Partly allowed

Shri. Kishore Kumar. B. K. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Oct 2023WP/2071/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed proceedings against a police inspector (accused No.12) in a corruption and cheating case, finding no evidence and malafide prosecution. It dismissed similar petitions by two other accused, finding sufficient material against them.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in Spl.C.No.967/2022 quashed against accused No.12; petitions of accused Nos.11 and 13 dismissed.

Shri. Kishore Kumar. B. K. Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.2071 OF 2023 (GM-RES) CONNTECTED WITH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2317 OF 2023 CONNECTED WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3702 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

IN WRIT PETITION NO.2071 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SHRI. KISHORE KUMAR B.K. S/O B.M.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.99, BHUVANESHWARI NILAYA, BASAVANPURA, GOTTIGERE POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 068. ... PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI M.S. SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MS. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ATTIBELE P.S. REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶12

¶13

2 . SRI. SREEDHAR S S/O SHAMANNA AGED 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.87, 6TH CROSS, 25TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 102.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, SPP FOR R1 SRI GAUTHAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ORDER DECLARING THAT THE INCLUSION OF PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.356/2022 OF RESPONDENT ATTIBELE POLICE STATION AND ARRAIGNING AS ACCUSED NO.12 IS UNLAWFUL. QUASHING THE CHARGE-SHEET (VIDE ANNEXURE-C TO THIS PETITION) AND PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.967/2022 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.356/2022, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7(A), 7(C) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND SECTIONS 201, 420, 418, 467, 471, 409, 421, 418, 423, 424, 120-B, 149, 421, 465, 468, READ WITH SECTION 34 UNDER SECTION 8, 12 OF I.P.C 1860, AS AGAINST THE PRESENT PETITIONER AS ACCUSED NO.12 PENDING ON THE FILE HONBLE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶17

IN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2317 OF 2023

¶18

BETWEEN

¶19

SRI B.K. PRAVEEN KUMAR S/O B.M. KRISHNAPPA, AGED 42 YEARS,

¶20

¶21

NO.99, SRI. BHUVANESHWARI NILAYA, BASAVANAPURA, GOTTIGERE POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 083

¶22

... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MS. RACHITHA RAJSHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND

¶23

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO, ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 562 107 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001 2 . SRI. SHREEDHAR S. S/O SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, R/AT NO.87, 6TH CROSS, 25TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 102

¶24

... RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, SPP FOR R1 SRI GAUTHAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL CASE IN SPL.C.NO.967/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.356/2022 OF ATTIBELE POLICE STATION FOR THE

¶27

¶28

OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 409, 420, 421, 418, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 8 AND 12 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.13 IS CONCERNED.

¶29

IN WRIT PETITION NO.3702 OF 2023 BETWEEN

¶30

SRI. ANIL KUMAR S/O B.M. KRISHNAPPA, AGED 47 YEARS, NO.37, CHAIRMAN, SRI LAYOUT, BASAVANAPURA, GOTTIGERE POST, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 083 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR MS. RACHITHA RAJSHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND

¶31

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH SHO, ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 562 107 REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶32

2 . DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001

¶33

¶34

3 . DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE ANEKAL SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE - 562 106

¶35

4 . INSPECTOR OF POLICE ATTIBELE POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 562 106

¶36

5 . SRI SHREEDHAR S S/O SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION BUSINESS, R/AT NO.87, 6TH CROSS, 25TH MAIN, HSR LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 102

¶37

... RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SRI SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, SPP FOR R1 TO R4 SRI GAUTHAM S. BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE CRIMINAL CASE IN SPL.C.NO.967/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, BENGALURU ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.356/2022 OF ATTIBELE POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 109, 409, 420, 421, 418, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 8 AND 12 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.11 IS CONCERNED VIDE ANNEXURE-G.

¶40

THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.07.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶41

¶42

ORDER

¶43

Writ petition No.2071/2023 is filed by the petitioneraccused No.12, Writ petition No.3702/2023 is filed by the petitioner-accused No.11 and Criminal Petition No.2317/2023 is filed by the petitioner-accused No.13, for quashing the criminal proceedings pertaining to the FIR registered by the Attibele police in Crime No.356/2022, now pending on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, Bengaluru, in Spl.C.No.967/2022 for having charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 201, 409, 420, 421, 418, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 7(a), 7(c), 8 and 12 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act').

¶44

Heard the arguments of learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners' counsel, learned Special Counsel for respondent- de-facto complainant and the learned Special Counsel for the respondent-State.

¶45

¶46

The case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant one Sreedhar S. filed a complaint to the police on 20.09.2022, based upon which, the respondent-police registered FIR in Crime No.356/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 7A, 7C of P.C. Act other than the IP.C. Sections. It is alleged that the de-facto complainant claimed to be a whistle blower and with the vested interest, filed the complaint alleging that the CBI and ED had undertaken investigation in respect of one Pearls Agrotech Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred

¶47

to as 'PACL company') on the allegations of financial misappropriation and cheating public to the tune of Rs.49,000/- crores. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had formed a Committee headed by Hon'ble Sri Justice Lodha, Former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as 'Justice Lodha Committee') to look into the grievances of the public, who had transacted with the said PACL company and the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued a direction not to alienate the properties held by the PACL Company without prior approval of Justice Lodha

¶48

¶49

Committee. It is also alleged that Justice Lodha Committee instructed Inspector General of Registration, Bangalore, not to dispose any properties without its order and the Special Tahsildar, Anekal also on 06.01.2019 had given instruction to the District Registrar not to mutate properties belonging to PACL Company.

