Allowed

H.Palaksha Reddy Gouda v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Jul 2024CRL.P/102545/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C for alleged forgery. The Court held that since the legality of the disputed sale agreement is sub judice in a pending civil suit, criminal prosecution would be improper and an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The petition was allowed and the entire proceedings in P.C.No.128/2016 were quashed, with a clarification that the order is fact-specific and not binding in civil matters.

H.Palaksha Reddy Gouda Vs the State of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9474 CRL.P No. 102545 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102545 OF 2019 (482)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

H. PALAKSHA REDDY GOUDA S/O. MARIBASAVANAGOUDA AGE: 85 YEARS, EX-PRESIDENT, PCARD BANK, SIRUGUPPA.

¶8

2 SHIVARAMAGOUDA S/O. H. PALAKSHA REDDY GOUDA AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, DIRECTOR OF PCARD BANK (PLD BANK), SIRUGUPPA.

¶9

3 CHANNAPPAGOUDA S/O. LATE BASAVARAJAPPAGOUDA AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC- AGRICULTURIST, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HATCHOLLI, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI DIST-583 201.

¶10

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E

¶11

(BY SRI J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA (THROUGH HATCHOLLI P.S.) BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT- DHARWAD-580008.

¶16

BEERAPPA S/O. LATE KURUBARA MARENNA AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. HATTCHOLLI, SIRUGUPPA TALUK, BALLARI DISTRICT-583 201.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R-2 SERVED)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C, PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT, ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS DATED 10/08/2018 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 IN C.C.NO.712/2018, ARISING OUT P.C.NO.128/2016 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/S. 420, 471, 465, 468, 447, 504 AND 506 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SIRUGUPPA, BALLARI DISTRICT.

¶19

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

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9474 CRL.P No. 102545 of 2019

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1 State. Respondent No.2-defacto complainant has remained absent.

¶23

Petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 3 have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the complaint, order of taking cognizance and issuance of process dated 10.08.2018 and entire proceedings against them in C.C.No.712/2018 arising out of PCR No.128/2016 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 447, 504 and 506 r/w 34 IPC.

¶24

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial court.

¶25

Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3, respondent No.1 is State and respondent No.2 is the defacto complainant.

¶26

Brief facts of the complainant's case before the trial Court is as under:-

¶27

It is the case of the defacto complainant that his father was owning agricultural property bearing Sy.No.204(A) measuring 2 acres 96 guntas situated at Hattcholli village,

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9474 CRL.P No. 102545 of 2019

¶29

Siruguppa Taluk, Ballari District and same was granted by the Government in favour of his father, his father was cultivating said land and he died on 28.03.2015. He has three brothers and three sisters and with their consent, he mutated the aforesaid land in his name. It is contended that on 05.05.2007, accused No.1, his son accused No.2 and accused No.3 created false agreement of sale in order to cheat de-facto complainant and used said agreement of sale as genuine document and by virtue of the said agreement of sale, they trespassed into the schedule property, intentionally insulted the complainant and also made criminal intimidation to eliminate him. Hence, on 08.12.2017, he lodged the private complaint before the trial court. Inturn, the jurisdictional magistrate referred the matter to the jurisdictional police for investigation and report under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Inturn, the investigating officer investigated the matter and filed 'B' report to the Court. Hence, the complainant submitted his objection to the 'B' report. Considering the material available on record, the trial court rejected the 'B' report, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences, registered the case and issued process against the

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9474 CRL.P No. 102545 of 2019

¶31

accused persons. Taking exception to the same, the petitioners have filed this petition.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioners' submitted that these petitioners have not committed any offences, as alleged by the complainant. Infact, the original grantee Marenna executed agreement of sale in favour of accused No.1. After death of Marenna, the defacto complainant created a false story and filed false complaint against accused Nos.1 to 3. In this regard, accused No.1 filed O.S.No.182/2016 against the defacto complainant for the relief of specific performance of the contract in respect of the schedule property. Therefore, the entire allegations made are civil in nature and the prosecution of the petitioners is definitely an abuse of process of law. Hence, he prayed to allow the petition.

¶33

Learned HCGP for respondent No.1 State contended that there is prima-facie allegations against these petitioners and alleged offences are cognizable in nature, which requires full fledged trial and hence, prayed to reject the petition.

¶34

Perused the material on record.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9474 CRL.P No. 102545 of 2019

¶37

As per the case of the complainant, his father never executed any agreement of sale in favour of accused No.1 and the agreement of sale is a created and concocted one. On the other hand, according to accused No.1, the father of defacto complainant by name Marenna executed agreement of sale in respect of schedule property in his favour. After death of Marenna, accused No.1 filed original suit in O.S.No.182/2016 for specific performance of the contract and the matter is pending before the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siraguppa, for consideration in O.S.No.182/2016.

