Dismissed

Shri Chandrashekara Bhat v. State by High Grounds Police Station

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2023WP/42630/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

C/W Writ Petitions challenging registration of FIRs and investigation regarding alleged forgery and cheating concerning licence agreements for hoardings at Bangalore Palace. The High Court dismissed the petitions, allowing investigation to proceed and directing transfer of one case to another police station.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; Respondent No.1 directed to conclude investigation within two months; Cr.No.156/2017 transferred to RT Nagar Police Station.

Shri Chandrashekara Bhat Vs State by High Grounds… — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 42630 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

C/W

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 25552 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶9

IN WP NO. 42630/2017

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SHRI. CHANDRASHEKARA BHAT, (SRI CHANDRASHEKARA SWAMIJI) S/O. LATE SHRI. GOVINDA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIEST AND ASTROLOGY, RESIDENT OF NO.70, 8^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, RT NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. RAJANI C BHAT, W/O. SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR BHAT, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOMEMAKER, RESIDENT OF NO.70, 8^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, RT NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR M.S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE BY HIGH GROUNDS POLICE STATION, CHANDRIKA HOTEL CIRCLE,

¶18

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶19

VASANTHNAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 052.

¶20

MR. P. PANDIAN, THE GENERAL MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED PERSON, BANGALORE PALACE, VASANTHANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 052.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. C.K. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.156/2017 DATED:8.9.2017 FILED BY RESPONDENT NO-1 [VIDE ANNEXURE-A] AND FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND ETC.,

¶24

IN WP NO. 25552/2017

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SHRI. CHANDRASHEKARA BHAT, (SRI CHANDRASHEKARA SWAMIJI) S/O. LATE SHRI. GOVINDA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: PRIEST AND ASTROLOGY, RESIDENT OF NO.70, 8^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, RT NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶27

SMT. RAJANI C BHAT, W/O. SHRI CHANDRASHEKAR BHAT, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION:HOMEMAKER, RESIDENT OF NO.70, 8^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK,

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶29

RT NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶30

…PETITIONERS

¶31

(BY SRI. SHYAM SUNDAR M.S., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶32

AND:

¶33

MR. ASHRAF ALI, S/O. LATE SHRI. V.R. ABDULLAH, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.2, MLA LAYOUT, RT NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶34

STATE BY RT NAGAR POLICE STATION, RT NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 032.

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R2; SRI. S. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH COMPLAINT AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.2257/2017 BY THE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:18.02.2017 PASSED IN SAID PRIVATE COMPLAINT (AT ANNEXURE-A) REFERRING THE MATTER FOR INVESTIGATION WITHOUT BASIS AND IN VIOLATION OF THE LAW/ GUIDELINES OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA AND ETC.,

¶38

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

¶40

NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶41

ORDER

¶42

IN WP No.42630/2017

¶43

The petitioners were accused of offences punishable under Section 420, 447, 465, 471, 120(B) of IPC in Crime No.156/2017 registered by respondent No.1 on the information of respondent No.2 dated 20.12.2016.

¶44

The summary of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1, was that he was the General Manager and a person authorized to look after the property of Smt.Pramoda Devi Wadiyar, who inherited the property of late Sri. Srikantadatta Narasimharaja Wadiyar. Respondent No.2 alleged that the accused No.1 had addressed a letter dated 02.02.2014 to Smt.Wadiyar that Mr.Wadiyar had executed a licence agreement permitting him to erect and display hoardings in and around the Bangalore Palace and that he desired to discuss with her about it. In response to this letter, a reply was addressed through an Advocate for Mrs.Wadiyar, calling for a copy of the licence agreement referred above.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶47

Accused No.1 did not furnish the licence agreement. However, the complainant received summons in O.S.No.9189/2014 filed by accused No.3 which revealed that accused No.1 had purportedly entered into a transaction dated 18.07.2012 with Mr.Wadiyar by paying Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Fifty Lakhs only) and accused No.1 was authorized to put up 16 hoardings in the palace premises for a period of 15 years. The petitioners herein were stated to be witnesses to the said document dated 18.07.2012. Respondent No.2 alleged that he came to know that accused No.1 had entered into an assignment agreement dated 25.10.2013 with accused No.2 who, in turn, had entered into another assignment agreement dated 15.02.2014 with accused No.3.

