Allowed

Mr. Naresh Babu v. the State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC3 Jul 2024CRL.P/3299/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Partners of a construction firm sought quashing of an FIR alleging impersonation and forgery in a Joint Development Agreement. The court found no specific allegation against them and held they need not verify witnesses' identities, quashing the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

FIR and consequent investigation in Crime No. 140/2020 against the petitioners quashed; interlocutory applications disposed of.

Mr. Naresh Babu Vs the State of Karnataka by — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:25107 CRL.P No. 3299 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3299 OF 2021 (482)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. NARESH BABU S/O. SRI. G. NARASIMHALU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS PARTNER - SLV CONSTRUCTIONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.9, 2^ND CROSS, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, NEAR LOGOS CHURCH, BABUSAB PALYA, KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶9

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

MR. YUGANDHAR NAIDU S/O. SRI. G. VENKATARAMAN NAIDU AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS PARTNER - SLV CONSTRUCTIONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.9, 2^ND CROSS, MALLAPPA LAYOUT, NEAR LOGOS CHURCH, BABUSAB PALYA, KALYAN NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. MAHESH S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25107 CRL.P No. 3299 of 2021

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE STATION BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶16

MR. JOSEPH VINUKANTH S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS AGE 50 YEARS R/AT NO.1/14, 1^ST FLOOR, MARIYA NILAYA, 1^ST CROSS, DAMODAR MODALIYAR STREET, HALASUR,BANGALORE - 560 008.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M. M., HCGP FOR R-1, SRI. B. KRISHNA GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U\NDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND ITS CONSEQUENT INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO. 140/2020 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDYARANYAPURA POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN FOR OFFENCES UNDER SEC. 419, 420 AND 120B OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE 41ST ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE CITY AND GRANT RELIEFS TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN.

¶20

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

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25107 CRL.P No. 3299 of 2021

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Respondent No.2 herein sent a 14 page e-mail to the Member Secretary, Additional Director General of Police of Grievances and Human Rights and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, North-East narrating his family trauma.

¶24

A reading of the complaint does not indicate any specific allegation being made against the petitioners. There are however statements to the following effect:

¶25

“Personal Appeal/petition requesting to resolve ‘a family crisis’,/Reporting on Instance of Criminal Offence – Illegal Impersonation and Intentional forgery – as per the guidelines of ‘Indian Penal Code’, injustice and physical torture meted to my Late elder Brother Dr.J.Sunu Dominic – leading to his death – x x x”

¶26

Apart from such vague and general allegations in respect of many things that transpired in the family of the petitioners, the complaint does not indicate the

¶27

commission of any criminal offence by the petitioners.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:25107 CRL.P No. 3299 of 2021

¶30

The learned counsel for the complainant, however, submits that a Joint Development Agreement was entered into by respondent No.2’s mother—Thara Sampson with M/s.SLV Constructions, represented by the petitioners herein (who were partners of the firm) and in this Joint Development Agreement, the signature of respondent No.2 is found as a consenting witness.

¶31

The learned counsel submits that the photograph of respondent No.2 found in the registered Joint Development Agreement is not that of respondent No.2 nor is the signature. He, therefore, submits that this was a case of impersonation and forgery, which respondent No.2 had sought to convey in his complaint.

¶32

He submits that this impersonation and forgery was obviously done at the behest of the petitioners who were the Developers, who took possession of the property and therefore, the criminal prosecution against them should be sustained.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:25107 CRL.P No. 3299 of 2021

¶34

If a Joint Development Agreement has been entered

¶35

into between the petitioners and the mother of respondent No.2, of which her two sons are signatories as the consenting witnesses, the petitioners cannot be alleged to have committed a crime of impersonation and forgery. There is nothing in the complaint to indicate that the consenting witnesses shown in these instruments were brought by the petitioners.

¶36

The fact that the photograph of the mother of respondent No.2 was also taken at the same time the photographs of her two sons were taken on the document would, by itself, clearly presuppose that the mother of respondent No.2 did not contend or did not even state to the petitioners that the persons, who had come as consenting witnesses were not her sons.

¶37

It is to be noticed here that the petitioners were basically entering into an agreement with the mother of respondent No.2, who was admittedly the owner of the property, and it was therefore not incumbent upon them

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:25107 CRL.P No. 3299 of 2021

¶39

to verify the identity of the sons of respondent No.2’s mother.

¶40

Therefore, the argument that the petitioners had impersonated the consenting witnesses cannot be

¶41

accepted. Hence, there is absolutely no justification for continuing the proceedings as against the petitioners.

¶42

In the result, the petition is allowed . The impugned proceedings as against the petitioners herein are

¶43

quashed .

¶44

In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

RK CT: SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

Mr. Naresh Babu v. the State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Naresh Babu v. the State of Karnataka by

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

Shri. Sujith Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K Abhinandan Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Kunhi Velayudhan Vs Smt Veena

Intellicomm Solutions & Enterprises Vs Itw Consulting Private Limited

Smt. Rangamma Vs Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd.

Sri Basavanagouda B P Vs State by Malebennur Police Station