Allowed

Suresh Kurub v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024CRL.P/201726/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by an accused, quashing proceedings for offences including conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. The court held that without material establishing the accused entered into a conspiracy to forge a will, continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings regarding the petitioner-accused No.5 in C.C. No. 1288/2022 are quashed.

Suresh Kurub Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3949 CRL.P No. 201726 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201726 OF 2023

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SURESH KURUB S/O SIDRAMAPPA KURUB, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, RESIDENCE OF KUDIL, NOW AT CHIDRI, TALUKA AND DISTRICT BIDAR-585 401.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH MARKET POLICE STATION BIDAR, NOW REPRESENTED BY THE ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585 103.

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

BASWARAJ S/O SHANKARAPPA MALGE, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE, RESIDENCE OF NAVADGERI, BIDAR-585401.

¶13

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. INAMDAR, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶14

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC-II AT BIDAR IN CC NO. 1288/2022 (ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 131/2012 OF BIDAR MARKET POLICE STATION) DATED 30.05.2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 166, 167, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120(b), 420, 447, 506 R/W 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER / ACCUSED NO.5 (AS PER CHARGE SHEET IN CONCERNED) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶15

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

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3949 CRL.P No. 201726 of 2023

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is filed by the petitioner - accused No.5 challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.1288/2022 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, at Bidar, for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120-B, 420, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶20

The summary of the charge-sheet is that FIR was lodged by the respondent No.2 - de-facto complainant alleging that the petitioner - accused No.5 is the niece of the de-facto – complainant and the petitioner - accused No.5 by forging the signature of his deceased grandfather created a WILL bequeathing the subject property in his favour and by virtue of the WILL, got his name mutated in the revenue records. The only allegation against the petitioner - accused No.5 is that at his instance the WILL was created.

¶21

The learned Magistrate after accepting the chargesheet took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶22

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner – accused No.5 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 – State.

¶23

The only allegation against the petitioner – accused No.5 is that at his instance the WILL was created. A reading of the

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3949 CRL.P No. 201726 of 2023

¶26

definition of conspiracy as defined under Section 120-A of IPC indicates that the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both. Direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available and, therefore, the circumstances proved before during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.

¶27

In the instant case, except the allegation that the WILL was created at the instance of petitioner – accused No.5, no material is produced along with the charge-sheet, that there is circumstantial evidence to establish that the WILL was created at the instance of petitioner – accused No.5. The petitioner - accused No.5 is neither a party to the WILL or beneficiary under the WILL.

¶28

In the absence of any material, the petitioner – accused No.5 had entered into an agreement with the other accused or connived with the other accused in creating the WILL, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate of the offence punishable under Section 120 (B) of IPC, is without any substance. Hence, the continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner – accused No.5, will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following;

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶31

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.1288/2022 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, at Bidar, for the offences punishable under Sections 166, 167, 465, 466, 467, 468,

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC-K:3949 CRL.P No. 201726 of 2023

¶34

471, 474, 120-B, 420, 447 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC, insofar as it relates to petitioner – accused No.5, is hereby quashed.

¶35

iii) It is made clear that the observation made in this order is relates to allegation made against the petitioner – accused No.5 and the learned Magistrate to proceed in accordance with law without any influence by observation made in this order.

¶36

In view disposal of main petition, the pending I.As. if any do not survive for consideration and hence, they are disposed of.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

bkm

Suresh Kurub v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kurub 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

Chandrashekar Vs Mr V2 Cargo Movers

K.S. Eshwaraiah Vs Divisionl Controller

Smt Rekha Vs Lokesh

Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivakumar Patil Vs the State through Yadgiri

Vittal Vs the State of Karnataka