¶50

It is further alleged in the complaint that accused No.1, who is an advocate, forged resolution copies of the said PACL Company and created the sale deeds in collusion with accused No.7-Sub-Registrar. Accused No.9 given General Power of Attorney to accused No.2 to execute the sale deed in favour of accused No.5, who is brother-in-law of accused No.12 and accused No.12 is the petitioner in W.P. No.2071/2023, through a registered sale deed dated 10.01.2022 before the Senior Sub-Registrar, Anekal for the sale consideration of Rs.2,47,74,000/-. The complainant-Sreedhar requested the respondent-police to take action against accused Nos.1 to 7.

¶51

¶52

During investigation, the police said to have arrested some of the accused persons and remanded them to judicial custody. Further during investigation, the name of the petitioner in W.P.No.2071/2023 is arrayed as accused No.12 and added Sections 420 and 467 of I.P.C.

¶53

The police have filed charge sheet by showing the petitioner in W.P.No.2071/2023 as accused No.12, who is the Police Inspector working in Attibele police station and he is the relative of accused Nos.11 and 13. Accused No.12 in conspiracy with accused No.5 had purchased the property in the name of accused No.5. The petitioneraccused No.12, being the Police Inspector, helped accused No.5 for purchasing the properties of PACL Company. Therefore, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner, which is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶54

During investigation, the police also charge sheeted against accused No.11, who is the writ petitioner in W.P.No.3702/2023. It is alleged that accused No.13 is said to be the brother of accused No.11 and he was

¶55

¶56

arrested on 28.09.2022 and he was remanded to judicial custody. It is alleged against the petitioner-accused No.11 that he has transferred an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- to one Kiran Kumar, who used the said amount for obtaining K2 challan for payment of stamp duty for registration of sale deed in favour of accused No.5. Hence, the petitioneraccused No.11 has filed this petition challenging the charge sheet.

¶57

The allegation against the petitioner in Criminal Petition No.2317/2023, who is named as accused No.13 in the charge sheet, is that the accused Nos.11 and 12 and this petitioner-accused No.13 conspired with accused No.5 for purchasing the immovable property or alienating the property. Accused No.13 is an advocate and he has actively participated in execution of the sale deed. Therefore, charge sheet has been filed against him, which is under challenge in this petition.

¶58

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.12 has seriously contended that the

¶59

¶60

police have registered FIR on the complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 7A and 7C of P.C. Act along with IPC Sections against accused No.1-ManJunath and six others. The name of the petitioner-accused No.12 was not found in the FIR, but it was added later. The police filed charge sheet in the initial stage for the IPC Sections and Sections 8 and 12 of the P.C. Act on the precise accusation and it was not filed against the petitioneraccused No.12 and the charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.7 and 14. Later, in the additional charge sheet, the police have added some more Sections and included the name of the petitioner-accused No.12. It is contended that the Investigation Officer has felt that no sanction is required against the petitioner and awaited sanction against accused Nos.7 and 14, but the petitioneraccused No.12 was the Police Inspector and the entire charge sheet has not mentioned or any evidence against the petitioner-accused No.12 for committing the offence punishable under Section 7 of P.C. Act and therefore, Sections 8 and 12 of P.C. Act are failed to stand against

¶61

¶62

the petitioner in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 7A and Section 19 of P.C. Act, which could not have been dispensed with.

¶63

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioneraccused No.12 has further contended that the offences under the IP.C. cannot be traced against the petitioner. Even remotely, there is no evidence against the petitioner though the Investigation Officer has stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner was trying to threaten the complainant and no sanction is required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. or Section 170 of Karnataka Police Act. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that a direction is given to the Justice Lodha Committee in C.A. No.13301/2015 wherein SEBI had made an application to the Hon'ble Supreme Court alleging that the PACL Company procured money illegally for Ponzi Scheme and on that back ground, the Hon'ble Supreme Court appointed Justice Lodha Committee. Accordingly, Nodal Officer was appointed and instruction was given to the Commissioner

¶64

¶65

for Stamps, Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore and also to the Tahsildar, Anekal not to register any document in respect of the said PACL Company properties without approval of Justice Lodha Committee. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that CBI and ED undertaken investigation in respect of PACL company and therefore, the police ought to have consulted the CBI or ED or the said Committee while registering the FIR and before filing the charge sheet. The police have utterly failed to get the opinion from them and therefore, the investigation taken by the police is duplication of the investigation already undertaken and under progress by the CBI and ED .

¶66

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioneraccused No.12 also contended that, at the various intervals, Justice Lodha Committee had permitted the sale of certain lands and recovery of money and the proceeds to the Committee for day today activities, whereas the police have not made any efforts and enquiries, as to whether those lands were transacted illegally or Justice

¶67

¶68

Lodha Committee has permitted the transaction, but the police have filed report on imaginary basis. The learned Senior Counsel also contended that the lands in Sy.No.37/1 measuring 1 acre and Sy.No.38/2 measuring 32 guntas stand in the name of M/s. Woodsville Project Ltd. and there is no reference to PACL company in the revenue records and accused No.5 was the bona fide purchaser of the said lands for valuable consideration.

¶69

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioneraccused No.12 further contended that the complainant was a stranger to the aforesaid transaction and he is neither the victim nor having any vested interest over the property, but he claims to be a whistle blower. The complainant was the rowdy sheeter. The petitioneraccused No.12 being the police officer opened the rowdy sheet against the de-facto complainant at Attibele police station. Therefore, as vengeance, the de-facto complainant has implicated the petitioner-accused No.12.

