Allowed¶53

Armin D Souza @ Arvind D Souza v. State by

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2025CRL.P/1097/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (M G Uma, J, 09.01.2025) allows S.482 CrPC petition by accused Nos.1-4; quashes FIR Cr.No.146/2021, Buntwala Town PS (ss.417, 420, 463, 464, 468, 471 IPC) - son's complaint alleging forged sale deed of mother's granted land, with no objection by executant and no civil suit filed, held abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Cr.No.146/2021 of Buntwala Town police station for offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 463, 464, 468 and 471 of IPC, on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Buntwala Town, quashed. ¶53

Armin D Souza @ Arvind D Souza Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

¶41

Court's answer

The mother of the complainant never raised any objection regarding the sale deed; she is not the complainant, and the first information rests only on her alleged oral statement to respondent No.2.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

Neither the executant of the sale deed nor respondent No.2 chose to file a civil suit to avoid the registered sale deed, which is in favour of accused No.1.

¶47

Key takeaways

Respondent No.2, who is not having any right over the property, filed the criminal complaint invoking the penal provisions by abusing the process of law.ratio¶47
The criminal proceedings against the petitioners are liable to be quashed.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 1097 of 2022, filed under S.482 CrPC by accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr.No.146/2021 (Buntwala Town Police Station) seeking quashing of the FIR dated 14.12.2021 for offences under Sections 417, 420, 463, 464, 468 and 471 IPC. The complaint by respondent No.2 alleged that the accused, taking advantage of his mother's advanced age and illiteracy, took her signatures on blank papers and concocted a registered sale deed dated 30.07.2018 over 6 guntas of granted land in Sy.Nos.83/24 and 93/25C1, Amtady village, without consideration. Held: the mother never objected to the sale deed and is not the complainant; the FIR rests only on her alleged oral statement to respondent No.2; neither the executant nor respondent No.2 filed a civil suit to avoid the registered sale deed; respondent No.2, having no right over the property, invoked the penal provisions by abusing the process of law. FIR and criminal proceedings quashed. (M G Uma, J; 09.01.2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:702 CRL.P No. 1097 of 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1097 OF 2022

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ARMIN D SOUZA @ ARVIND D SOUZA S/O ISSAC D SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT MAHALTHOTA HOUSE, LORETTO POST, AMTADY VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211.

¶10

JOYS MEBAL PERERA, W/O ALBAN D'SOUZA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT MAHAL THOTA HOUSE, LORETTO POST, AMTADY VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211

¶11

Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka

¶12

CHARLY D SOUZA, S/O LATE PATRIC D'SOUZA, AGED 48 YEARS,

¶13

R/AT ERYA HOUSE, MODANKAPU POST, AMTADY VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 211.

¶14

RESHMA GATTI C/O LATE VITTALA GATTY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT NANDAVARA HOUSE SAJIPAMUNNURU POST AND VILLAGE, BANTWAL TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA - 574 231

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY .G., ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:702 CRL.P No. 1097 of 2022

¶19

AND:

¶20

STATE BY BANTWALA TOWN POLICE, BANTWALA TALUK, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶21

SRI. IVAN WALDER, S/O LATE BERNARD WALDER, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT #16/1/4/17 EBOD APT, KALPANE ROAD, VAS LANE, BALMATA, KANKANADY MANGALORE TALUK, D.K. - 575 002.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. AMAR CORREA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶24

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.146/2021 DATED 14.12.2021 REGISTERED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.420, 417, 463, 464, 468, 471 OF IPC BASED ON THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY SECOND RESPONDENT AND THE PROCEEDINGS ARISING THERE FROM.

¶25

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 4 in Cr.No.146/2021 of Buntwala Town police station, on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Court, Buntwala

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:702 CRL.P No. 1097 of 2022

¶30

Town, are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 463, 464, 468, 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC').

¶31

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as complainant filed the first information against accused No.1 to 4 with Buntwala Town Police alleging that his mother is the owner of 6 guntas of land comprising in Sy.No.83/24 and 93/25C1 situated at Amtady village of Buntwala Taluk as the same was granted in her favour. The revenue records were standing in her name. The complainant being the son and other family members together were enjoying the property. It is stated that accused Nos.1 and 2 were intending to form a road adjacent to the land belonging to the mother of the complainant and finally they are successful in getting her consent. Taking advantage of her advanced age and illiteracy, the accused have taken the signatures of the mother of the complainant on blank papers and concocted a document styled as sale deed in respect of 6 guntas of land. Recently, when record of rights of the property in question were verified, the complainant came to know regarding the sale deed got created

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:702 CRL.P No. 1097 of 2022

¶34

by the accused. On enquiry, the mother of the complainant has informed that she never executed any such sale deed. Therefore, it is alleged that the petitioners taking advantage of the helpless condition of the mother of the complainant, got concocted the sale deed by forging the document, committed criminal breach of trust and cheating. Therefore, he requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, police have registered the case and took up investigation.

¶35

In the meantime, petitioners being accused Nos.1 to 4 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. The petitioners got the interim order staying the further proceedings in the matter and therefore, the investigation was not undertaken.

¶36

Heard Sri.Ravishankar Shastry.G., learned counsel for the petitioners. Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. and Amar Correa, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:702 CRL.P No. 1097 of 2022

¶39

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶40

learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶41

“Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

¶42

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the

¶43

following:

¶44

R E A S O N S

¶45

The facts of the case are that 6 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.83/24 and 93/25C1 situated at Amtady village of Buntwala Taluk was granted in favour of the mother of the complainant is not in dispute. Thus, she was the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the property. It is the contention of accused No.1 that mother of the complainant executed an absolute sale deed on 30.07.2018 and sold the property in question in his favour for a valid consideration. To evidence that fact, he has produced copy of the registered sale deed. It is stated that the mutation of the name of accused No.1 was effected in the revenue records and thus, he was in

¶46

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:702 CRL.P No. 1097 of 2022

¶47

possession and enjoyment of the property. But it is the contention of respondent No.2 that his mother never executed any sale deed. Taking advantage of her advanced age and illiteracy, the petitioners got concocted the sale deed by forging her signatures without paying any consideration amount. Strangely, the mother of the complainant had never raised any objection regarding the sale deed in question. She is not the complainant, who filed the complaint making any allegations. The only allegation found in the complaint made by respondent No.2 is that he enquired with her mother and she said that she has not executed any of those document, only based on such say of his mother, respondent No.2 appears to have filed the first information. Admittedly, the mother of the complainant was alive when the complaint was filed. It is stated that she is still alive. But neither the executant of the sale nor respondent No.2 chose to file a Civil Suit to avoid the registered sale deed, which is in favour of accused No.1. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that respondent No.2, who is not having any right over the property has filed the criminal complaint invoking the penal provisions by abusing the process of law. Hence, the

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:702 CRL.P No. 1097 of 2022

¶49

¶50

criminal proceedings against the petitioners is liable to be quashed.

¶51

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶54

(ii) The FIR registered against the petitioners in Cr.No.146/2021 of Buntwala Town police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 417, 420, 463, 464, 468 and 471 of IPC, on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Court, Buntwala Town, is hereby quashed.

¶55

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶56

BH List No.: 4 Sl No.: 13

Armin D Souza @ Arvind D Souza v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Armin D Souza @ Arvind D Souza v. State by

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

Smt. Lakshmamma Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivasa T R Vs the State

Mr. B. a. Dally Vs Sri. M. N. Janaki

Sri Jayaramu Vs State by

Sri a M Sridhar Vs Smt Parvathi

Kamal Burman Vs State of Karnataka