C Pattabi Raman Vs State of Karnataka

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY KRISHNARAJAPURAM POLICE Digitally signed by VIJAYA P BANGALORE-560 016 Location: HIGH COURT OF REP. BY SPP KARNATAKA HIGH COURT BUILDING

¶13

DR J RAMACHANDRA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O LATE SRI M JAYARAMA REDDY R/AT NO.3255, 13^TH CROSS, HAL II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 038 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1150 CRL.P No. 6533 of 2017

¶15

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS, ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE FIR FILED BY K.R. PURAM P.S. IN RESPECT THIS PETITIONER I.E. ACCUSED NO.6 PENDING ON THE FILE OF X A.C.M.M., MAYO HALL, BENGALURU IN CR. NO.227/2017.

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶17

ORAL ORDER

¶18

Petitioner being accused No.6 in Crime No. 227/2017 (PCR No. 52441/2017) of K. R. Puram Police Station, now pending on the file of the learned X ACCMM, Mayohall, Bangalore, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 416, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶19

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the private complaint in P.C.R.No.52441/2017 against accused Nos. 1 to 8 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 120B, 416, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC. It is stated that the father of respondent No.2 by name Jayarama Reddy died in the

¶20

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1150 CRL.P No. 6533 of 2017

¶21

year 1998. Inspite of the same, accused No.1 claiming to be the GPA holder of said Jayarama Reddy executed a GPA in favour of accused No.2, who in turn sold the property in question in favour of accused No. 3 under the registered sale deed dated 27.05.2006. Subsequently, accused No.3 concocted a document styled as Confirmation Deed dated 01.07.2013 by impersonating the deceased Jayarama Reddy. These documents dated 27.05.2006 and 01.07.2013 are concocted and forged documents and there was impersonation of deceased Jayarama Reddy. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the attesting witnesses to the said confirmation deed and accused Nos. 1 to 5 have committed the offences as stated above.

¶22

It is the further contention of the complainant

¶23

that subsequently, accused No.3 sold the property in question in favour of accused No.6 under the registered sale deed dated 02.08.2013. It is alleged that accused Nos. 6 and 7 have also colluded with other accused and have taken part in fabrication and concoction of the

¶24

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1150 CRL.P No. 6533 of 2017

¶25

documents. With these allegations, the private complaint in P.C.R.No.52441/2017 is filed. The trial Court directed the police to register a case and investigate into the matter. Accordingly, FIR in Crime No. 227/2017 of K. R. Puram Police Station, came to be registered. The petitioner being accused No.6 is before this court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶26

Heard Sri. S. Balakrishnan and Sri. P. Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 - State and Sri. Sagar B.B., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

¶27

In view of the rival contentions urged by the

¶28

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

¶29

“Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

¶30

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1150 CRL.P No. 6533 of 2017

¶31

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

¶32

R E A S O N S

¶33

Respondent No.2 filed the private complaint before the trial Court in PCR No. 52441/2017 against accused Nos. 1 to 8 making specific allegations. In the complaint, the only allegation made against accused No.6 is found in paragraph No.8 that he and accused No.7 conspired with other accused to defraud the complainant. Apart from this, there is absolutely no allegation against accused No.6.

¶34

The contentions taken by the complainant in the private complaint disclose that he is aggrieved by the sale deed dated 27.05.2006 said to have been executed by accused No.2 in favour of accused No.3 claiming to be the GPA holder of accused No.1, and further the confirmation deed dated 01.07.2013 said to have been executed in favour of accused No.3. It is stated that

¶35

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:1150 CRL.P No. 6533 of 2017

¶36

accused Nos.1 to 3 are responsible for concoction of these documents and accused Nos. 4 and 5 have also taken part in such fraud by attesting the confirmation deed, where there was impersonation of executant - Jayarama Reddy. Thus, there is allegation against accused Nos.1 to 5. Admittedly, accused No.3 who purchased the property from accused No.2 sold the same in favour of accused No.6 under the registered sale deed dated 02.08.2013. It is stated that subsequently, accused No.6 also sold it in favour of accused No.7.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

¶38

there is a civil suit pending with regard to the sale deed dated 27.05.2006 and the confirmation deed dated 01.07.2013. Under such circumstances, the parties can proceed to prosecute the civil suit. More over since there is allegation against the parties who have taken part in execution of sale deed dated 27.05.2006 and the confirmation deed dated 01.07.2013, complainant can

¶39

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:1150 CRL.P No. 6533 of 2017

¶40

proceed against them. Since there is no such allegation against accused No.6 who purchased the property from accused No.3, I am of the opinion that continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of due process of law. Hence, I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶43

(ii) The Criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner - accused No.6 in Crime No. 227/2017 (PCR No. 52441/2017) on the file of the learned X ACMM, Mayohall, Bangalore, for the offences under Sections 120B, 416, 420, 465, 468 read with Section 34 of IPC, is hereby quashed.

¶44

8 -

¶45

NC: 2025:KHC:1150 CRL.P No. 6533 of 2017

¶46

In view of disposal of the main petition, pending I.As. do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed off.

¶47

The observations made herein above is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and it shall not influence the trial Court where the civil proceedings between the parties is pending consideration.

¶48

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶49

VP

C Pattabi Raman v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C Pattabi Raman 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

Smt Priyadarshini Vs State of Karnataka

Krishna Kishore Kalluri Vs State of Karnataka

Maxworth Realty India Ltd. Vs K C Spoorthi

Sri D M Manjunath Vs Smt K S Anitha @ K S Lakshmi

Dr Prakash G C IAS Vs Sri Puttegowda

Syed Jamsid @ Khaseem Vs State of Karnataka