¶70

¶71

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioneraccused No.12 further contended that the allegation against the petitioner-accused No.12 was that there was conversation between the petitioner and accused No.1 by whatsapp messages, but in the charge sheet, the police have stated that his phone was destroyed and no evidence available. However, the conversation was retrieved, but retrieval of conversation without the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is not admissible in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

¶72

of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar Vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 571 .

¶73

The learned Senior Counsel further contended that phone/device is of some one and the certificate was issued by some one else, therefore, the evidence cannot be looked into and there is a specific case against the petitioner-accused No.12 that he had formatted the phone

¶74

¶75

and subsequently, the same was seized by the police and later, retrieved. Therefore, the evidence is inadmissible .

¶76

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioneraccused No.12 further contended that the trial Court has taken cognizance excluding the FSL report and without the authenticity of electronic evidence and that, the petitioner being the public servant and in order to prosecute him under the P.C. Act, sanction is necessary. Therefore, without sanction, taking cognizance is impermissible.

¶77

The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioneraccused No.12 further contended that in the case of D. Devaraja vs. Owais Sabeer Hussain reported in (2020) 7 SCC 695, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that sanction of the Government is necessary for prosecuting the government official. Therefore, without sanction, filing the charge sheet and taking cognizance, is abuse of process of law. The learned Senior counsel also urged various grounds and prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶78

¶79

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.11 in W.P.No.3702/2023 has contended that the role of petitioner-accused No.12 in the charge sheet is that he is the brother-in-law of accused No.5. Accused No.5 has purchased the property and the petitioner-accused No.11 has transferred Rs.1,75,000/- to one Kiran Kumar, who used the said amount for obtaining K2 challan for payment of stamp duty for registration of sale deed in favour of accused No.5. Except making payment, he has not conspired with accused No.5 in the offence. There is no material against accused No.11, there is no forgery, there is no impersonation or forging the signature.

¶80

The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the vendor, who claims to be the owner, executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.5 for valuable consideration and the petitioner-accused No.11 was not aware about the ban on the purchase of the said property. The petitioner-accused No.11 has no role to play in the

¶81

¶82

offences, he has only paid the amount for registration of the document.

¶83

The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the de-facto complainant was backed by the sitting MLA and due to the enmity, he has targeting the petitioner. Accused No.12 in fact wants to contest in the election by resignation, but due to the false implication at the instance of the sitting MLA, he is unable to contest the election. There is no motive for the petitioner to commit any offence. The allegation of the complainant is unnatural and the petitioner-accused No.11 has been falsely implicated and therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner-accused No.11 is abuse of process of law. Hence, prayed for quashing the charge sheet.

¶84

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-accused No.13 in Criminal Petition No.2317/2023 has contended that there is nothing on record to show that petitioner-accused No.13 involved in

¶85

19

¶86

the offence. The petitioner was said to be approached the Sub-Registrar for the purpose of registration, but there is no evidence available on record of his involvement in the case and the signature of the petitioner-accused No.13 is not found in any of the document. He is said to have spoken with Sub-Registrar. Except the statement of one witness, there is no material regarding involvement of the petitioner-accused No.13.

¶87

The learned Senior Counsel for petitioneraccused No.13 further contended that even if there is any violation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is only contempt of the Court and not a criminal case. As per the Interlocutory Application No.5 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was ordered that no authority or no Court shall entertain any complaint in respect of PACL Company matters as the Hon'ble Supreme Court seized the dispute. Therefore, the police cannot entertain the complaint which is in violation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶88

¶89

The learned Senior Counsel for petitioneraccused No.13 also contended that in a similar case, the High Court of Madras has stated that all the materials were placed before Justice Lodha Committee. As the said Committee is still functioning, the police cannot file the charge sheet and therefore, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶90

Per contra, the learned Special Counsel for the respondent-State has filed statement of objections objecting the petitions. The learned Special Counsel contended that as per the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a Committee was constituted which is headed by Hon'ble Sri Justice Lodha, Former Judge of the Supreme Court, to monitor the transactions in which the PACL Company involved. Without permission of Justice Lodha Committee, the sale transaction cannot be done and intimation was given to the Inspector General of Registrar and also communicated to the Deputy Commissioner of District through Tahsildar. The complaint was filed by the

¶91

¶92

de-facto complainant against accused Nos.1 to 7 and also invoked the provisions of the P.C. Act. Investigation was taken up, some of the accused were absconding and some were arrested by the police. During investigation, it was revealed that M/s. Woodsville Project Ltd. and Megha Structure Infracon Pvt. Ltd. and one Pradeep Kumar were involved in cheating. Therefore, they were made as accused Nos.8 to 10. It is further contended that there was conversation held between the complainant and the petitioner-accused No.12, who is the police inspector. The conversation was recorded in audio CD and it was given to the police. Therefore, the police issued notice to the petitioner-accused No.12 for enquiry, panchanama was prepared, but petitioner-accused No.12 not produced his mobile phone and later, the mobile phone has been seized, wherein he has formatted the messages. Accused Nos.11 and 13 were arrested during interrogation, which reveals the involvement of the petitioner-accused No.12. Therefore, the offence under Section 201 of IPC attracts against this petitioner-accused No.12. Accused Nos.11

