Allowed

Smt Bhagya Bai @ Bhagyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023CRL.P/5518/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, Bench of R. Nataraj J., allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC quashing an FIR registered for cheating and forgery. The court held that a civil decree precluded the allegation that the petitioner fabricated a voter identity card.

What did the court decide?

Quash the registration of FIR in Crime No.63/2019 and the consequent investigation.

Smt Bhagya Bai @ Bhagyamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:40896 CRL.P No. 5518 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5518 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. BHAGYA BAI @ BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE SRI. N. JAYARAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.CHIKKASHIVARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. ANAND R.V., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MALUR POLICE STATION KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130

¶12

REPD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ATTACHED TO HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SMT. ROOPA W/O CHANDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT DODDAKADATURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶16

SRI. K.L. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR NO.63/2019 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE (MALUR POLICE) FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419,

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40896 CRL.P No. 5518 of 2019

¶19

420, 465, 468, 471 OF IPC AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY RESPONDENT NO.1 (MALUR P.S) AND THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR DIVISION, AND JMFC, MALUR, KOLAR DISTRICT.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged the registration of FIR in Crime No.63/2019 by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 465 of IPC pending consideration before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Malur, Kolar District.

¶23

On the basis of the information furnished by respondent No.2 that the petitioner had fabricated a voter identity card, respondent No.1 registered Crime No.63/2019 for the aforesaid offences. In the information provided by respondent No.2, it was stated that she was a native of Chikka Tirupati in Malur Taluk and her parents were Sri. Srinivasareddy and Smt. Gowramma. She claimed that she was given in marriage to Chandrareddy of Doddakadaturu village, where she was residing with her husband, children and in-laws. She claimed that her brothers and sisters-in-law were also residing at Malur, while Sri. Jayaramareddy was a bachelor,

¶24

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:40896 CRL.P No. 5518 of 2019

¶25

who died 8 years before. Smt. Ratnamma was given in marriage to Sri. Srinivasareddy of Chikka Tirupati. She claimed that Jayaramareddy was running a bar and restaurant at Mulabagilu and after his death, Smt. Bhagya Bai, W/o Eshwar Rao had faked the voter identity card issued in favour of respondent No.2 to seem as if she was the wife of Sri. Jayaramareddy, which was produced in a civil suit. She alleged that the petitioner had created the voter identity card to grab the business of her brother-in-law Sri. Jayaramareddy. Based on these allegations, offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 465 of IPC were invoked by respondent No.1.

¶26

The petitioner is therefore before this Court challenging the registration of FIR against her.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is the wife of Sri. Jayaramareddy and is blessed with two daughters. He claimed that after the death of Sri. Jayaramareddy, the petitioner and the father of Sri. Jayaramareddy applied for transfer of the CL-9 licence that was granted in favour of Sri. Jayaramareddy. The Deputy Commissioner had issued an endorsement to produce a

¶28

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:40896 CRL.P No. 5518 of 2019

¶29

succession certificate. Consequently, a proceeding in O.S.No.155/2014 was initiated for grant of succession certificate. Likewise, Sri. Narayanareddy and Smt. Ratnamma had filed a suit in O.S.No.156/2014. Both the suits were clubbed and a common judgment was passed declaring that the petitioner herein was entitled to get her name transferred in the CL-9 licence. While O.S.No.156/2014 was dismissed. the learned counsel therefore, contends that after the dismissal of O.S.No.156/2014, the present complaint is filed.

¶30

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the voter identity card of respondent No.2 was used by the petitioner to create another voter identity card, where the petitioner was shown to be the wife of Sri. Jayaramareddy, while in fact the petitioner was the wife of Sri. Eshwar Rao. He therefore, submits that unless investigating officer looks into this, this Court cannot prejudge the issue. He however, did not dispute the fact the suit filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.155/2014 was decreed and she was declared as the person entitled to get the CL-9 licence transferred to her name. He also did not dispute that the suit filed in O.S.No.156/2014 was dismissed.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:40896 CRL.P No. 5518 of 2019

¶33

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶34

learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶35

In the face of the decree passed in O.S.No.155/2014, the respondent No.2 cannot contend that the petitioner had fabricated a false voter identity card. It is therefore, evident that respondent No.2 has tried to misuse the process of law by lodging a false complaint.

¶36

In that view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The registration of FIR in Crime No.63/2019 by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471, 465 of IPC pending consideration before the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) and JMFC, Malur, Kolar District and the consequent investigation is quashed.

¶37

PMR

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

Smt Bhagya Bai @ Bhagyamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bhagya Bai @ Bhagyamma v. the 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

Mr.Kiran Hebbar Vs the State of Karnataka

S Muralikrishna Vs Smt S Shilpa

S Muralikrishna Vs Smt S Shilpa

Smt Naveena D R Vs Smt B H Latha

Smt Suma K Vs the State by Lokayuktha Police

M/S Chaitanya Credit Vs Sri C.Raja