Allowed

Sri. Abdul Majeed v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2023CRL.P/5348/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash an FIR. Following a prior order that found the FIR vague and lacking faith-inspiring details regarding forgery, the court disposed of the current petition by quashing the proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.2.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the impugned FIR is quashed insofar as it relates to the petitioner-accused No.2.

Sri. Abdul Majeed Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:34137 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5348 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. ABDUL MAJEED S/O CHAND PATEL POLICE PATEL, AGED AOBUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO. 4/2, CUNNINGHAM CRESCENT ROAD, BENGALURU 560 052, AND ALSO AT NO. 4-4-131, NEAR GOVERNMENT GIRLS HOSTEL AMBEDKAR CHOWKA, SHAHPUR TALUK, YADAGIRI DISTRICT-585 201.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. PRASAD B S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BEGUR P S POLICE STATION, REPT. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

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

¶13

KVK REDDY S/O K R VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NO. 90/5, 3rd CROSS, 2nd STAGE, BEGUR, BANGALORE-560 068

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

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

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR CRIME NO.244/2019 REGISTERED BY BEGURU POLICE, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.420, 469, 471, 468 R/W SEC.34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU.

¶17

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

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:34137 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2023

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Petitioner-accused No.2 is sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 469, 471, 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that, 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.521 of Sarjapura earlier belonged to second respondent's father and he was cultivating it. The second respondent lodged FIR to the Police states that, in between 1995 and 2004, six persons among whom including the petitioner created a forged general power of attorney and then used it as a genuine document for transferring the land.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶23

Accused No.3 who is the subsequent purchaser approached this Court in Crl.P.No.6880/2021 challenging the impugned proceedings, this Court by order dated 4.01.2022 quashed the impugned proceedings by observing as follows:

¶24

"7………..In this case, the second respondent has alleged forgery and creation of documents in respect of 17 guntas of land which earlier belonged to his father. If the FIR is read, even according to the second respondent general power of attorney might have come into existence in between 1995 and 2004. He is not definite as to when and who created the general power of attorney. He thought of taking action in the month of December, 2019. The second respondent is a retired Asst. Commissioner of Police. He has also not stated as to how he came to know of all the documents which according to him are forged and created. The

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:34137 CRL.P No. 5348 of 2023

¶26

FIR is so vague and first reading of it does not inspire confidence that there is truth in it. Even in the legal notice that the second respondent’s counsel has relied upon, nothing is stated about the approximate date of forging the documents. Legal notice is as vague as the FIR."

¶27

The accused No.2 who is also the subsequent purchaser stands on the similar footing. Therefore, this petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in Crl.P.No.6880/2021. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶28

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The impugned FIR in crime No.244/2019 registered by Beguru Police,Bengaluru, insofar it relates to the petitioner-accused No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶29

Sd/JUDGE

¶30

Sri. Abdul Majeed v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Abdul Majeed 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santhosh Kumar Vs State by

Kiran v N @ Vasu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Sevalal Sangna Basava Swamiji @ Yuvaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Narayan Mahadevrao Biradar Vs M/S Aarbee International

Sri Premsingh Choudary Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Tarun S Kumar Vs State by Karnataka