¶48

Respondent No.2 claimed that he never knew of

¶49

any such agreement executed by Mr.Wadiyar. He claimed that the signature of Mr.Wadiyar appearing on the agreement produced by the accused No.3 in O.S.No.9189/2014 was not the signature of Mr.Wadiyar

¶50

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶51

but appeared to be forged or photocopied. He also claimed that in the affidavit filed in O.S.No.9189/2014, it was claimed that a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Fifty Lakhs only) was paid through cheques and later it was stated that it was paid through cash by producing copies of four forged receipts drawn by Mr.Wadiyar, which also were fake. He therefore, claimed that he had every reason to suspect that all the accused had misused their acquaintance with Mr.Wadiyar and had forged the two agreements and the receipts mentioned above.

¶52

In the meanwhile, accused No.3 had obtained

¶53

an order of injunction in O.S.No.9189/2014 which was later vacated by the trial Court. Accused No.3 thereafter, filed MFA.1143/2016, before this Court, which initially granted an order of status-quo. The accused No.3 by that time, had obtained an Interim Order in an arbitration proceedings initiated in A.A.No.57/2016 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru. Thus, he schemed to withdraw

¶54

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶55

MFA.No.1143/2016. This Court, in terms of the order dated 22.03.2016, allowed accused No.3 to withdraw the appeal but directed the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore to investigate the matter and submit his report to the Court where O.S.No.9189/2014 was pending. When the Police took up the investigation, accused No.1 challenged the investigation on the ground that he was not heard in the matter by filing W.P.Nos.29571-72/2016 (GM Police). This Court granted an Order of interim stay of further proceedings by the Police. Respondent No.2 was impleaded in the said writ petition, consequent to which

¶56

the Writ petition was withdrawn by accused No.1 on 22.11.2016. Respondent No.2 alleged that accused No.1 had set up accused No.6 and concocted another assignment agreement dated 30th April 2014 assigning the right to put up hoardings in the Bangalore Palace Premises to accused No.6 and that accused No.6, on the strength of the said documents, had filed another Arbitration Application No.448/2016 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore (CCH-32) for interim protection

¶57

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶58

restraining accused Nos.1 to 3 from interfering with the use of the hoardings. Respondent No.2 claims that all these documents were concocted by accused Nos.1 to 6 with the sole intention to illegally erect hoardings without the permission of Mr.Wadiyar. Thus, he claimed that the accused had all played fraud on the royal family. He alleged that the petitioners herein had conspired with all the accused to commit the offences of cheating, fraud, falsification of documents etc., and termed accused No.5/petitioner No.1 herein as the master mind behind the crime and that he had colluded with the other accused in bringing about the four fraudulent documents. Based on this, respondent No.1 registered Crime No.156/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 447, 465, 471 and 120(B) of IPC and took up investigation. The petitioners being arrayed as accused Nos.4 and 5, have filed this petition challenging the registration of the First Information Report as well as the investigation undertaken by respondent No.1.

¶59

9 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶60

Learned Senior counsel appearing for

¶61

petitioners contended that the documents which were produced in the suit in O.S.No.9189/2014 were yet to be proved before the Court and if the Court finds that the said documents are forged, fabricated or concocted, then the Court has the power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. He therefore, contended that unless the aforesaid stage is reached before the Civil Court, it is not prudent to permit an investigation by respondent No.1. He further contends that in an investigation conducted by the Income Tax Authorities against Mr.Wadiyar, he had stated categorically that he had executed the licence agreement in favour of accused No.1. He therefore, contends that until the civil suit is disposed of, respondent No.1 should be kept on leash and should be restrained from undertaking any investigation.