¶93

¶94

and 5 got executed the sale deed by making the payment of stamp duty by accused No.11. The petitioner-accused No.13 was an advocate, and he is the brother of accused No.11. As per the statement of official in the office of the Sub-Registrar, accused No.13 came to the office of SubRegistrar for registering the sale deed in favour of accused No.5. The competent authority given permission to investigate against accused Nos.7 and 14, who are the government officials, for invoking the provisions of Section 13(2) of P.C. Act and Section 409 of IPC. The property mentioned in the sale deed has been noted in the civil case (writ petition). Accused No.7 - Sub-Registrar got registered the said property which has come under Justice Lodha Committee. The amount alleged has been paid by accused No.5 towards sale consideration through Demand Draft. On verification, it was revealed that no such Demand Draft was presented in the bank. The investigation officer has collected the documents from the Sub-Registrar for agreement to sell from Ramakrishna in favour of Pradeep Kumar through GPA. The investigation officer also

¶95

¶96

searched the house of accused No.1 and seized the mobile phone and in the mobile phone, it was found that there was exchange of messages between accused Nos.1 and 12. The petitioners are required for interrogation and to know about the whatsapp messages. The charge sheet has been filed against all the accused persons and an additional charge sheet has also been filed against petitioner-accused No.12. A case under the provisions of Karnataka Control of Organised Crimes Act, 2000 (KCOCA) has been invoked against accused No.1 at Attibele Police Station.

¶97

The learned Special Counsel for respondentState has also contended that sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. against accused No.12 is not required in view of the catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this regard, and hence, prayed for dismissing the petition filed by accused No.12.

¶98

The learned counsel for respondent-State has also filed similar statement of objections against accused

¶99

¶100

Nos.11 and 13 and objected the petitions filed by accused Nos.11 and 13 contending that the accused No.11 paid stamp duty on behalf of accused No.5. Accused No.13, being an advocate, has actively participated in execution of the sale deed by going to the office of Sub-Registrar meeting accused No.7 - Sub-Registrar. Even though the official of the office of the Sub-Registrar brought to the notice of accused No.7 that the sale deed cannot be executable, but accused No.7 in collusion with accused No.13, got executed the sale deed. Therefore, there is prima facie material placed on record from the statement of one of the witnesses B.H. Venkatesh that accused No.13 paid Rs.50,000/- to accused No.7 for getting the sale deed executed. Hence, prayed for dismissing those two petitions filed by accused Nos.11 and 13.

¶101

The learned counsel for the respondent - defacto complainant has seriously objected the petitions and contended that there were whatsapp messages and conversation between the complainant and the accused

¶102

¶103

No.12, who is the police officer and the master mind behind the conspiracy. Accused No.12 has done property dealing and therefore, no sanction is required to file charge sheet against him as he has not done any act while discharging the official duty. A copy of the draft sale deed had been sent to the petitioner-accused No.12 by phone. Accused No.12 was not arrested and he had taken anticipatory bail and later, it was dismissed. His phone was seized, wherein the messages were destroyed. The petitioner-accused No.12 may require for custodial interrogation. It is also contended that there was violation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The complainant though is not connected to the offences, but he can file the complaint for setting the law into motion. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petitions.

¶104

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.

¶105

On perusal of the records, it reveals that the respondent de-facto complainant one Sreedhar filed a

¶106

¶107

complaint to the police on 20.09.2022 alleging that the immovable property belongs to PACL Company was banned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for alienation without the permission of Justice Lodha Committee. Accused Nos.1 and 2 got executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.5 in respect of the immovable property belongs to PACL Company. Accused No.7 said to be the Sub-Registrar, knowing fully registered the sale deed and accused No.5 purchased the property. Therefore, prayed for taking action.

¶108

During investigation, the police arrested some of the accused persons and investigated the matter. After investigation, they filed charge sheet before the Court. Admittedly, the name of accused No.12 was not mentioned in FIR or in the complaint. During investigation, it was alleged by the prosecution that accused No.12 was a police inspector working in Attibele Police station and the accused No.5, who purchased the property, was his relative. Therefore, accused No.12 conspired with other accused

¶109

¶110

and played vital role in execution of the sale deed. But the document produced along with the charge sheet by the investigation officer, indicates that absolutely, there is no connecting evidence against accused No.12 - the police inspector to show that accused No.12 played any vital role in executing the sale deed by accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.9 - M/s.Woodsville Project Pvt. Ltd. in favour of accused No.5. The prosecution is trying to show that the draft sale deed was sent by one of the accused to the mobile phone of accused No.12 and there was conversation regarding purchase of the property through the Whatsapp messages, but the said Whatsapp messages have not been collected by the investigation officer during the course of investigation.

¶111

Even on perusal of the said Whatsapp messages, they do not indicate any role played by accused No.12 for selling the property by accused No.2 to accused No.5 and to show that he has paid any sale consideration to the vendor. On the other hand, one B.H.Venkatesh,

¶112

¶113

who is a data entry operator in the Sub-Registrar Office, was examined by the investigation officer and during investigation, the said witness has categorically stated that on 03.01.2022, one Deepak and Praveen Kumar came with sale deeds and he has verified in the computer and informed that it was reflected in the document as court case. Therefore, accused No.13 went to the chamber of accused No.7 and came back. The witness Venkatesh has further stated that accused No.13 paid Rs.50,000/- to accused No.7 for registering the document. Then, accused No.7 instructed the said Venkatesh-data entry operator for making entries in respect of registering the sale deed. Therefore, the evidence of said witness indicates the registration of the document that is sale deed by accused No.2 in favour of accused No.5 executed by accused No.9 through GPA Holder Ayush Thapa (accused No.2) on 10.01.2022. The sale deed reflects that accused No.5 got the sale deed registered in his favour executed by accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.9 - M/s. Woodsville Project Pvt. Ltd. in respect of an immovable property in

¶114

¶115

Sy.Nos.37/1 and 38/2 which is situated at Medahalli village, Attibele, the alienation of the said property has been allegedly banned by the Hon'ble Supreme Court without the approval of Justice Lodha Committee.

