Partly allowed

Anthonappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2024CRL.P/7328/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed three petitions to quash FIRs and dismissed one, holding that multiple FIRs for the same cause of action were an abuse of process. The court directed the police to investigate the alleged cheating and forgery in a single crime.

What did the court decide?

FIRs 142/2022, 143/2022, and 144/2022 quashed; criminals to be investigated in single case Crime No.141/2022 by enquiring all complainants.

Anthonappa Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7328 OF 2022

¶7

C/W

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 7404/2022,

¶9

7559/2022 AND 7625/2022

¶10

IN CRL.P NO.7328/2022

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

1 . ANTHONAPPA

¶13

S/O CHINNAPPA,

¶14

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶15

R/AT BASAVAPURA VILLAGE,

¶16

BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶17

2 . ELIZABETH RANI

¶18

W/O PRABHU KUMAR PJ,

¶19

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶20

R/AT 4615/3, MUTTA ROAD,

¶21

BEGUR, ANEKAL BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,

¶22

BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶23

...PETITIONERS

¶24

(BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶25

¶26

AND:

¶27

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIMAVU LAYOUT P S, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶28

2 . MRS. SUNITHA RAJASHEKAR W/O MR. RAJASHEKAR K V, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.618, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, 8B MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDITIONAL SPP ALONG WITH; SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP FOR R1/STATE; SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶31

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.144/2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.466, 34, 120-B, 467, 471, 474, 426, 463 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE THAT IS HULIMAVU POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU.

¶32

IN CRL.P NO.7404/2022

¶33

BETWEEN:

¶34

1 . ANTHONAPPA S/O CHINNAPPA,

¶35

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶36

¶37

R/AT BASAVAPURA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶38

2 . ELIZABETH RANI W/O PRABHU KUMAR PJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT 4615/3, MUTTA ROAD, BEGUR, ANEKAL BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶39

...PETITIONERS

¶40

(BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶41

AND:

¶42

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIMAVU LAYOUT P S, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶43

2 . MR. SUDHEER BABU ATTE S/O MR. BALANNA ATTE, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.701, ANANDA VALMIARK DODDA KAMMANHALLI MAIN ROAD OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 076.

¶44

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDITIONAL SPP ALONG WITH; SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP FOR R1/STATE; SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶45

¶46

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.144/2022 ARISE OUT OF PCR.NO.8474/2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.466, 34, 120-B, 467, 471, 474, 426, 463 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE i.e., HULIMAVU POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ACMM, BENGALURU.

¶47

IN CRL.P NO.7559/2022

¶48

BETWEEN:

¶49

1 . ANTHONAPPA

¶50

S/O CHINNAPPA,

¶51

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,

¶52

R/AT BASAVAPURA VILLAGE,

¶53

BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶54

2 . ELIZABETH RANI

¶55

W/O PRABHU KUMAR PJ,

¶56

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT 4615/3, MUTTA ROAD,

¶57

BEGUR, ANEKAL BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶58

...PETITIONERS

¶59

(BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶60

AND:

¶61

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIMAVU LAYOUT P S, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶62

¶63

2 . MRS. SOWMYA SRIDHARAN AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NO. G1, GJ NEST 5, 23, LASHMANAPPA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 094.

¶64

…RESPONDENTS

¶65

(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDITIONAL SPP ALONG WITH; SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP FOR R1/STATE; SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE AND SRI. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶66

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.143/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.466, 34, 120-B, 467, 471, 474, 426, 463 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE i.e., HULIMAVU P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V A.C.M.M., COURT AT BENGALURU.

¶67

IN CRL.P NO.7625/2022

¶68

BETWEEN:

¶69

1 . ANTHONAPPA S/O CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/AT BASAVAPURA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 068.

¶70

2 . ELIZABETH RANI

¶71

W/O PRABHU KUMAR PJ, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

¶72

¶73

R/AT 4615/3, MUTTA ROAD, BEGUR, ANEKAL BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 092.

¶74

...PETITIONERS

¶75

(BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)

¶76

AND:

¶77

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HULIMAVU LAYOUT P S, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶78

2 . MRS. VIJAYA VARDHINI

¶79

AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 12, DEVINA FRAGRANCE GREEN GLEN LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 076.

¶80

…RESPONDENTS

¶81

(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDITIONAL SPP ALONG WITH; SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP FOR R1/STATE; SRI. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶82

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.141/2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.466, 34, 120-B, 467, 471, 474, 426, 463 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE THAT IS HULIMAVU POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU.