¶62

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent

¶63

No.2 submits that neither accused No.1 nor the accused

¶64

10 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶65

No.3 have produced the original licence agreement alleged to have been executed by Mr.Wadiyar. He contends that accused No.1 claimed that he had obtained such licence agreement after paying a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/(Rupees Seven Crore Fifty Lakhs only) some of which through cheques drawn on Vijaya Bank and that Vijaya Bank had confirmed that the cheques referred in the licence agreement had infact become stale and were not used. He therefore, submits that there is a doubt regarding the execution of the licence agreement in favour of accused No.1 and this needs to be investigated.

¶66

The learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that the information furnished by respondent No.2 did disclose cognizable offence but in view of the interim order granted by this Court, respondent No.1 could not undertake any investigation.

¶67

I have considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for petitioners and the learned

¶68

11 -

¶69

NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶70

counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶71

The complaint lodged by respondent No.2

¶72

before respondent No.1 contains colossal allegations leading to the fabrication of a licence agreement in favour of accused No.1 concerning putting up 16 advertisement hoardings for a period of 15 years in the Bangalore Palace premises. The licence fee was stated to be a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Fifty Lakhs only). The assertions made by respondent No.2 in the complaint discloses that the signature of Mr.Wadiyar found on the licence agreement did not appear to be his signature but were forged or photo copied. It is also alleged that certain cheques allegedly drawn by accused No.1 in favour of Mr.Wadiyar from M/s Vijaya Bank were found to be unused. It is also stated that even without realization of those cheques, receipts dated 07.04.2013, 29.06.2013, 14.08.2013 and 10.09.2013 were brought about to seem as if Mr.Wadiyar had acknowledged the receipt of a sum of

¶73

12 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶74

Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Fifty Lakhs only). It is stated by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that Mr.Wadiyar died on 10.12.2013. However, without his notice the accused No.1 seems to have conspired with accused No.3 in bringing about another licence agreement dated 21.11.2012 in favour of accused No.3 and thereafter, bringing about a licence agreement dated 30.04.2014 in favour of accused No.6 which all related to the erection of advertisement hoardings in the Bangalore Palace premises. Therefore, the point for investigation is whether the initial licence agreement dated 18.07.2012 was executed by Mr.Wadiyar or not. Though the learned senior counsel tried to postulate that until the City Civil Court decides about the enforceability of the licence agreement, permitting investigation of offences under Sections 468, 471 of IPC would be denying an opportunity to the petitioners and the other accused to establish their innocence, yet, when cognizable offences particularly of the nature mentioned in the complaint lodged by respondent No.2 is made out, nothing can stop the

¶75

13 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶76

investigation of the offences not withstanding the fact that the civil suit is pending consideration. It is also relevant to note that the suit in O.S. No.9189/2014 is filed by accused No.3 against (i) Bangalore Palace (ii) Wadiyar Investment Private Limited and (iii) Sri. Venkateshwara Real Estate Enterprises Limited, and not against accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6. Therefore, the City Civil Court cannot identify the role of accused Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 and accused No.3, who came later into the picture. It was alleged that accused No.5 was the kingpin in committing the offences alleged. These are questions that have to be investigated by respondent No.1 and cannot be disbelieved at the instance of the petitioners who contend that they are all innocent of the offences alleged against them.

¶77

In that view of the matter, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶78

Respondent No.1 is directed to commence and conclude the investigation as early as possible, at any rate

¶79

14 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶80

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶81

IN WP.No.25552/2017

¶82

The petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings in PCR No.2257/2017 by setting aside the order dated 18.02.2017 referring it for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the consequent proceedings in Cr.No.47/2017 registered by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Section 120B, 406, 468, 471, 420, 34 of IPC.