¶116

It is also an admitted fact that accused No.11 has paid Rs.1,75,000/- for the purpose of payment of stamp duty on behalf of accused No.5. He has contended that he had no knowledge of the litigation and ban on the same, he has paid the stamp duty in order to help accused No.5. The document collected by the investigation officer and the allegation made against accused No.11 reveals that he has accompanied accused No.13 and accused No.5 and paid the stamp duty for getting the sale deed executed in favour of accused No.5. There is sufficient material placed on record against accused Nos.11 and 13 in respect of directly participating in the execution of sale deed. If at all any defence, it has to be agitated before the trial Court during the cross examination to plead their innocence or to plead their ignorance of the ban order. Now this Court

¶117

¶118

cannot say that there is no intention and transaction was bona fide.

¶119

Now, once again coming to the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner-accused No.12 in W.P. No.2071/2023 that the petitioner-accused No.12 is a Police Inspector and when he was working in Attibele Police Station, the de-facto complainant was a rowdy sheeter in rowdy sheet and the case of the de-facto complainant was opened by the petitioner-accused No.12. Therefore, there was vengeance between accused No.12 and de-facto complainant. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the de-facto complainant is the follower of the sitting MLA of Bangalore South Constituency. There was direct rift between accused No.12 and the sitting MLA in the print and electronic media and the contention of the accused No.12 was that the said MLA, with influence, through the de-facto complainant falsely implicated the petitioner-accused No.12. There are so many documents produced before the Court which

¶120

¶121

reveals that there was direct rift between the MLA and the petitioner-accused No.12 in the print and electronic media.

¶122

Of course, the de-facto complainant is totally unconnected with the case in respect of the property in question and he has no interest over the property, However, any person can file a first information to the police to set law into motion for registration of FIR. Thereafter, the police require to investigate into the matter. But, here in this case, the de-facto complainant who is fully participated in the proceedings and showing much interest in contesting the case against accused No.12 reveals that he is having personal grudge/vengeance over accused No.12 - Police Inspector, who has opened a rowdy sheet against the de-facto complainant. By taking advantage of the case registered against relative of accused No.12 and with the influence of the sitting MLA, it appears that the de-facto complainant is prosecuting the case against the petitioner-accused No.12

¶123

¶124

by appointing the separate counsel, even though he do not have any personal interest over the property in question.

¶125

Coming to the contention/grounds urged by the learned Senior counsel in W.P.2071/2023 (for accused No.12) that the SEBI approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the PACL Company for having procured the funds from the public illegally in its Ponzi scheme and the Hon'ble Supreme Court constituted a committee headed by Hon'ble Justice R.M.Lodha and the said committee also permitted for transferring some of the properties. Therefore, without consulting the Nodal Officer of the said committee, the police have filed the charge sheet which is not sustainable and the CBI as well as ED already undertaken the investigation. Such being the case, without consulting with the CBI or ED, registering the separate case against the accused and filing charge sheet is not sustainable. Admittedly, the Hon'ble Justice Lodha committee has said to be issued a letter to the Deputy Commissioner of Stamp and Registration and to the

¶126

¶127

Tahsildar not to register any property belongs to PACL Company, but the property sold by accused No.2 in favour of accused No.5 were all executed by M/s. Woodsville Company (accused No.9) who is said to be the owner of the property. The sale deed produced by the Investigating Officer as well as the petitioner also reveals on behalf of the M/s. Woodsville Project Limited, the property has been sold to accused No.5, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had purchased the property as a bonafide purchaser. As per the statement of B.H. Venkatesh who is a staff of at Sub-Registrar office has brought to the notice that an endorsement has been made in respect of his property having litigation as court case, if at all, accused Nos.5, 11 and 13 can be taken as defence in the Trial that they have bonafide purchaser and without knowledge of ban order for alienation.

¶128

Of course, the Investigating Officer had not consulted the Nodal Officer of Justice Lodha Committee while investigating the matter and also filing the charge

¶129

¶130

sheet in order to know whether any permission accorded by the said committee or not.

¶131

The petitioners have produced the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the civil appeal No.13301/2015 by allowing the I.A. on 02.02.2016 and copy of the prayer in the I.A. also produced and subsequently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court clarified and issued directions vide order dated 25.07.2016 which is as under:

¶132

"(a) Pass an order directing that PACL Limited and / or its Directors / Promoters / Agents / Employees / Group and/or Associate Companies be restrained from in any manner selling/transferring/alienating any of the properties wherein PACL as, in any manner, a right/interest situated either within or outside India"

¶133

Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior counsel cannot be acceptable for the purpose of quashing the charge sheet that accused No.5 is the bonafide

¶134

¶135

purchaser and sale deed executed by accused No.2 with the help of accused Nos.11 and 13.

