Allowed¶49

Venkateshalu K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Mar 2025CRL.P/1559/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of criminal proceedings; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; abuse of process; Sections 323, 420, 504, 506, 34 IPC; C.C.No.2762/2021; Crime No.127/2021 (PCR No.217/2020), Tavarekere P.S., Ramanagara; II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Magadi; earlier quash order dated 31.10.2023 in Crl.P.No.6719/2022 qua accused Nos.1 and 2; general power of attorney; Sy.No.28, Varthur, Narsipura Village, Tavarekere, Bangalore South Taluk; Hemant Chandangoudar, J; High Court of Karnataka, 21-03-2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.2762/2021, pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Magadi, Ramanagar District, insofar as they relate to the petitioners herein. ¶49

Venkateshalu K Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.2762/2021, pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Magadi, Ramanagar District, insofar as they relate to the petitioners herein.

¶49

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2762/2021 against the petitioners should be quashed as an abuse of the process of law. +1 more

¶45

Court's answer

Continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioners would be an abuse of process of law.

¶45

Ratio / Principle

The only allegation against accused Nos.3 and 5 was that they had accompanied accused Nos.1 and 2 at the time of the incident; except for that allegation, there was no other allegation of their committing the offence along with accused Nos.1 and 2 in deceiving the defacto complainant.

¶45

Key takeaways

The petition is allowed; the impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2762/2021, pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Magadi, Ramanagar District, are quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioners herein.ratio¶49
The Court clarified that it has not adjudicated the validity of the alleged power of attorney executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.4; the Trial Court in the pending suit filed by accused No.1 is at liberty to adjudicate the same without being influenced by any observations made in this order, and all contentions are kept open.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. (filed as S.528 BNSS) allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.2762/2021 (Crime No.127/2021, PCR No.217/2020, Tavarekere P.S., Ramanagara District) for offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC, pending before the II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Magadi, quashed insofar as they relate to the petitioners. The Court noted that accused Nos.1 and 2 had already obtained quashing of the very same proceedings by order dated 31.10.2023 in Crl.P.No.6719/2022 and connected matters, and that the only allegation against accused Nos.3 and 5 was that they had accompanied accused Nos.1 and 2 at the time of the incident, with no other allegation of deceiving the defacto complainant; continuance would therefore be an abuse of the process of law. The Court made clear it had not adjudicated the validity of the alleged power of attorney executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.4, leaving the Trial Court in the pending suit filed by accused No.1 free to decide the question uninfluenced by this order; all contentions kept open.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11936 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶4

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1559 OF 2025

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

VENKATESHALU K, S/O LATE B KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, 4^TH B CROSS, NEAR VINAYAKA TEMPLE, KAMAKSHIPALYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560079.

¶7

SIDDARUDA @ SIDDARUDHA M J, S/O JOGI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 5, 10^TH MAIN, 7^TH CROSS, NEAR HMR SCHOOL, JNANAJYOTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560056. (ADDRESS OF A5 WRONGLY SHOWN IN CHARGE SHEET)

¶8

…PETITIONERS

¶9

Digitally signed by PRAMILA G V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI MANJUNATH M R,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY TAVAREKERE P S, RAMANAGARA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

SHANKARAPPA CHINNIWALAR SHIVAKUMAR S/O SHIVAKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT 84, SUMUKHA 13^TH MAIN ROAD, 5^TH CROSS, MADESHWARANAGAR, PRASANNA LAYOUT, MAGADI MAIN ROAD,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:11936 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2025

¶16

BENGALURU DIST-560 091.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI RAHUL RAI - HCGP FOR R1 NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.2762/2021 FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 323, 420, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC REGISTERED BY TAVAREKERE P.S., RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, IN CR.NO.127/2021 (PCR NO.217/2020) SO FOR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, MAGADI, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

¶24

The petitioners who are common in this petition are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶25

The Defacto complainant in this petition lodged the FIR alleging that, accused No.1 though not the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.28 measuring 5 acres 14 guntas plus (3 guntas of Kharab) situated at Varthur, Narsipura Village, Tavarekere, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, executed power of attorney in favour of accused No.4 Ravikumar V., for dealing with the property to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.28. Accused No.4 in turn executed registered agreement of sale

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11936 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2025

¶27

in favour of accused No.5 who purportedly formed a residential layout in the said extent of 20 guntas and conveyed 48 sites measuring 30 feet X 40 feet to the de facto-complainant and others.

