Allowed

Sri. M S Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2023CRL.P/509/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the FIR against petitioners accused of forgery and cheating. Finding no material allegation that they conspired to fabricate a death certificate, the court ruled criminal proceedings were an abuse of process while a related civil suit regarding property possession was pending before the Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Impugned FIR quashed insofar as it relates to petitioners as accused Nos. 2 to 4; liberty reserved against accused No. 1; return of seized mobile phones granted.

Sri. M S Prasad Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:31803 CRL.P No. 509 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 509 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. M S PRASAD

¶10

S/O M P SHANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A NO.203, 2ND FLOOR SILVER SPRING APARTMENT 2ND MAIN, VASANTHA VALLABHA NAAR KOTHANUR DINNE, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶11

SRI M S DIVYA S/O M P SHANTHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/A NO.303, 3RD FLOOR SILVER SPRING APARTMENT 2ND MAIN, VASANTHA VALLABHA NAGAR KOTHANUR DINNE, BENGALURU-560 078.

¶12

M/S TRINCO INFRA PVT LTD

¶13

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

¶14

A REGISTERED COMPANY HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.305A, ANAND ONYX, 2ND FLOOR 15TH CROSS, 100 FEET ROAD J P NAGAR, 5TH PHASE BENGALURU-560 078 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SRI M S PRASAD.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K, ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND:

¶18

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALASURGATE POLICE STATION BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:31803 CRL.P No. 509 of 2023

¶21

SMT S RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/A NO.105, PATTANGERE RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR NEAR MARAMMA TEMPLE BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU-560 098.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. R YATISH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SMT. K P YASHODA, HCGP FOR R-1)

¶24

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 04.12.2022 AND THE FIR IN CRIME NO.285/2022 OF HALASURGATE POLICE STATION (ANNEXURE-A AND B) REGISTERED ON 04.12.2022 BY RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 419, 464, 465, 420, 463, 471, 447, 341, 506, 120(B) AND 467 OF IPC, NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶25

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

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 464, 465, 420, 463, 471, 447, 341, 506, 120B and 467 of IPC.

¶28

The respondent No.2 lodged the FIR alleging that, the accused No.1 by fabricating the death certificates of her husband entered into an agreement of sale with the accused Nos.2 to 4 to convey the subject property allegedly to be belonging to the respondent No.2 - informant for valuable sale consideration and in lieu of the same, an advance sale consideration was paid by the accused Nos.2 to 4 to the accused No.1. Based on the agreement of sale executed in

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:31803 CRL.P No. 509 of 2023

¶31

their favour, they interfered with the peaceful possession of the subject property of the respondent No.2.

¶32

Sri Sandesh J Chouta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that, the allegation of fabricating the death certificate of the deceased husband is against the accused No.1. Except the allegation that, these accused purchased the subject property from the accused No.1, there is no allegation that these petitioners either connived or conspired with the accused No.1 in creating the death certificate. Hence, in the absence of any allegation so as to constitute the aforesaid offences, the registration of FIR is without any substance. He further submits that, the respondent No.2 has filed a suit in OS No.3124/2022 and in the said suit, an application filed by the respondent No.2 for temporary injunction has been rejected by the Trial Court, and the same has attained finality. Therefore, the continuation of investigation against the petitioners in the absence of any material will be an abuse of process of law.

¶33

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that, the subject property was granted in favour of the father of the respondent No.2, and the accused No.1 by fabricating the death certificate and also suppressing the fact that the subject property has not been converted into nonagricultural purpose has agreed to convey the same in favour of the accused Nos.2 to 4 under an agreement of sale. He further submits that, based on the agreement of sale and the

¶34

¶35

NC: 2023:KHC:31803 CRL.P No. 509 of 2023

¶36

power of attorney executed, the accused Nos.2 to 4 are interfering with the peaceful possession and developing the subject property, which would deprive the valuable right of the respondent No.2.

¶37

Considered the submissions of the learned counsel

¶38

for the parties.

¶39

The petitioners herein claim that, the subject property was granted in favour of the deceased husband of the accused No.1 and on contrary, the respondent No.2 claiming that the subject property was granted in favour of the father of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has filed OS No.3124/2022 for permanent injunction and also filed an application for grant of temporary injunction in the said suit. The Trial Court on 6.8.2022 dismissed the application and the same has attained finality.

¶40

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Mulkbhai Patel and Others -vs- State of Gujarat and another, reported in (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, the FIR ought not to have been allowed to be continued as it would prejudice the interest of the parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit.

¶41

The respondent No.2 alleged that the name of the deceased husband of the accused No.1 in three death

¶42

¶43

NC: 2023:KHC:31803 CRL.P No. 509 of 2023

¶44

certificates is shown as son of Pattanagere @ Galappa, and the said death certificates are dated 14.8.2010. Based on the said created death certificates, the accused No.1 got her name mutated in the revenue records. The agreement of sale was executed by the accused No.1 in favour of the accused Nos.2 to 4 on 25.2.2022, and the general power of attorney was executed by the accused No.1 in favour of the accused Nos.2 to 4 on 19.3.2022. Even accepting the allegation that the death certificates were created, the same were prior to the agreement of sale entered into by the parties, and the allegation of fabrication of the death certificates is against the accused No.1. Therefore, the petitioners, who have entered into the agreement of sale in the year 2022, cannot be prosecuted for the offences alleged against them in the absence of any allegation or any material that these petitioners connived with the accused No.1 in creating the death certificates.

¶45

The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 on the order passed in Crl.P No.5641/2020 has no relevance to the facts of the case.

¶46

The dispute between the parties is with regard to the possession having been ceased before the Trial Court, the registration of FIR for the aforesaid offences is impermissible. Therefore, the continuation of criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶47

¶48

NC: 2023:KHC:31803 CRL.P No. 509 of 2023

¶49

ORDER

¶50

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶51

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.285/2022 registered by the Halasurgate Police Station insofar as it relates to the petitioners - accused Nos.2 to 4 stands quashed.

¶52

iii) Liberty is reserved to the police to proceed against the accused No.1 in accordance with law. It is needless to state that the petitioners are entitled for return of mobile phones seized by the police during the course of investigation.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

BKM

Sri. M S Prasad v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M S Prasad 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

Mr. a. S. Prakash Vs Mr. K. Santhosh Kumar

Prabhavathi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Govindraju Vs State of Karnataka

Ramesh M Vs State of Karnataka by

Aditya S Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ashoka Krishnareddy, Vs the State of Karnataka