¶136

The learned Senior counsel also relied upon the order passed by the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in W.P(MD)Nos.18601 and 18664 of 2020 in respect of PACL- PGF Investors Welfare Association vs. CBI and others , wherein, the High Court of Madras has considered similar issue in respect of assets of PACL and transactions are being conducted and they are being registered in respect of fabricating the documents for the purpose of prosecuting the accused persons. The Madras High Court has directed the CBI to depute an Officer who is already investigating the criminal case registered against PACL and its Directors to bring to the notice of the Justice R.M.Lodha Committee and CBI will thereafter act in terms of the mandate that the Hon'ble committee consider issuing and further directed the CBI will appraise the Hon'ble committee. The judgment of High Court of Madras clearly reveals that the police ought to have brought to the notice

¶137

36

¶138

of the CBI and also Hon'ble Justice R.M.Lodha Committee regarding alienation of the property. However, absolutely there is no material in this regard. The learned Senior counsel has rightly contended that the matter is already took up investigation by CBI as well as ED and definitely this proceedings would be duplication of the case investigating by the CBI. However, that can be considered by the Trial Court while dealing the matter on merits.

¶139

The another contention raised by the learned Senior counsel is that there is no connecting evidence against accused No.12 to show that he has actively participated in registering the sale deed. In this regard, I have stated above that the name of this petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR, even the role of the petitioner was also not mentioned in the FIR and also in the first charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer. However, the police implicated the petitioner as accused No.12 in the additional charge sheet only on the ground that accused No.12 being the Police Inspector has telephoned to the

¶140

¶141

complainant and said to be threatened the de-facto complainant-Sridhar. The said conversation was recorded by the Sridhar-the de-facto complainant and gave to the Investigating Officer, therefore, the name of accused No.12 is impleaded as additional accused. The de-facto complainant is said to be produced the CD that was sent to the FSL and without receipt of the FSL Report, the police filed the additional charge sheet by implicating this petitioner as accused and cognizance was taken by the Magistrate which is not legal. The only connecting material was the audio CD in respect of conversation held between accused No.12 and the de-facto complainant, where the petitioner is said to be threatened the complainant for registering the FIR against his relative who is accused No.3. The learned Senior counsel has contended that if a person trying to tamper the prosecution witnesses, a separate case can be registered against the said person for threatening the witness and he cannot be added as additional accused in the main criminal case. Admittedly, the only allegation against this petitioner-accused No.12

¶142

¶143

was he has threatened the de-facto complainant, may be that the Investigating Officer implicated the petitioners as accused Nos.5, 11 and 13 who are relatives of this petitioner. Therefore, there is every possibility to believe that this petitioner may be trying to compromise the complainant in this matter and because of the reason that he has attempted to tamper the de-facto complainant, this petitioner cannot be implicated as additional accused in the main case without any sufficient material.

¶144

That apart, there is no certificate under Section

¶145

65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act filed in the charge sheet to accept the electronic evidence. Therefore, on this ground, the charge sheet against accused No.12 is not sustainable.

¶146

The another contention raised by learned Senior counsel that the de-facto complainant do not have any interest over the property, but he has filed the complaint and went on contesting the matter against the petitioner due to personal vengeance against him as

¶147

¶148

accused No.12 when he was Police Inspector in Attibele police station, he has opened the rowdy sheet against the de-facto complainant, the same is admitted by the defacto complainant and the document also produced in this regard, that this accused No.12 opened rowdy sheet against the de facto- complainant. It is also contended that the sitting MLA of the South constituency was prosecuting the case through the de-facto complainant. The document produced by the learned counsel for the accused reveals that there was open challenge between the sitting MLA and accused No.12. There was direct verbal fight between the MLA and this petitioner in the social media attacking each other. The documents also produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was published in social media which reveals that there was rival attacking between this petitioner and the sitting MLA and it appears the de-facto complainant who is an accused and a rowdy sheeter litigating against the Police Officer by appointing the separate Senior counsels spending lakhs of rupees much clearly reveals the sitting MLA is backing the de-facto

¶149

40

¶150

complainant for spending litigation expenses. Absolutely, the de-facto complainant has no interest over the property and contesting the matter is nothing but a vested interest. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim and Others vs. State of Bihar and Another reported in (2009) 8 SCC 751 where it has held at paragraph Nos.16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 are as under:

¶151

"16. There is a fundamental difference between a person executing a sale deed claiming that the property conveyed is his property, and a person executing a sale deed by impersonating the owner or falsely claiming to be authorised or empowered by the owner, to execute the deed on owner's behalf. When a person executes a document conveying a property describing it as his, there are two possibilities. The first is that he bona fide believes that the property actually belongs to him. The second is that he may be dishonestly or fraudulently claiming it to be his even though he knows that it is not his property. But to fall under first category of “false documents”, it is not sufficient that a document has been made or

¶152

41

¶153

executed dishonestly or fraudulently. There is a further requirement that it should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made or executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed.

¶154

17. When a document is executed by a person claiming a property which is not his, he is not claiming that he is someone else nor is he claiming that he is authorised by someone else. Therefore, execution of such document (purporting to convey some property of which he is not the owner) is not execution of a false document as defined under Section 464 of the Code. If what is executed is not a false document, there is no forgery. If there is no forgery, then neither Section 467 nor Section 471 of the Code are attracted.

¶155

Section 420 IP.C.

¶156

18. Let us now examine whether the ingredients of an offence of cheating are made out. The essential ingredients of the offence of “cheating” are as follows:

¶157

(i) deception of a person either by making a false or misleading representation or by dishonest concealment or by any other act or omission;

¶158

¶159

(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that person to either deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce that person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and

¶160

(iii) such act or omission causing or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

¶161

20. When a sale deed is executed conveying a property claiming ownership thereto, it may be possible for the purchaser under such sale deed to allege that the vendor has cheated him by making a false representation of ownership and fraudulently induced him to part with the sale consideration. But in this case the complaint is not by the purchaser. On the other hand, the purchaser is made a co-accused.

