Allowed

Rajanna v. J Nandakumar

Karnataka HC17 Apr 2023CRL.P/7029/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the Magistrate's order referring a civil suit for specific performance to investigation and quashed the ensuing FIR. The court held that since a civil suit regarding the agreement was pending, investigation should have been deferred until the suit's disposal.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 10.09.2015 referring the case for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the FIR in Cr.No.84/2017 under IPC offences were quashed.

Rajanna Vs J Nandakumar — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 7029 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7029 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAJANNA, S/O MARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT CHEEMACHANAHALLI VILLGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK,

¶9

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 135.

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

KEMPANNA, S/O RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT NALLAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129.

¶12

C. RAJU, S/O CHIKKASONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT CHEEMACHANAHALLI VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRIC-562 135.

¶13

M. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT MALLEPURA VILLAGE, CHANNARAYAPATNA HOBLI,

¶14

CRL.P No. 7029 of 2018

¶15

¶16

DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 129.

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. SHIVASHANKAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶19

AND:

¶20

J. NANDAKUMAR, S/O N. JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT GOVERNMENT SCHOOL ROAD, JAKKUR YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 092.

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHENNARAYAPATANA P.S., VIJAYAPURA CIRCLE, VIJAYAPURA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. DR. RAVINDRA V REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K.K., HCGP FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.527/2015, PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI AND CONSEQUENTLY TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.84/2017 REGISTERED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT, CHANNARAYAPATNA POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPURA CIRCLE FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 120, 120B, 420, 465, 467, 471, 323, 341, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC.

¶25

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

¶26

3 - CRL.P No. 7029 of 2018

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 10.09.2015 passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Devanahalli in PCR.No.527/2015 referring the case under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. to the respondent No.2 for investigation. The petitioners have also challenged the FIR registered by the respondent No.2 in Cr.No.84/2017.

¶29

The petitioner No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.891/2007 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 09.04.2007 in respect of an agricultural land bearing Sy.No.80/2A of Cheemachanahalli Village, Chennarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District and Sy.No.53 of Nallappanahalli Village, Chennarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. After receipt of summons in the said suit, the son of the defendant No.4 in the said suit filed a private complaint in PCR.No.527/2015 contending that the aforesaid properties belonged to his grandmother Smt.Subbamma. He alleged that the sale agreement dated 09.04.2007 set up by the petitioners was fraudulent and no such agreement was ever executed. He therefore prayed that action be taken against the petitioners for concocting the

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 7029 of 2018

¶32

agreement. The petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were stated to be the witnesses to the said agreement. The petitioners contend that the learned Magistrate without applying his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and without noticing that a civil suit in respect of the very same agreement of sale was pending consideration, mechanically referred the case under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation. The respondent No.2 thereafter registered Cr.No.84/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 120, 420, 465M, 467, 468, 471, 323, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the order referring the case for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the first information drawn against the petitioners, the present petition is filed.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the suit is still pending consideration before the trial Court. He submits that though the pendency of the suit was brought to the notice of the Magistrate in the private complaint, yet, the Magistrate without proper application of mind had mechanically referred the case for investigation to the jurisdictional Police.

¶35

¶36

CRL.P No. 7029 of 2018

¶37

He therefore prayed that the impugned order referring the case for investigation as well as the first information drawn against them be quashed.

¶38

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the petitioners have all involved in fabricating the agreement in question. He submits that the petitioner Nos.2 to 4 have colluded with the petitioner No.1 in bringing about the colourable sale agreement. He contends that the question whether the agreement of sale is executed by his mother or not is a question that has to be considered by the Investigating Officer. He further submits that the suit filed by the petitioners in O.S.No.891/2007 was dismissed for non-prosecution and a miscellaneous petition for restoration of the suit is pending consideration.

¶39

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶40

The petitioner No.1 had indeed filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale in respect of the land mentioned above. The said suit is though dismissed for

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 7029 of 2018

¶43

non-prosecution but yet, a miscellaneous petition is pending consideration before the trial Court. Therefore, the Magistrate committed an error in referring the case for investigation to the respondent No.2 under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Ideally, the Magistrate must have directed the respondent No.1 to await the outcome of the suit in O.S.No.891/2007 and to take steps thereafter.

¶44

In that view of the matter, the criminal petition is allowed . The order dated 10.09.2015 passed by the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Devanahalli in PCR.No.527/2015 referring the case under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. referring the case for investigation to the respondent No.2 as well as the First Information Report in Cr.No.84/2017 registered against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 120, 420, 465M, 467, 468, 471, 323, 341, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC is quashed.

¶45

It is however open for the respondent No.1 to initiate prosecution of the petitioners after disposal of the civil suit if the miscellaneous petition is allowed or on rejection of the

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 7029 of 2018

¶48

miscellaneous petition filed by the petitioner No.1 in accordance with law.

¶49

The Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli is requested to expedite the Miscellaneous Petition No.10/2017 filed by the petitioner No.1, which shall be not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

NR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Rajanna v. J Nandakumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajanna v. J Nandakumar

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

Sri Muralidhar v Vs Smt Maya H

Sri K N Shreyas Vs Sri Deepchand Jain

Sri K N Shreyas Vs Sri Deepachand Jain

N Lakshman Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri B S Gopala Krishna Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Joy Shanthi Fathima D'Silva Vs Mrs Parveen Sultana