¶38

From the perusal of the material available on record learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siraguppa framed issue No.5 in O.S.No.182/2016, which reads as under:-

¶39

"5.Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff colluded with Chennegowda have created alleged agreement of sale dated 05.05.2007 without signature of Marenna. Hence, the complainant created one more agreement on 22.10.2008 by forging and fabricating the signature of deceased Marenna as alleged in the written statement."

¶40

From the perusal of issue No.5, it clearly appears that the issue involved in private complaint and the original suit are

¶41

¶42

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9474 CRL.P No. 102545 of 2019

¶43

one and the same. Further, it shows that the allegations are of civil in nature.

¶44

Admittedly, the criminal complaint cannot be quashed only on the ground that the allegations made therein appear to be of civil in nature. Whether there was dishonest intention at the inception of entering into contract by accused persons has to be adjudicated in civil matters. Whereas in the instant case, an agreement was entered between accused No.1 and the father of defacto complainant, more particularly, the matter was probed by the investigating officer and in the investigation, the investigating officer opined that the case filed by the complainant is false. Accordingly, he filed 'B' final report.

¶45

The Court takes notice of the fact that as on date the parties are before the civil court. The civil suit being Original Suit No.182 of 2016 between the parties is pending wherein the contention of the complainant as a defendant No.1 is that no agreement of sale was executed by the father, whereas the contention of the petitioners herein as plaintiffs in the suit is that the agreement of sale had been executed by the father of complainant. The civil court is therefore seized of the question as regards the

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC-D:9474 CRL.P No. 102545 of 2019

¶48

legality and validity of the disputed agreement of sale. The matter is sub judice in the civil court.

¶49

At this juncture and more particularly in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it will not be proper to permit the criminal prosecution to proceed further on the allegation of the agreement of sale being forged. That question will have to be decided by the civil court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties in accordance with law. It would not be proper having regard to what has been highlighted by us to permit the complainant to prosecute the appellant on this allegation when the validity of the sale deed is being tested before the civil court.

¶50

While exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to be conscious that this power is to be exercised sparingly and only for the purpose of prevention of abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Whether a complaint discloses a criminal offence or not, depends upon the nature of the act alleged thereunder. Whether the essential ingredients of a criminal offence are present or not, has to be judged by the Court. A complaint disclosing civil transaction may also have a criminal texture. But the Court must see whether the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature is given a cloak of a criminal offence. In such a situation, if civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted, as

¶51

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9474 CRL.P No. 102545 of 2019

¶52

has happened in the case on hand, it is just and necessary to quash the criminal proceeding to prevent abuse of process of Court.

¶53

The Court refrains from expressing any opinion as regards the genuineness or otherwise of the sale deed in question as this question is wide open before the civil court. The civil court shall decide the civil suit pending between the parties on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence that may be led by both the sides. It shall be open to the civil court to take the opinion of the handwritings expert as regards the admitted signature of the father of complainant on the disputed sale agreement .

¶54

From the perusal of the material available on record, it appears prima-facie from the aforesaid complaint and other material particulars that accused No.1 and father of defacto complainant contracted with each other and after death of Marenna- the original grantee, the defacto complainant denied the very contract executed by his father. Infact, the police have investigated the matter and found that it was false case and accordingly, filed 'B' report. Therefore, there is no clarity even in the contents of the complaint as to application of offences alleged. Therefore, these aspects shall also be looked into while deciding the civil suit in O.S.No.182/2016 between

¶55

9 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:9474 CRL.P No. 102545 of 2019

¶56

the parties pending on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siraguppa, on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence that may be led by both sides. It is open for the civil court to take the opinion of the handwriting expert as regards the admitted signature of the father of the de-facto complainant on the disputed agreement of sale.

¶57

Hence, the petition filed by the petitioners' deserves to be allowed.

¶58

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶59

ORDER

¶60

The petition is allowed .

¶61

The entire proceedings in P.C.No.128/2016 on the file of learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Siruguppa, Ballari district is hereby quashed. However, it is hereby clarified that the order passed in this petition is in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the same shall not be cited as a precedent or binding in the civil matters.

¶62

Pending IAs, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

MN/CT-VR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77

H.Palaksha Reddy Gouda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H.Palaksha Reddy Gouda v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmikant Shankaregowda Goudar Vs the State of Karnataka Dharwad

Gode Gadlingappa Alias Kuntu Gadeppa S/O Lakshman Vs State of Karnataka

Mariya S/O Antoni Asangi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sangamma Urf Sangavva W/O. Shyamappa Pujari Vs Gangavva W/O. Sangappa Salagundi

The Manager, Vs Roopa W/O Bhuvanesh

Usha D/O Shankar Keni, Vs Shobha Shankar Keni