Dismissed

Sri S Srinivas v. Sri H T Krishnappa

Karnataka HC20 Jul 2023CRL.P/6617/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a petition filed under S. 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash criminal proceedings for forgery and cheating. The Court held that although a civil suit concerning specific performance was pending, allegations of forgery were distinct from the civil issue of executability. The presence of expert opinion indicating forged signatures and the rejection of a prior discharg

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition to quash the proceedings under S. 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.

Sri S Srinivas Vs Sri H T Krishnappa — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:25372 CRL.P No. 6617 of 2020

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JULY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6617 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI S SRINIVAS S/O LATE P C SHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.89, JAKKUR, JAKKUR POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-560064

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. AMARESH A ANGADI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SRI H T KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.2009, 1^ST A MAIN ROAD, 7^TH CROSS ROAD, JUDICIAL LAYOUT, GKVK POST, BANGALORE-560065

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064. REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. THYAGARAJA B, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.VINAYAKA.V.S, HCGP FOR R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:25372 CRL.P No. 6617 of 2020

¶17

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.13295/2019 ON THE FILE OF XXXVII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN PURSUANCE OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE U/S 170 OF CR.P.C AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The captioned petition is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.13295/2019 on the file of the XXXVII ACMM, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 196, 199, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶21

Respondent No.1-complainant has lodged a complaint against the petitioner herein alleging that he has forged the agreement to sell and the suit for specific performance is filed against the wife of respondent No.1complainant. It is further alleged in the complaint that the petitioner has created an agreement with an intention to cheat the owner of the site, who is none other than the wife of respondent No.1-complainant.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC:25372 CRL.P No. 6617 of 2020

¶24

Pursuant to registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer on investigation has submitted a charge sheet. The present petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition would vehemently argue and contend that his suit for specific performance in O.S.No.1447/2011 is pending consideration and the present complaint is lodged by respondent No.1- complainant with a fraudulent intention

¶26

and to pressurize the petitioner to withdraw the suit. He has placed reliance on the following judgments:

¶27

(1) Nageshwar Prasad Singh alias Sinha .vs. Narayan Singh and anothers (1998) 5 SCC 694;

¶28

(2) V.Y. Jose and another .vs. State of Gujarat and another [(2009) 3 SCC 78];

¶29

(3)International Advanced Research Centre for Powder Metallurgy and New Materials (ARCI) and others [(2016) 1 SCC 348;

¶30

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:25372 CRL.P No. 6617 of 2020

¶31

(4)G. Lokesh .vs. State of Karnataka [Crl.R.P.No.19/2011] (5)Prof.R.K. Vijayasarathy and another .vs. Sudha Seetharam and another [Spl.Leave Petition(Crl) No.1434/2018]

¶32

The learned counsel would contend that the

¶33

dispute between the petitioner-accused and wife of respondent No.1-complainant is essentially civil in nature and therefore, respondent No.1-complainant along with his wife has intentionally given a cloak of criminal intention

¶34

and have lodged a criminal case against the petitioner and therefore, he would contend that this is a fit case to quash the proceedings. Referring to the judgments cited by him, he would point out that there is absolutely no material to proceed against the petitioner and therefore, if the proceedings are not quashed at this juncture, the same would lead to miscarriage of justice. He would further contend that the validity of the suit agreement is pending consideration before the competent civil Court and therefore, respondent No.1-complainant could not have simultaneously lodged a criminal case against the

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:25372 CRL.P No. 6617 of 2020

¶36

petitioner. He would point out that the present complaint is tainted with malafides and therefore, seeks for quashing of the same.

¶37

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 referring to the statement of objections filed by him would contend that the petitioner has suppressed and mislead this Court. Though, the counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the charge sheet, the relevant portion of the expert’s opinion which is found to be prejudicial to the petitioner is deliberately not furnished along with the petition. He would further contend that the petitioner accused pursuant to the laying of the charge sheet by the Investigating Officer filed an application seeking discharge. The said application is rejected by the learned Magistrate insofar as the offences punishable under Section 468, 471 and 420 of IPC. The said order is confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge in the revision. Referring to these significant details, he would then take this Court to the expert’s opinion which is furnished along

¶38

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:25372 CRL.P No. 6617 of 2020

¶39

with the statement of objections. Referring to the same, he would point out that the Investigating Officer has produced the same which is the part and parcel of the charge sheet which prima facie indicates that the signatures found on the disputed agreement to sell are not that of the owner of the site in question. Therefore, he would submit that this is a fit case where this Court can interfere by exercising the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶40

Learned HCGP arguing in the same vein would point out that there are sufficient materials to proceed against the accused. Mere pendency of the civil suit would not be an impediment for respondent No.1-complainant to prosecute the petitioner for said offences. Therefore, he submits that the petition may be dismissed.

¶41

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-complainant and the learned HCGP. Perused the material on record.

¶42

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:25372 CRL.P No. 6617 of 2020

¶43

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶44

entire material on record. The contention of the petitioner that civil suit is pending in O.S.No.1447/2011 and as such the criminal proceedings initiated against him are not sustainable cannot be acceded to. Though it is a trite law that the party aggrieved by a civil action cannot take recourse to criminal proceedings as an arm twisting measure, but, in the present case, the said principle is not applicable. Though the suit for specific performance is pending and accused has instituted the suit, the question involved in the civil proceedings is in regard to the proof of execution of agreement of sale while in criminal case, the complaint is lodged alleging that the alleged agreement of sale is created on account of forgery. If allegation of forgery is made and if the said issue relating to forgery is not the subject matter of civil suit, the complainant is entitled to prosecute against the petitioner and bring home the guilt of the petitioner-accused. While in the civil proceedings, the question is as to whether the petitioner is entitled for the discretionary relief of specific performance

¶45

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:25372 CRL.P No. 6617 of 2020

¶46

of contract. In a criminal proceeding, if the allegations are substantiated by the prosecution, the same would invite punishment. It is in this background, I am not inclined to interfere with the grant of relief sought in the captioned petition. Though this Court absolutely has no cavil in regard to the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that these judgments are not applicable to the present case on hand. Petitioner strangely has not produced the expert’s opinion which is part of the charge sheet. Therefore, this Court is more than satisfied that the petitioner has deliberately not produced the expert’s opinion which is part of the charge sheet. This act of the petitioner needs to be condemned and deprecated.

¶47

Respondent No.1-complainant has placed on record the expert’s opinion which indicates that the signatures of the owner of the site in question do not tally with the disputed signatures found on the agreement to sell. Coupled with these significant details, the statement

¶48

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:25372 CRL.P No. 6617 of 2020

¶49

of the contesting witness are also part of the charge sheet. Therefore, these materials constitute a prima facie case to proceed against the petitioner. Apart from these significant details, this Court has also taken cognizance of the fact that the petitioner has availed the remedy by filing the discharge application, which is rejected by the learned Magistrate and is confirmed by the learned District Judge in a revision. This recourse/remedy is availed by the petitioner after filing of this petition.

¶50

In the light of the above said discussions, I am of the view that this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. The prosecution by laying a charge sheet has placed sufficient prima facie material and therefore, petitioner is bound to face the full fledged trial. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant any reliefs.

¶51