Venkatachalamurthy K R Vs State of Karnataka by

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALUR POLICE STATION SAMPIGEHALLI SUB DIVISION POLICE STATION THANISANDRA MAIN ROAD RK HEGDE NAGAR BENGALURU CITY - 560077 REP BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

¶23

VENKATARAMANA A S/O LATE JAYARAM MODALI @ JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO.15, 2^ND FLOOR, 4^TH C MAIN ROAD OPP AGRO CORN PRODUCT HEBBAL BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU - 560024

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI.LAKSHMAN B, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.SHREERAM T.NAYAK, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶26

CRL.P IS FILED U/SEC.482 CR.PC (FILED U/SEC.528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.259/2024 FOR OFFENCE P/U/SEC.419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 417 AND 120B R/W 34 OF IPC, WHICH IS NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13566 CRL.P No. 11465 of 2024

¶28

HONBLE COURT OF PRL.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BE QUASHED SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

The petitioners/accused Nos.11 to 15 have approached this Court challenging the registration of the FIR in Crime No.259/2024 for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 417, 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶33

Respondent No.2 lodged a First Information Report stating that he is the absolute owner of the subject property. Accused No.1, claiming to be the wife of one Venkataramana A @ Venkatappa, and Accused No.2, claiming to be his daughter, allegedly created a Release Deed dated 28.06.2021 by forging signatures and falsely stating that the complainant had died on 03.06.1989, despite being aware that the complainant is alive and that they are not his daughter and wife. It is further stated that the subject property was purchased in the year 2011. Subsequently, Accused Nos.1 to 10, in collusion with the petitioners-Accused Nos.11 to 15 obtained an order from

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:13566 CRL.P No. 11465 of 2024

¶36

the jurisdictional Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1407/2024 for the issuance of a Death Certificate, falsely asserting that the complainant had died on 06.08.2016.

¶37

Sri Y.R. Sadasiva Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioners-Accused Nos.11 to 15 submitted that the petitioners are the holders of the Agreement of Sale executed by Accused Nos.1 and 2, and Accused Nos.14 and 15 are witnesses to the Agreement of Sale. Therefore, in the absence of any direct or indirect evidence against the petitioners-Accused Nos.11 to 15 indicating their involvement with Accused Nos.1 and 2 in the creation of the Release Deed or in obtaining an order from the jurisdictional Court, the continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶38

In response, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 argued that the order from the jurisdictional Court was obtained on 01.06.2024, and the Agreement of Sale was executed by Accused Nos.1 and 2 in favor of Accused Nos.11 to 13 on 12.06.2024. Accused Nos.14 and 15 are witnesses to the Agreement of Sale. There is no specific overt act attributed to the petitioners-Accused Nos.11 to 15 indicating their conspiracy with the other accused in

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:13566 CRL.P No. 11465 of 2024

¶41

creating the Release Deed or obtaining an order from the jurisdictional Court.

¶42

Except for making general and omnibus allegations of collusion between these petitioners and the other accused, there is no proximity between the Agreement of Sale in favor of petitioners-Accused Nos.11 to 13, and the Release Deed allegedly executed in favor of Accused No.2 on 28.06.2021. In the absence of any direct or indirect evidence to substantiate the allegations against the petitioners-Accused Nos.11 to 15 the continuation of the investigation against them merely on the ground that they are Agreement Holders and witnesses to the Agreement of Sale would constitute an abuse of the process of law.

¶43

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶46

ii) The First Information Report in Crime No.259/2024 registered by the Bagalur Police Station, Sampigehalli Sub-Division, Thanisandra Main Road, R.K.Hegde Nagar, Bengaluru on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural District in so far it relates to the

¶47

6 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:13566 CRL.P No. 11465 of 2024

¶49

petitioners - accused Nos.11 to 15 stands quashed;

¶50

iii) The Investigating Officer to proceed with the investigation against other accused persons in accordance with law without being influenced by any observations made in this order and the observation made, if any, is only for the purpose of present petition.

¶51

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶52

NBM

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30

Venkatachalamurthy K R v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatachalamurthy K R v. State of Karnataka 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

Mr. Vijay Kumar Vishnu R., Vs the State of Karnataka

Jaffer Sharif Alias Naya Alias Nayaz Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Dinesh T S., Vs Sri Lokesh v L.

Sri H S Shashikiran Vs the State of Karnataka

Irfan Pasha T M Vs State of Karnataka

Sherwin Elvin Vs the State of Karnataka by