Allowed

H G Ashoka v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Nov 2024CRL.P/5642/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC sought to quash proceedings for cheating. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the criminal case due to the civil nature of the dispute, remote likelihood of conviction, and the earlier quashing of co-accused proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned criminal proceedings in CC No. 1396/2018 pending with the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shimoga, are quashed.

H G Ashoka Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:46339 CRL.P No. 5642 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5642 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H G ASHOKA S/O ESHWARAPPA H G, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

¶9

SHYLAJA P W/O H G ASHOK, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.134, VEERABHADRESHWARA NILAYA, 1ST STAGE, 2ND CROSS, NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, VINOBHANAGAR, SHIMOGA-577201 NOW R/AT D BLOCK, K H B COLONY, 2ND CROSS, VINOBANAGAR, KALAHALLI, SHIMOGA-577 201.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. PRASAD B S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY JAYANAGARA POLICE STATION, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

SMT KAMALAMMA W/O LATE H G ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS, R/O SHARADHA NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR, NEAR SHUBHA MANGALA KALYANA MANTAPA, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYAN A., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. M V HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:46339 CRL.P No. 5642 of 2024

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 06.06.2018 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SHIMOGA IN C.C.NO.1396/2018.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners, who are arrayed as accused Nos. 1 and 2, are being prosecuted for offences under Sections 417 (cheating), 418 (cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue), and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

¶24

The second respondent (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) alleging that the accused, in collusion with other parties, forged her signature and fabricated lease and mortgage deeds to defraud her. The complaint was referred to the police for investigation under Section 153 of Cr.P.C. After conducting an investigation, the police submitted a ‘B’ report to the Magistrate, indicating that no substantive evidence was found to establish that the petitioners had forged or created the purported lease and mortgage deeds.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:46339 CRL.P No. 5642 of 2024

¶27

The complainant, dissatisfied with the police report, filed a protest petition. Upon receiving the protest petition, the learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and examined the documents presented by her. Based on this evidence, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners under Sections 417, 418, and 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶28

It is pertinent to mention that accused Nos. 3 to 11 challenged the criminal proceedings initiated against them by filing Criminal Petition No. 8491/2018 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 26.05.2022, quashed the proceedings on the ground that the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences without first deciding on the ‘B’ report submitted by the police. The Court observed that proceeding in such a manner was impermissible in light of the decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Dr. Ravikumar v. Mrs. K.M.C. Vasantha & Another (ILR 2018 KAR 1725), which held that a Magistrate must either accept or reject the ‘B’ report before proceeding with a protest petition and recording a sworn statement.

¶29

This Court further noted that accused No. 1 had initiated a civil suit against respondent No. 2 (the complainant) seeking partition and possession of the disputed property, and the suit was decreed in his favor on 03.03.2020. It was also

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:46339 CRL.P No. 5642 of 2024

¶31

observed that respondent No. 2 was arrayed as defendant No. 6 in the said suit but did not cross-examine accused No. 1 (the plaintiff) regarding the authenticity of the documents in question. This fact suggested that the core issue between the parties was civil in nature.

¶32

The Court concluded that the criminal proceedings appeared to be driven by an ulterior motive and were likely initiated to harass and exact revenge on the accused. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the process of law, as the likelihood of securing a conviction against the accused was remote and tenuous at best. Therefore, this petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order . Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶35

ii) The impugned proceedings in CC No.1396/2018 pending on the file of the learned IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shimoga, stands hereby quashed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶38

BKM

H G Ashoka v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H G Ashoka v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Gangamma Vs Sri. Anjinappa

Sri D R Devendra Raju Vs Sri S Rathinam

Sri. Dharmendra @ Subhash Vs Smt. C R Jyothi @ Yamuna C R

R Suresh Vs the Chairman and Managing Director

Smt. Pushpalatha Vs Can Fin Homes Limited

Smt Jayanthi Vs State of Karnataka