Allowed

Vijayakumara v. State by Basavapatna

Karnataka HC3 Nov 2023CRL.P/5033/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a criminal petition seeking to quash an investigation. It held that disputes regarding property allotment and entry of names in revenue records are civil matters and cannot be the subject of criminal proceedings if the complainant is aggrieved by the outcome of a civil decree.

What did the court decide?

The investigation launched against the petitioners in Crime No. 59/2019 and further proceedings thereon are quashed.

Vijayakumara Vs State by Basavapatna — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:39073 CRL.P No. 5033 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5033 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

VIJAYAKUMARA, S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O KABBALA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE, DISTRICT - 577 544,

¶8

MADHU, S/O LATE KORIPALLI KRISHNA MURTHY, R/O KABBALA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 544.

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SMT. SUBBALAKSHMI , W/O KRISHNAMURTHY, R/O KABBALA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 544.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNAMURTHY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY BASAVAPATNA (CHANNAGIRI), REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:39073 CRL.P No. 5033 of 2019

¶17

SMT. BHAVANI K , W/O PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O KABBALA VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 544.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. RAJAT SUBRAMANYAM, HCGP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH IN CR.NO.59/2019 DATED 25.06.2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Sr.Dn.) CJM COURT CHANNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, ANNEXURE A AND OFFENCE P/U/S.34, 420, 468, 471, 465 OF IPC.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioners have challenged the investigation launched against them by respondent No.1 in Crime No.59/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 465 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶24

The respondent No.2 informed respondent No.1 on 25.06.2019 about commission of cognizable offences by petitioners punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. He claimed that a suit in

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC:39073 CRL.P No. 5033 of 2019

¶27

OS.No.12/2013 was filed in respect of a certain property and the same was compromised. He alleged that as per the decree, the land bearing Sy.No.51/3 measuring 04 guntas was allotted to the share of the petitioners and respondent No.2, the land bearing Sy.No.51/3 measuring 02 acres 29 guntas was allotted to the share of respondent No.2, after excluding a pathway of 17 feet x 15 feet. However, the petitioners by suppressing the decree, got their names entered in respect of Sy.No.51/3 by concocting a sketch in Form No.11E and other revenue documents. She alleged that she was entitled to the property bearing Sy.No.51/3 and to deprive her of the said property, the petitioners had colluded in bringing about false and fictitious documents to cheat her. Based on this, respondent No.1 registered Crime No.59/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 465 read with Section 34 of the IPC and took up investigation. The petitioners are therefore, before this Court challenging the investigation taken by respondent No.1.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended

¶29

that as per decree passed in OS.No.12/2013, the land bearing Sy.No.51/5 was allotted to the petitioners, as well as the

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC:39073 CRL.P No. 5033 of 2019

¶32

respondent No.2 and contends that if respondent No.2 was aggrieved by the compromise or the entry of the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, it was for her to initiate proceedings before the Civil Court and not by invoking criminal law.

¶33

Respondent No.2 is absent, though she was served with the notice of the Court.

¶34

Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand contended that since respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint and the FIR report was drawn, the same had to be investigated. He therefore submits that respondent No.2 has alleged that the petitioners had forged and fabricated documents, and therefore an investigation was necessary.

¶35

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶36

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the land bearing Sy.No.51/5 and 51/3 is allotted to the petitioners as well as to respondent No.2 and if the

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:39073 CRL.P No. 5033 of 2019

¶38

petitioners have got their names entered in the revenue records of the aforesaid survey numbers and if respondent No.2 is aggrieved by the same, she is entitled to question the same in the manner known to law and certainly not by invoking the criminal law. The respondent No.2 has therefore attempted to give a civil dispute a criminal flair to harass the petitioners.

¶39

In that view of the matter, the investigation launched by the petitioners deserves to be set at naught. Consequently, this petition is allowed . The impugned investigation launched against the petitioners and the further proceedings in Crime No.59/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 465 read with Section 34 of IPC registered by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

CT: BHK

¶42

Vijayakumara v. State by Basavapatna

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijayakumara v. State by Basavapatna

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

K v Manjunath Vs State by Kamakshipalya Police Station

K v Manjunath Vs State by Shankarpuram Police Station

K v Manjunath Vs State by Shankarpuram Police Station

Sri Mallikarjuna Kadli@ Mallikarjuna Shivappa Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Sakeera John Vs Sri. Poojari Basappa

Mr. Kalyan Ganguly Vs the Registrar of Companies