¶162

21. It is not the case of the complainant that any of the accused tried to deceive him either by making a false or misleading representation or by any other action or omission, nor is it his case that they offered him any fraudulent or dishonest inducement to deliver any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any person or to intentionally induce him to do or omit to do

¶163

43

¶164

anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived. Nor did the complainant allege that the first appellant pretended to be the complainant while executing the sale deeds. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first accused by the act of executing sale deeds in favour of the second accused or the second accused by reason of being the purchaser, or the third, fourth and fifth accused, by reason of being the witness, scribe and stamp vendor in regard to the sale deeds, deceived the complainant in any manner."

¶165

On perusal of the ingredients of the above said offences and allegation made by the Police in the charge sheet which are not at all attracted against this petitioner for filing the charge sheet and also taking cognizance against him under Sections 420, 468, 471, 409, 406 of IP.C.. Even otherwise, the offence under Section 7(a) and 7(c) of P.C. Act and 13(1)(d), 13(2) of P.C. Act also not attracted against this petitioner-accused No.12.

¶166

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also taken similar view in the case of Deepak and others vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in (2023) 3 SCC 423 , in

¶167

¶168

the said case, the High Court has dismissed the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but the same was allowed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and quashed the proceedings.

¶169

The learned Senior counsel also contended that if at all any violation in respect of alienation of the land belongs to PACL company and the Hon'ble Supreme Court banned the sale of the properties in the Civil appeal No. 13301/2015 and if any violation and sold the property which amounts to contempt of court for violating the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, therefore, adding the name of the accused in the FIR or in the charge sheet does not arise. Of course, the submission of learned counsel may be correct. If any violation of court order restraining the alienation order passed by any of the Court that attracts a contempt of court for willful disobedience of the order of the court as contemplated under Section 2(b) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶170

However, the allegation that the petitioneraccused Nos.11, 13 and others were not fabricated the

¶171

¶172

document or created the document and accused No.12 said to be helped accused No.5 for purchasing the property, there was some whatsapp messages held between accused Nos.12 and 1 which was produced. The copy of the whatsapp message produced where accused No.1 has sent message about availability of the land which is converted land adjacent to Woodville layout and he has mentioned whether it is a Lodha committee, for that, accused No.1 has stated "only 8 acres in Lodha" thereafter, accused No.1 sent aadhaar card copy of accused No.6, that was received by this petitioner and subsequently, accused No.1 intimated about the execution of sale deed, payment of stamp duty, sale consideration and completion of execution of sale deed. But no where it has mentioned that accused No.12 was knowingfully helped accused No.5 in execution of sale deed in respect of land belongs to PACL company where there was a ban for alienation. Mere production of some whatsapp messages between accused Nos.1 and 12, is not a ground to say that accused No.12 committed any offence in this case. Apart

¶173

¶174

from that as argued by learned counsel there is no authentication of the messages exchanged between them which was provided by the service provider of the cell phone company. There is no certificate issued by any of the service providers of the sim card and the certificate is very necessary under Section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. None of the documents produced in the charge sheet to attract any of the provision of IP.C. much less to attract Section 120B of IP.C. that this accused conspired with other accused in execution of sale deed.

¶175

Though the learned counsel for the respondent has contended that there is no payment of sale consideration, the demand drafts were all fake, it was not encashed or issued that cannot be allegation against this petitioner-accused No.12 which may attract against accused No.5 who was the purchaser of the property, he has to make the payment, if no payment is made, then it attracts cheating and fabrication of documents. Accused Nos.11 and 13 accompanied accused No.5 for registration

¶176

¶177

of the sale deed, therefore, the charge sheet is not sustainable against accused No.12.

¶178

The another main contention of the learned Senior counsel is that there is no sanction obtained from the Competent Authority for filing the charge sheet and also investigating the matter under the P.C. Act. In this regard, admittedly, the police while filing the additional charge sheet has stated that they are awaiting the sanction order from the Government for filing charge sheet against accused No.7-Sub-Registrar and accused No.14Data Entry Operator who is the staff at Sub-Registrar office which reveals there is no sanction order obtained while filing the charge sheet by the police against this petitioner-accused No.12. Even in the objection statement, the learned counsel for the respondent-State has not made any averment or produced any document to show that accused No.12 has involved in this offence. It appears that the name of this petitioner is inserted only on the

¶179

¶180

involvement and influence of the MLA without any material against accused No.12.

¶181

Learned Senior counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of various decisions for requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act as well as Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The respondent counsel has contended that the sanction is not required as the accused committed offence which is not forming part of discharging the official duty.

¶182

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indra Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in (2021) 8 SCC 768 has held at paragraph No.10 which is as under:

¶183

"10. We have given our thought to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Section 197 CrP.C. seeks to protect an officer from unnecessary harassment, who is accused of an offence committed while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties and, thus, prohibits the court from taking cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction of the

¶184

49

¶185

competent authority. Public servants have been treated as a special category in order to protect them from malicious or vexatious prosecution. At the same time, the shield cannot protect corrupt officers and the provisions must be construed in such a manner as to advance the cause of honesty, justice and good governance. (See Subramanian Swamy v. Manmohan Singh.) The alleged indulgence of the officers in cheating, fabrication of records or misappropriation cannot be said to be in discharge of their official duty. However, such sanction is necessary if the offence alleged against the public servant is committed by him “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty” and in order to find out whether the alleged offence is committed “while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty”, the yardstick to be followed is to form a prima facie view whether the act of omission for which the accused was charged had a reasonable connection with the discharge of his duties. (See State of Maharashtra v. Budhikota Subbarao.) The real question, therefore, is whether the act committed is directly concerned with the official duty."

