Allowed

Prakash M v. Smt Vijayalaxmi Ramesh

Karnataka HC27 Mar 2024CRL.P/9150/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C., holding that the private complaint was filed in violation of the Priyanka Srivastava guidelines which prohibit direct approach to Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. without first approaching police under Section 154.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.8588/2021 arising out of Crime No.36/2020 were quashed. Liberty granted to respondent to take further action as per law.

Prakash M Vs Smt Vijayalaxmi Ramesh — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12686 CRL.P No. 9150 of 2021

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9150 OF 2021

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

PRAKASH M S/O LATE MUNISWAMIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT 132, VISHWANEEDAM POST, HEROHALLI WEST EXTENSION, THUNGA NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 091.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. A.C. CHETHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

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

¶12

SMT. VIJAYALAXMI RAMESH W/O RAMESH D.V. AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 27, F-1, SRI VENKATESHWARA NILAYA, HENNUR ENCLAVE, GEDDALAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 077.

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY, BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. ASHRITHA A. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R 1; SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCPG FOR R2)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12686 CRL.P No. 9150 of 2021

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.8588/2021 ARISING OUT OF CR.NO.36/2020 REGISTERED BY SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU U/S.420, 504, 506 OF IPC NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ACMM, BENGALURU AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN.

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.8588/2021 arising out of Crime No.36/2020 registered

¶21

by Siddapura Police station, Bengaluru for having charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 420, 504, 506 of IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

The case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.2 filed a private complaint before the Magistrate in PCR No.738/2020 and the same was referred to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. In turn, the Police registered the FIR

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12686 CRL.P No. 9150 of 2021

¶25

in Crime No.36/2020 and subsequently they filed the charge sheet which is under challenge. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioner is not the owner of the property in question and some other person was the owner and in possession of the property. Knowing fully, the petitioner entered into the sale transaction with respondent No.2 and sold the property for Rs.31 lakhs and the sale consideration as per the sale deed is Rs.11,21,000/-. Thereby, the petitioner cheated the complainant and hence, the complaint came to be filed which is under challenge.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondent No.2 without approaching the police under Sections 156(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. directly filed the private complaint and got it referred to the Police which is violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶27

Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287 . Therefore, the very reference under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is not sustainable and registering FIR and filing charge sheet is also not sustainable. Hence, prayed for quashing the same.

¶28

¶29

NC: 2024:KHC:12686 CRL.P No. 9150 of 2021

¶30

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader seriously objected the petition and contended that the petitioner knowing fully is not the owner and in possession of the property. He has filed a suit against the third party seeking possession and declaration. Such being the case, they sold the property and received the money which is clear intention of cheating the complainant, therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition. However, in view of any observation made by this Court and violating the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava stated supra the respondent is at liberty to file fresh complaint to the Police.

¶31

Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, it is not in dispute that the private complaint filed by the respondent to direct the court which is registered under PCR No.738/2020. They have made various allegation and sale deed was executed by the petitioner by receiving Rs.31,00,000/- but shown as RS.11,21,000/- in the sale deed and he has stated willfully that he has executed the sale deed even though he is not the owner, he has filed the suit for declaration and possession against third party, which is

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:12686 CRL.P No. 9150 of 2021

¶33

pending. The Learned Magistrate after receipt of the complaint referred the same to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. as requested by the complainant in the prayer. In turn the police registered the FIR and charge sheet came to be filed, which is under challenge.

¶34

On perusal of the complaint, no where it is mentioned that the respondent No.2 approached the police for filing complaint under Section 154(1) of Cr.P.C. and they refused to receive the FIR, therefore, they approached the Higher Officers of the Police Authority under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. and thereafter they have filed complaint and got it referred to the Police. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava case stated supra, the party cannot directly approach the Magistrate for referring the complaint to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and meanwhile, there is no affidavit filed in this regard.

¶35

The learned counsel for the respondent also admits that they have not approached the police but directly filed the complaint. This Court in the case of Saritha Sekhar and others vs. State and Another in Crl.P.No7866/2022 and

¶36

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12686 CRL.P No. 9150 of 2021

¶37

connected matter, dated 18.5.2023 has held that the Priyanka Srivastava case is applicable with retrospective effect and the very basis goes route of the complaint and in the charge sheet, the FIR will not be sustainable and this Court quashed the criminal proceedings. In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is a clear violation of the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

¶38

Priyanka Srivastava stated supra. Therefore, the very reference of the complaint and registering the FIR and the charge sheet is not sustainable. Hence, liable to be quashed.

¶39

9. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed .

¶40

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.8588/2021 arising out of Crime No.36/2020 registered by Siddapura Police station, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶41

However, liberty granted for respondent No.2 to take action in accordance with law.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

GBB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18 CT:SK

Prakash M v. Smt Vijayalaxmi Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash M v. Smt Vijayalaxmi Ramesh

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

Srijayarame Gowda Vs Teh State of Karnataka

Boregowda Vs State by

Mr Aniruddha Mehta Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Paramashivaiah Vs Sri Basavaraja

Shri Gangadharappa Munindra Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. John C Menezes Vs the State of Karnataka