¶83

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.02.2024 THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

¶84

¶85

ORDER

¶86

Criminal Petition No.7328/2022, Criminal Petition No.7404/2022, Criminal Petition No.7559/2022 and Criminal Petition No.7625/2022 are filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIRs in Crime Nos.144/2022, 142/2022, 143/2022 and 141/2022 respectively, registered by Hulimavu Police Station, Electronic Sub Division, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 120B, 467, 471, 474, 426, 463 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶87

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 in all four cases.

¶88

The case of the prosecution in all these four cases are that respondent No.2 in all the cases have filed private complaint before the Magistrate and got it referred to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and in turn, the FIR was registered by the Police which is under

¶89

¶90

challenge. It is alleged by the complainant that accused No.1 was the owner of land in Sy.Nos.85/1 and 90/2 of Kammanahalli Village, Belur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru measuring 15 guntas and 2 acres 32 guntas where the accused No.1 got converted the land for non agricultural purpose as on 26.03.1993 and he has executed registered GPA in favour of one Subboji Rao on 9.8.1995 and the said Subboji Rao executed the sale deed in favour of Balakrishna Naidu vide sale deed dated 24.03.2004. Subsequently, the said Balakrishna Naidu formed the residential layout and sold to the complainants under the sale deed stated in the complaint. Subsequently, the Khata was changed in the name of the complainant, they are paying taxes and they are in possession of the sites. The site owners also formed an Association and got it registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 in the name of "Balaji Garden Pragati Owners Welfare Association". On 17.04.2021, they came to know that some persons had demolished the sewage drains formed in the layout and had levelled a portion of the land, hence, the complaint has been

¶91

¶92

filed to the police, the police have issued NCR stating that it is a civil dispute, therefore, the complainants have filed private complaint to the Court and in turn, it was referred to the Police and FIR has been registered which is under challenge.

¶93

The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended mainly on the ground that for one offence four FIRs were registered by filing four private complaints by the site owners for one cause of action and further contended that 17 civil cases were filed which is pending. The petitioners never executed any GPA in favour of Subboji Rao. Therefore, question of purchasing the site by the respondents does not arise. Accused No.1 was the owner of the land, he has gifted the land to accused No.2 who is the daughter and in turn, accused No.2 sold the property to accused No.3 and accused No.3 borrowed loan from accused No.4. The matter is civil in nature. There is no layout formed

¶94

by the Balakrishna Naidu. There is no sanction order. The sale consideration was given to the third party but not to

¶95

¶96

the land owners. Therefore, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶97

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents has seriously contended that once accused No.1 executed the GPA to Subboji Rao which is registered GPA and based upon the GPA, Subboji Rao sold the land to Balakrishna Naidu and the said Balakrishna Naidu formed the revenue land by obtaining permission from the Village Panchayath and sold the sites to the various persons including the respondent No.2 in these four cases. There is reference available in the sale deed which clearly reveals the property has been sold by accused No.1 through GPA holder. Therefore, with a criminal intention to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and in order to cheat them, accused No.1 executed the gift deed and in turn, accused No.2 executed the sale deed. The matter requires for investigation for forging or creating the documents or cheating the complainant. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶98

¶99

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader also objected the petition.

¶100

Having heard the arguments and on perusal of

¶101

the records, which reveals, accused No.1 executed GPA in favour of one Subboji Rao long back in the year 1995 itself and in the year 1993, he has converted the land into non agricultural purpose as per official memorandum dated 26.03.1993. Subsequently, the Subboji Rao sold the entire extent of land on 30.07.2004 to one Balakrishna Naidu and in turn, the said Balakrishna Naidu executed the sale deed in the year 2004 itself to various persons. Accused No.1 lost the right over the property way back in the year 1995 itself. By suppressing the fact, he has executed gift deed in favour of accused No.2 on 17.04.2008 and in turn, accused No.2 sold the same property to accused No.3 and accused No.3

¶102

said to be mortgaged the entire property with accused No.4 and borrowed loan for Rs.6 crores were all shows their criminal intention. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is purely civil dispute as contended by the learned counsel for

¶103

¶104

the petitioners. The intention of the petitioners is in order to cheat the site owners even though he has sold the property 10 years back and the sites were sold to the various purchasers, suppressing the fact, he has executed the gift deed in favour of his daughter-accused No.2 and in turn, accused No.2 sold the property to accused No.3 and accused No.3 mortgaged the property. Therefore, the matter requires detailed investigation by the Police.