¶186

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that if any offence committed which was not pertaining to the

¶187

¶188

official duty, then sanction is not required. The similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Saha and Others vs. M.S.Kochar reported in (1979) 4 SCC 177 , it has held that when the offence is committed in respect of dishonest and misappropriation, then the sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is not required. In the case of D. Devaraja stated supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a similar view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also taken similar view in the case of A.R.Antulay vs. Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Another reported in (1984) 2 SCC 500 and in the case of State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station vs. M.R.Hiremath reported in (2019) 7 SCC 515 . Though the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBI and Another vs. Thommandru Hannah Vijayalakshmi alias T.H. Vijayalakshmi and Another reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 923 in respect of quashing the FIR under P.C. Act case, but the same is not applicable to the case on hand against accused No.12 as he is not involved in P.C.

¶189

¶190

Act case and his allegation is only that he has helped the other accused in executing the sale deed. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law at paragraph 44 of the judgment by relying upon the earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and others in Crl.A.No.330/2021 , wherein it has held that quashing the FIR and complaint is exception, rather than the ordinary Rule. Here in this case, the police have already filed the charge sheet and absolutely, there is no material placed on record to frame any charges against accused No.12 for any of the offences shown in the charge sheet except some stray whatsapp messages between accused Nos.1 and 12. Even otherwise, accused No.5 being brother-in-law of accused No.12, and accused No.13 who is the brother of this petitioner, if he has consulted regarding draft sale deed, that cannot be a ground to implicate accused No.12 in the charge sheet and he can be used as a witness to the case rather than the accused.

¶191

¶192

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that the Whatsapp chat messages obtained under the RTI Act and inserted in the charge sheet, therefore, he has stated that the certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act is not required and that cannot be acceptable. When there is no direct ingredients to attract the offences under the P.C. Act or IPC Section against accused No.12, the question of obtaining sanction for the prosecution is not required under Section 19 of the P.C. Act or Section 197 of Cr.P.C.

¶193

The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Police prior to filing the charge sheet, could have made some preliminary enquiry to know whether there is involvement of this petitioner-accused No.12 in this offence, but no such exercise done by the Investigating Officer and directly made him as accused No.12 in the additional charge sheet only based upon the conversation held between accused No.12 and the de-facto complainant that accused No.12 told the de-facto

¶194

¶195

complainant and said to be threatened him for registering FIR against his relatives who are the other accused. Therefore, the de-facto complainant took the conversation recorded by him and given to the police, due to which, the police made this petitioner as accused No.12.

¶196

As I stated above, if accused No.12 is trying to tamper the witnesses, the Investigating Officer can register the separate case against him for attempting to tamper the witness or threatening the witness, but he cannot be made as co-accused in the main case. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajanlal and Others reported in 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, where a malafide and baseless allegation made against the accused, the court can invoke the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the court can quash the criminal proceedings as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajanlal's case (stated supra) at paragraph No.102(7) which is as under:

¶197

¶198

"102(7). Where a criminal proceedings is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge".

¶199

Therefore, I am of the view, the criminal proceedings against accused No.12 who is the petitioner in W.P.No.2071/2023 is liable to be quashed.

¶200

However, as stated above, accused No.5 was

¶201

the purchaser of the said property and the sale deed was executed by accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.9 M/s. Woodsville company and accused No.11 who is petitioner in W.P.No.3702/2023 has paid stamp duty through his bank account for the purpose of registration and accused No.13-an advocate, who is also brother of the accused No.11, approached accused No.7-Sub-Registrar, he is said to be paid Rs.50,000/- bribe for execution of sale deed and he was actively participated in the execution of sale deed

¶202

¶203

and if at all any bonafides, they shall take the same as a defence in the trial and there is sufficient material against them for framing of charges, therefore, the charge sheet cannot be quashed against accused Nos.11 and 13. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.11 and 13 are liable to be dismissed.

¶204

Accordingly, writ petition No.3702/2023 filed by the petitioner-accused No.11 and Crl.P.No.2317/2023 filed by the petitioner-accused No.13 are hereby dismissed .

¶205

Writ petition No.2071/2023 filed by the petitioneraccused No.12 is hereby allowed .

¶206

The Criminal proceedings in charge sheet against accused No.12 arising out of Crime No.356/2022 registered by Attibele Police, now pending in Spl.C.No.967/2022, pending on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections 109,

¶207

¶208

201, 409, 420, 421, 418, 423, 424, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 7(a), 7(c), 8 and 12 of P.C. Act, is hereby quashed.

¶209

Sd/JUDGE

¶210

CS/GBB CT-SG

Shri. Kishore Kumar. B. K. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Kishore Kumar. B. K. 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

Sri a B Eshwarappa Vs Sri B Shekar

Mr Rama Prasad Varun Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Irshad Khaliq Vs Mr. Suleman Shariff

Ningappa Vs Venkatappa

Ningappa @ Benal Ningappa Vs the State of Karnataka by

Smt Aruna Vs Smt Pramila Srinivas