¶28

Though the sale deeds had been executed in favour of the defacto-complainant and others, accused No.1 and 2 came to the sites and objected to the enjoyment of the sites by the defacto complainants. Thereafter, accused No.1 to 4 colluding with each other hatched a plan to grab sites belonging to the defacto complainant by trespassing into the sites and when questioned, accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to have stated that the 20 guntas of land belongs to them. The police after conducting an investigation submitted the charges sheets.

¶29

The summary of the charge sheets is that, Accused No.1 purchased the land measuring 5 acres 14 guntas + 3 guntas Kharab land through a registered sale deed dated 31.03.2016 from M/s DLF housing Company, and thereafter the petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of accused No.4 on 16.02.2017 for an extent of 20 guntas, and in turn accused No.4 as a GPA holder executed an agreement of sale in favour of accused No.5 conveying 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.28. Thereafter the accused No.4 and 5 have executed registered sale deeds in favour of the defacto complainant and others conveying 48 sites measuring 30 X 40 for valuable sale consideration.

¶30

The accused No.1 after executing the power of attorney has conveyed the entire extent of land including the 20 guntas of land in favour of accused No.2 by executing registered gift deed dated 30.03.2017.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:11936 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2025

¶33

Accused Nos.1 to 5 in collusion with each other and with a common intention of cheating the defacto complainant after receiving the sale consideration are claiming that 20 guntas of land belongs to Accused Nos.1 & 2.

¶34

Accused Nos.1 and 2 had approached this Court in Crl.P.No.6719/2022 and connected matters challenging the very same impugned proceedings. This Court vide order dated 31.10.2023 quashed the proceedings insofar as it relates to accused Nos.1 and 2 by observing as under:

¶35

"12. An extent of 5 acres 14 guntas of land in Sy.No.28 was purchased by the petitioner-accused No.1 under the registered sale deed dated 31.03.2016 executed by M/s DFL housing Company represented by its partners. The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioner-accused No.1 has executed a power of attorney dated 16.2.2017 in favour of the accused No.4 to deal with 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.28 and the clause contained in the power of attorney discloses that the accused No.1 was entrusted with the responsibility to sell the portion of the land/ lease/mortgage the schedule property or in part and for on behalf of accused No.1 and to execute appropriate registered sale deeds and to receive sale consideration there upon.

¶36

13. In terms of the power of attorney granted, accused No.4 entered into an agreement of sale dated 28.3.2017 in favour of accused No.5. Perusal of the agreement of sale discloses that the 20 guntas of land was said have been conveyed to accused No.5 subject to certain terms and conditions for a sum of Rs.40 Lakhs out of which a sum of Rs.5 Lakh was received by

¶37

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11936 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2025

¶38

accused No.4, and the balance sale consideration was to be paid at the time of registration of the sale deeds in favour of accused N0.5.

¶39

14. In terms of the registered GPA and registered sale agreement dated 20.8.2017, accused No.4 as power of attorney of accused No.1 and accused No.5 as 2^nd party developer executed registered sale deeds in favour of the defacto complainants conveying plots measuring 30 X 40.

¶40

15. The case of the prosecution is that, the accused after having formed plots in 20 guntas of land have executed multiple sale deeds in respect of each of the plots to make wrongful gain at the expense of the de facto complainants.

