 of 2022

¶49

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶50

ORDER

¶51

(i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶52

(ii) The proceedings against the petitioners in Crime No.245 of 2021 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Doddaballapura, Bangalore Rural District stands quashed qua the petitioners.

¶53

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioners under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against the petitioners pending before any other fora .

¶54

Accordingly, I.A.No.1 of 2023 also stands disposed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

BKP

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77 CT:SS

Smt Prabhadevi v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Prabhadevi v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Mr. Udaya Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Latha C R Vs State of Karnataka

Abdul Jameer Vs State by Kote Police

Mrs Richa Saxena Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri Shivanaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Sangamesh Patil Vs State of Karnataka