¶83

Respondent No.1 lodged a private complaint alleging offences by the petitioners punishable under Section 120B, 406, 468, 471, 420 read with 34 of IPC, which was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The summary of the private complaint was that the respondent No.1 was a realtor who came into contact with the petitioners through his friend. He alleged that the petitioners claimed that they were the family friends of Mr.Wadiyar. They represented that there was a business

¶84

15 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶85

opportunity in erecting hoardings in the Bangalore palace premises and that they would broker a deal with Mr.Wadiyar. He alleged that the petitioners introduced him to Mr.Wadiyar but did not raise the subject of licensing any person to erect hoardings in the Bangalore Palace compound. After a few days, the petitioners represented that they had discussed about the business opportunity and that Mr.Wadiyar agreed to lease out the land around Bangalore Palace to erect hoarding and that the licence fee was a sum of Rs.7,50,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crore Fifty Lakhs only) refundable after 15 years. Respondent No.1 alleged that though the petitioners were aware that they were making false promises, induced him to agree to enter into a licence agreement. He alleged that the cheques drawn by him for a sum of Rs.6,50,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crore Fifty Lakhs only) was not encashed but the petitioners collected Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore only) saying that Mr.Wadiyar was in need of cash. He alleged that believing the words of petitioners he paid cash of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore only) and cheques for

¶86

16 -

¶87

NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶88

Rs.6,50,00,000/- (Rupees Six Crore Fifty Lakhs only). After collecting the cash and cheques, though the respondent No.1 requested the petitioners to take him to Mr.Wadiyar but the petitioners postponed it on one or the other reason. The respondent No.1 alleged that on 19.07.2012, the petitioners called the respondent No.1 to their residence and handed over a document styled as licence agreement and informed respondent No.2 that Mr.Wadiyar had signed the agreement. They advised the respondent No.1 to sign it and after he signed, they retained the original and handed over a photocopy. He claimed that he tried to meet Mr.Wadiyar and appraise him but the petitioners came in the way and ensured that respondent No.1 did not meet Mr.Wadiyar. However, Mr.Wadiyar died on 10.12.2013. Later the respondent No.1 met Mrs.Wadiyar at Mysore and showed her the licence agreement handed over by the petitioners. Mrs.Wadiyar informed respondent No.1 that the signatures on the licence agreement were forged at the instance of petitioners. The respondent No.1 therefore alleged that

¶89

17 - NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶90

the petitioners had cheated him. When he confronted the petitioners, they evaded him and assured to arrange to sub lease the rights in favour of a third party and recover back the money paid. On their instructions, respondent No.1 sub leased the licence in favour of Mr.Madhu Acharya resident of Dakshina Kannada in terms of an assignment agreement dated 01.01.2014. As per this assignment Mr. Madhu Acharya had agreed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Five Lakhs only) every year and Rs.2,00,00,000/- (Two Crores only) that was given to the petitioners. Later differences arose between the respondent No.1 and Madhu Acharya regarding payments. Thus they both ended up in executing another agreement in favour of M/s. Diamond Publicities Company. The petitioners had also signed the agreement. The money paid by Diamond Publicities to Mr. Madhu Acharya was received by the petitioners. He referred to several litigations post the agreement executed in favour of Diamond Publicities. Thus in all he contended that the petitioners had cheated him. The private complaint was referred for investigation under Section

¶91

18 -

¶92

NC: 2023:KHC:39705 WP No. 42630 of 2017 C/W WP No. 25552 of 2017

¶93

156(3) of Cr.P.C. The petitioners are therefore before this court challenging the order of reference as well as the proceedings initiated against them.

¶94

The learned senior counsel for the petitioners urged the same contentions that were urged in W.P.No.42630/2017.

¶95

In view of the finding recorded in W.P.No.42630/2017, this petition also deserves to be dismissed.

¶96

However, it is noticed that two cases are registered before two different police stations in respect of the same crime. In view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in T. T. Antony Vs. State of Kerala (2001) 6 SCC 181 , the case in Cr.No.156/2017 registered by the High Grounds Police Station, Bangalore shall be treated as further information and shall stand transferred to R.T. Nagar Police Station and shall be investigated along with Cr.No.47/2017. For statistical purpose the case in

¶97