¶41

16. Whether the GPA was created by accused No.4 cannot be gone into in these petitions, and the same can be adjudicated by the Civil Court in the pending suits filed by accused No.1 against the accused Nos. 4 and 5 for declaration and permanent injunction wherein it is alleged that the accused No.4 by forging the signature of accused No.1 had created power of attorney and thereafter, the said accused along with accused No.5 have fraudulently conveyed the plots to the de facto complainants.

¶42

17. The accused No.4 under the alleged GPA was authorized to deal with 20 guntas of land, however it is alleged that the accused No.4 and 5 have executed multiple sale deeds in respect of each plot. In the absence of any material that the petitioners connived with the accused No.4 and 5 to cheat the defacto complainant, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for any act of Accused No.4 if he has exceeded the authority

¶43

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11936 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2025

¶44

give, since they are neither the parties nor the signatories to the sale deeds. "

¶45

The only allegation against accused Nos.3 and 5 is that they had accompanied accused Nos.1 and 2 at the time of the incident and except the said allegation, there is no other allegations of having committed the offence along with accused Nos.1 and 2 in deceiving the defacto complainant. Under such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceeding will be an abuse of process of law.

¶46

Hence, the following:

¶47

ORDER

¶48

i. The petition is allowed .

¶49

ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.2762/2021, pending on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge and J.M.F.C, Magadi, Ramanagar District insofar it relates to petitioners herein, are hereby quashed.

¶50

It is made clear, this Court has not adjudicated the validity of the alleged power of attorney executed by accused No.1 in favour of accused No.4, and the Trial Court in pending suit filed by the accused No.1 is at liberty to adjudicate the same without being influenced by any observations made in this order, and the observation made, if any, is only for the purpose of the present petition.

¶51

All contentions are kept open.

¶52

Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶53

GVP/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Entire proceedings in C.C.No.2762/2021 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 420, 504, 506 and 34 IPC, registered by Tavarekere P.S., Ramanagara District in Cr.No.127/2021 (PCR No.217/2020), pending before the 2nd Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Magadi, Ramanagara District; sought to be quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.¶19
2nd Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Magadi, Ramanagara District
Prior proceeding
De facto complainant lodged the FIR alleging that accused No.1, though not the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.28 (5 acres 14 guntas plus 3 guntas Kharab at Varthur, Narsipura Village, Tavarekere), executed a power of attorney in favour of accused No.4 for 20 guntas; accused No.4 executed a registered agreement of sale in favour of accused No.5, who purportedly formed a residential layout and conveyed 48 sites measuring 30 feet x 40 feet to the de facto complainant and others.¶25
Prior proceeding
Case of the prosecution as per the chargesheet summary: accused No.1 purchased 5 acres 14 guntas + 3 guntas Kharab from M/s DLF Housing Company by registered sale deed dated 31.03.2016; a power of attorney was executed in favour of accused No.4 on 16.02.2017 for 20 guntas; accused No.4 as GPA holder conveyed the land to accused No.5; accused Nos.4 and 5 executed registered sale deeds conveying 48 sites (30 x 40) to the defacto complainants; accused No.1 later conveyed the entire extent including the 20 guntas to accused No.2 by registered gift deed dated 30.03.2017.¶29
Prior proceeding
Police conducted an investigation and submitted the chargesheet(s).¶28
Prior proceeding
Accused Nos.1 and 2 had earlier challenged the very same impugned proceedings in Crl.P.No.6719/2022 and connected matters; this Court, by order dated 31.10.2023, quashed the proceedings insofar as they related to accused Nos.1 and 2.¶34
Prior proceeding
Civil suits are pending before the Civil Court, filed by accused No.1 against accused Nos.4 and 5 for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein it is alleged that accused No.4 forged the signature of accused No.1 to create the power of attorney.¶41

Venkateshalu K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkateshalu K v. the 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

Santhosh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Tippeswamy Vs State by

Can Fin Homes Limited Vs Inspector of Police and Station House Officer

Mubarak @ Mubbu @ Thofik Noree Vs State of Karnataka

Venkateshalu K Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Yogendra Mahara Vs State of Karnataka