Allowed¶36

Smt Suma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Jan 2025CRL.P/10454/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No.10454/2024, Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), Suraj Govindaraj J., 21-01-2025; S.482 Cr.P.C quashing petition allowed; C.C.No.92/2018, II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM Mangalore; accused No.10 (wife of accused No.5, advocate) acted only as attesting witness to GPA and settlement deed; no motive or benefit shown in charge-sheet; offences Ss.406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120B IPC; proceedings quashed qua petitioner only.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C. No.92/2018 pending before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, D.K. District, insofar as the petitioner/accused No.10 is concerned ¶36

Smt Suma Vs State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C. No.92/2018 against the petitioner (accused No.10), whose only alleged role was attesting the General Power of Attorney and settlement deed as an attesting witness, ought to be quashed.

¶31

Court's answer

A perusal of the entire charge-sheet discloses no particular motive or benefit that accused No.10 received from attesting the GPA and/or the settlement deed; having been called upon only to attest the signature, no other allegations are made against her.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

The proceedings in C.C. No.92/2018 are quashed insofar as the petitioner/accused No.10 is concerned, and the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶37

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Bengaluru), single Bench of Suraj Govindaraj J., allowed Criminal Petition No.10454 of 2024 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed C.C. No.92/2018 (II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, D.K. District) insofar as the petitioner, accused No.10, was concerned. The proceedings were for offences punishable under Sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120B IPC. The only allegation against the petitioner, both in the complaint and the charge-sheet, was that she signed the General Power of Attorney and settlement deed executed by the other accused as an attesting witness; she is the wife of accused No.5, an advocate, and attested the documents in his office at his request. The Court found that the charge-sheet did not indicate any particular motive or benefit accruing to accused No.10 from attesting the GPA or settlement deed, and that no other allegations were made against her; on that basis the petition was allowed and the proceedings quashed qua the petitioner.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:2487 CRL.P No. 10454 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10454 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/ 528(BNSS))

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SUMA, W/O. YADUNANDANA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT. NEAR DOOMAVTHI TEMPLE, HOIGE BAZAR, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT-575 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MANGALURU SOUTH PS, R/BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶15

JAYAKUMAR S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT. NEAR VISHWAKARMA WOOD INDUSTRIES, RAM KIRODIAN LANE, ASHOKNAGARA, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:2487 CRL.P No. 10454 of 2024

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO.92/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, MANGALORE D.K. DISTRICT FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120B OF IPC, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶25

“To quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.92/2018 on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore D.K. District for the alleged offences punishable under 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471, 120B of IPC and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice”.

¶26

The petitioner is accused No.10 in CC No.92/2018 pending on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, D.K. District. The said proceedings have been initiated for the offences punishable under

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2487 CRL.P No. 10454 of 2024

¶28

Sections 406, 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120B of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

¶29

The only allegation, which has been made against

¶30

the petitioner, who is accused No.10, both in the complaint as also in the charge-sheet is that she signed the General Power of Attorney and settlement deed executed by the other accused as an attesting witness. She is stated to be the wife of accused No.5, who is the Advocate and she working along with him in his office at his request, has attested the General Power of Attorney and the settlement deed.

¶31

A perusal of the entire charge-sheet, does not indicate any particular motive and or benefit that accused No.10 has received from attesting the GPA and or the settlement deed. She having been called upon only to attest the signature, there is no other allegations, which have been made against the petitioner.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:2487 CRL.P No. 10454 of 2024

¶34

In that view of the matter, I pass following;

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶37

ii) The proceedings in CC No.92/2018 pending before II Additional Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mangalore, D.K. District insofar as the petitioner/accused No.10 is concerned is quashed.

¶38

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶39

AM CT-MCK List No.: 19 Sl No.: 6

Smt Suma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Suma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pundalik S/O Fakkirappa Uppar Vs the State of Karnataka

Napc Limited Vs the Executive Engineer

Sri Ramaling Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri T N Thimmarajachar Vs M/S Vishwabharathi House Building Co. Operative Society Ltd.

Sri Kanameni Chkradhara Reddy S/O K Bala Reddy Vs Sri G Eshwarappa S/O Marulappa

M/S L.O. Bamane and Sons Vs the Director