Allowed

Sri Vinod v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024CRL.P/5162/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Private complaint alleging sale of a non-existent site by the petitioner's deceased father; revision court directed cognizance. The High Court quashed proceedings against the son, holding a criminal offence is personal and cannot be prosecuted against one not born at the time of the offence.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed; order dated 19.09.2015 in Crl.R.P.No.25021/2015 and proceedings in PCR No.95/2010 against petitioner quashed.

Sri Vinod Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:12040 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5162 OF 2018

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. VINOD S/O LATE J. BALARAJ RESIDING AT NO.A 52, AJ BLESSINGTAN, RJ GARDENT, CHINNAPPANAHALLI, MARATHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560037.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. SHARATH S GOGI., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HAL POLICE REP. BY THE SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560037.

¶12

MAJOR THOMAS XAVIER S/O LATE MR V T XAVIER AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/A NO.57, 1^ST MAIN RJ GARDEN, ANAND NAGAR CHINNAPPANAHALLI, MARATHAHALLI POST, BANGALORE-560037

¶13

MRS KOMALA W/O RAMESH

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:12040 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018

¶16

R/A NO.58/A, 1^ST MAIN, R J GARDEN, ANAND NAGAR CHINNAPPANAHALLI MARATHAHALLI POST BANGALORE-560037

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1, SMT. PARVATHY R.NAIR AND SRI. UDITA RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2, SRI. MANU SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3.)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2015 PASSED BY THE LVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, BENGALURU IN CRL.RP.NO.25021/2015 AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE TRIAL COURT ORDER DATED 29.11.2014 PASSED IN P.C.R.NO.95/2010 (CR.NO.12/2011) BY THE X ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU TO TRANSFERRED XLIII ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU AND QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN P.C.R.NO.95/2010 IN CR.NO.12/2011 BY ALLOWING THIS CRL.P.I.A.NO.1/2018 FOR STAY.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶23

following relief:

¶24

Wherefore, the petitioner pray that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the LVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-57), Bangalore in Criminal Revision Petition No.25021/2015 and confirming the order of the Trial Court dated 29.11.2014 passed in PCR No.95/2010 in crime No.12/2011 passed by the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore and quash the complaint in PCR No.95/2010 in crime No.12/2011 by allowing the above petition in the interest of justice ."

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12040 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018

¶26

Respondent No.2 had filed complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in PCR No.95/2010 which came to be registered in crime No.12/2011 by HAL police station for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 464, 467,470 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶27

The allegation made in the complaint is that one Mr. Balaraj, S/o. late R.Joseph has formed layout in Survey No.27 of Chinnappanahalli Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and he sold site No.58/A to the father of the complainant namely Sri. V T Xavier. The said father of the complainant expired when the complainant was working in Army and he was away from Bangalore and did not know the details of the properties purchased by his father. Once he returned to Bangalore and when he examined the documents relating to the said land, then only, he came to know about the sale deed. On verification of the same, it is found that there is no such site bearing No.58/A in the said village in the

¶28

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12040 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018

¶29

name of his father and as such, the complainant filed a private complaint stating that there is nonexistence of site which has been sold by Sri. Balaraj, S/o. late R. Joseph to the father of the complainant.

¶30

The Magistrate Court by its order dated 18.09.2010 has referred the matter for investigation to the HAL police station. On investigation, the police have submitted a B-report and respondent No.2 filed a protest memo to the said B-report.

¶31

On hearing both the parties, the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint by its order dated 29.11.2014. The said order was challenged by respondent No.2 in Criminal Revision Petition No.25021/2015 which came to be allowed by order dated 19.09.2015 setting aside the order of the Trial Court and directed the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offences under Sections 420, 464, 467,470 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. Process having been issued in the said proceedings to the petitioner, the

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12040 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018

¶33

petitioner is before this Court challenging the said order.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation made in the complaint is only as regards late Sri. Balaraj S/o. R. Jospeh i.e. the father of the petitioner herein. The petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 was not even born when the sale deed was executed by the said late Balraj in favour of father of the complainant. No allegation is made against the father of the petitioner let alone against the petitioner and there being any intent or motive on the part of the petitioner and as such, no criminal proceedings would continue against him.

¶35

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that after the death of Sri. Balaraj, S/o.late R. Joseph, the petitioner who is accused No.2 is maintaining the layout formed by his father and knowledgeable about the sites formed in the said layout, the proceedings

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12040 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018

¶37

are therefore to continue against the petitioner herein.

¶38

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of records, essentially, the allegation made in the complaint is that the father of petitioner herein who has expired and the father of the complainant was has also expired, i.e. to say that, the second generation is alleged offences against the earlier generation. A criminal offence is personal in nature and even the sin of father if committed cannot be prosecuted against the son who had no role to play in the alleged criminal offence.

¶39

Though the Trial Court had dismissed the complaint accepting the B-report on the ground that civil dispute is pending, the Revision Court allowed the revision petition stating that despite civil dispute being pending the criminal proceedings would be continued. Having come to the conclusion that the petitioner was not even born at that time of alleged

¶40

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:12040 CRL.P No. 5162 of 2018

¶41

criminal offence being committed, which is neither considered by the Magistrate Court or Revisional Court. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner has to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following:

¶42

::ORDER::

¶43

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶44

ii) The order dated 19.09.2015 passed by the LVII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge in Crl.R.P.No.25021/2015 issuing of process 29.11.2014 as also the order passed in PCR No.95/2010 arises stand quashed.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sri Vinod v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Vinod 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Official Liquidator of Vs Mr S S Dahiya

Sri. Sudhir Prabhakar Ghate Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Magnum Intergrafiks Private Limited

Official Liquidator of M/S Magnum Intergrafiks Vs Sri Sudhir Prabhakar Ghate

Narasimha Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri S Balakrishna Jois Vs the State by the Police Sub Inspector

Sri Ashok Patil Vs State of Karnataka