Dismissed

Manish Kumar Sethia v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024CRL.P/631/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought quashing of an FIR alleging he forged a GPA and agreement of sale to register properties in his name. The court found unregistered documents and property discrepancies making out a cognizable offence requiring investigation and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed and pending interlocutory applications disposed of as not surviving.

Manish Kumar Sethia Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:4752 CRL.P No. 631 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 631 OF 2024

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MANISH KUMAR SETHIA S/O DEVENDRA KUMAR SETHIA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.344/88, 2^ND FLOOR, 18^TH CROSS, 16^TH MAIN, MC LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. P.B.AJIT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY DODDABALLAPURA, RURAL POLICE STATION, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶12

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

SANJEEV NAHATA

¶14

S/O PRASANNA KUMAR NAHATA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, NO 155, 2^ND FLOOR, 18^TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 040.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. VENKAT SATYANARAYANA A., HCGP FOR R1/STATE; SMT. KEERTHANA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN DODDABALLAPUR P.S. IN CR.NO.0006/2024 FILED ON 04.01.2024 AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:4752 CRL.P No. 631 of 2024

¶19

DIVISION) AND JMFC COURT, DODDABALLAPUR, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 465, 468, 469 AN D471 OF IPC, 1860, REGISTERED BY THE DODDABALLAPUR RURAL POLICE STATION AND DISMISS THE COMPLAINT.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing FIR in Crime No.6/2022 registered by Doddaballapur Police Station, Bangalore Rural District for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 469 and 471 of IPC.

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on the complaint of respondent No.2 filed on 04.01.2024, the police registered FIR. It is alleged in the complaint that the complainant was the owner of the various properties in Sy. No.101 and other properties having purchased during the year 2013-14 and

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:4752 CRL.P No. 631 of 2024

¶27

2014-15. The petitioner said to be the cousin of the complainant. Even though the complainant had not executed GPA or agreement of sale, the petitioner said to be created the GPA or agreement of sale and got registered the properties in his name, and himself got executed the sale deed by manipulating the documents. Hence, prayed for taking action. After registering the FIR, which is challenged before this Court.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are the relatives. The petitioner has paid Rs.2,99,00,000/- to respondent No.2 towards sale consideration by way of RTGS mentioned in the agreement dated 27.08.2015 and the GPA was also executed on the same day. Since respondent No.2 has not executed the sale deed as per the GPA executed by him, it amounts to civil dispute and therefore, FIR cannot be registered.

¶29

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has seriously objected the petition and contended that respondent No.2 has not at all executed the GPA/agreement of sale. Till December 2023, the name of respondent No.2 was reflected in the RTC.

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:4752 CRL.P No. 631 of 2024

¶31

The petitioner himself created the documents. Even though the property situated at Doddaballapur, the petitioner got registered the sale deed at Ganganagar, which comes under the limits of Gandhi Nagar Sub-Registrar Office. The property situated at Yelahanka is not at all mentioned in the GPA or agreement of sale. Even otherwise, the sale agreement was executed in the year 2015, and for eight years, no action has been taken in respect of the offence. The matter requires interrogation. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

Learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶33

respondent-State has seriously objected the petition.

¶34

Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perused the records.

¶35

Respondent No.2 has admitted the relationship with the petitioner, however, denies the execution of GPA or agreement of sale. Further, the sale deed was said to be executed by the petitioner himself in his favour, on the basis of the said GPA. Admittedly, the sale deed was executed on

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:4752 CRL.P No. 631 of 2024

¶38

03.10.2023 at Gandhi Nagar Sub-Registrar Office. Item No.6 mentioned in the agreement of sale has stated that the property is situated at Doddaballapur, but the said property is situated at Yelahanka and therefore, the complainantrespondent No.2 has made out a case for investigation of the matter. Respondent No.2 submits that he has not at all executed the sale deed or GPA. Admittedly, both the GPA and agreement of sale are the unregistered documents. There is cognizable case made out against the petitioner for investigation. Therefore, the FIR cannot be quashed.

¶39

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶40

Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and

¶41

they are accordingly disposed of.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

CS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77 CT:SK

Manish Kumar Sethia v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Kumar Sethia 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Madhu. S. J. Vs State of Karnataka

H.R. Nagesha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Nagaraju M N., Vs the State by Holenarasipura Town P.S.

Sri Salman Saleem Khan @ Salman Ahmed Vs the Central Beurau of Investigation

Mr. Anand Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Nipun Bhandari Vs State of Karnataka