¶105

Apart from that, though there are civil cases filed by the site owners which are all pending in the Civil Court and though the petitioners denied the signature in the GPA, therefore, if the signature found on the GPA and signature of the accused in the gift deed or any admitted signatures were required to be sent to the FSL for getting hand writing experts opinion, it will be helpful for both police as well as Civil Court for coming to the right conclusion. Therefore, matter requires investigation and the FIR cannot be quashed.

¶106

¶107

It is also brought to the notice of the Court that the respondents and other site owners have filed suit for easement right for ingress and egress to their sites from the adjacent owners where the portion of property said to be acquired for Mysore-Bangalore infrastructure corridor. Therefore, whether the compensation received by the accused or not are required to be investigated by the police and therefore, FIR cannot be quashed.

¶108

However, the another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that for same cause of action there are four cases registered. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarak Dash

¶109

Mukharjee & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 as under:

¶110

" 11. We have perused both the FIRs. The respondent no.4 is the first informant in

¶111

¶112

both the FIRs and the same are based on the same agreement for sale executed on 14^th June 2006. The allegation made in both the FIRs is the same. The allegation is that by practising forgery and fraud, the appellant no.1 has sold the subject property to appellant no.2 thereby deceiving the respondent no.4. The second FIR, which is the subject matter of challenge, was registered nearly four years after the first FIR was registered. The challenge to the first FIR is pending before the High Court. These aspects have been completely overlooked by the High Court in the impugned judgment.

¶113

12. If multiple First Information Reports by the same person against the same accused are permitted to be registered in respect of the same set of facts and allegations, it will result in the accused getting entangled in multiple criminal proceedings for the same alleged offence. Therefore, the registration of such multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the process of law. Moreover, the act of the

¶114

¶115

registration of such successive FIRs on the same set of facts and allegations at the instance of the same informant will not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. The settled legal position on this behalf has been completely ignored by the High Court."

¶116

Admittedly, the purchasers were filed four complaints to the Police and the police have given endorsement and registered the NCR and refused to register the FIR, therefore, respondent No.2 in all four cases have filed individual complaints before the Magistrate, the same was registered as four PCRs and same were referred to the Police for investigation. But the offence alleged against the accused was that accused No.1 gifted the property to accused No.2 and accused No.2 sold the property to accused No.3 by suppressing the GPA and sale deeds executed long back with an intention to cheat the site owners. The cause of action arose against the petitioners who are one and the same in all four cases for having executed the gift deed in

¶117

¶118

order to cheat the complainants. One cause of action arose against the accused for having committed the offence where there were more number of site owners were affected and the accused also one and the same. Therefore, registering four FIRs is not required which is nothing but registering multiple FIRs for the same offence or one cause of action. Therefore, other three FIRs and PCRs are liable to be quashed and permitted the Police to investigate all the matters as one offence and file the charge sheet by enquiring respondent No.2 in other three cases. Therefore, I am of the view, the Hulimavu Police can investigate in one Crime No.141/2022 and enquire all the complaints in other three cases and file the charge sheet in Crime No.141/2022 which is challenged in Crl.P.No.7625/2022.

¶119

In view of the above findings, the FIRs in Crime Nos.144/2022, 142/2022 and 143/2022 are liable to be quashed. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order:

¶120

¶121

The petition filed by the petitionersaccused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.7625/2022 (Crime No.141/2022) is hereby dismissed .

¶122

The petition filed by the petitionersaccused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P.Nos.7404/2022, 7559/2022 and 7626/2022 are hereby allowed .

¶123

The FIRs in Crime Nos.142/2022, 143/2022 and 144/2022 arising out of PCR Nos.8474/2022, 8475/2022 and 8476/2022 respectively, are hereby quashed.

¶124

The police are permitted to file the charge sheet in Crime No.141/2022 by enquiring with all the above said site owners-respondent No.2 and any other witnesses available.

¶125

Sd/JUDGE

¶126

GBB CT:SK

Anthonappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anthonappa 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

Rashmi J M Vs Chandru Arjundas

K S Anil Vs SHO Hanumanth Nagar

Mr Nithin Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Vasudevan Sathyamoorthy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Santhosh S S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. G.M Shivakumar Vs State of Karnataka