Mr Steevan Rajendra Sequeira Vs the State of Karnataka

MR STEEVAN RAJENDRA SEQUEIRA S/O LATE JOHN BASIL SEQUEIRA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/A PRAKASH BAKERY POST KINNIGOLI, MANNABETTU VILLAGE MULKI, MANGALORE TALUK-574150

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. ANANDARAMA K, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

REPRESENTED BY PSI OF MULKI POLICE STATION

¶17

NORTH SUB DIVISION MANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU-560001

¶18

MR WALTER STEPHEN MENDES S/O BASIL MENDES AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, MANAGING TRUSTEE BHARATH MATHA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:33959 CRL.P No. 8554 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

ST.LAWRENCE INDIAN SCHOOL KINNIGOLI, MANNABETTU MANGALORE-574150

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1)

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO 1) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.608/2023 (OLD C.C.NO.1798/2021) (ANNEXURE A) ON THE FILE OF COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MOODBIDRI, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406, 468 AND 420 R/W SEC. 34 OF IPC AND ETC.,

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICATATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 has sought for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against him in C.C.No.608/2023 (old C.C.No.1798/2021) on the file of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Mudabidri, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 468, 420 r/w Section 34

¶29

IPC.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33959 CRL.P No. 8554 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

In support of the petition, petitioner has contended that he has filed this petition, challenging the order dated 06.09.2021 passed by the trial Court taking cognizance in C.C.No.608/2023. He is also aggrieved by registration of Cr.No.40/2014 of Mulki PS and consequent charge sheet in C.C.No.92/2021.

¶33

While petitioner is accused No.2, his father is arraigned as accused No.1. He died on 03.06.2021. On the basis of complaint filed by respondent No.2, Cr.No.40/2014 came to be registered and after investigation, charge sheet is filed in C.C.No.1798/2021. After transfer to the Court of Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Mudabidri, it was re-numbered as C.C.No.608/2023.

¶34

It is contended by the petitioner that making false allegations respondent No.2 has filed a complaint against petitioner and accused No.1 and on the basis of the same, case is registered and after conducting investigation, charge sheet is filed. The same is liable to

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:33959 CRL.P No. 8554 of 2023

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

be quashed as it is bad in law, illegal and continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. The trial Court has failed to appreciate and apply its mind to the material placed in charge sheet. The entire accusations are against accused No.1, who died during the pendency of the investigation. There are no allegations against the petitioner.

¶38

The allegations against the petitioner are that he executed deed of surrender of lease dated 07.01.2014 in favour of accused No.1. The said document is registered and admittedly petitioner is a life trustee. The question whether the execution of the said document is illegal or not is purely civil in nature. Admittedly, the properties are owned by accused No.1 and as such the criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed. According to respondent No.2, he and accused No.1 met on 07.10.2013 and the alleged memo of understanding was executed on 08.10.2013. Admittedly, petitioner is not a

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:33959 CRL.P No. 8554 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

party to the same. There are no material to proceed

¶43

against him and hence, the petition.

¶44

In support of his arguments learned counsel

¶45

for petitioner has relied upon the following decisions:

¶46

(i) Usha Chakraborty and Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal and Anr. ( Usha Chakraborty )¹

¶47

(ii) Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. ( Delhi Race Club )²

¶48

(iii) Naresh Kumar and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. ( Naresh Kumar )³

¶49

On the other hand, learned High Court

¶50

Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 is the Managing Trustee of Bharath Mata Educational and Charitable Trust, which owns two schools in one Kinnigoli and one in Gurupura, Kaikamba. Accused No.1 J.B.Sequeira is the Chairman of the said trust. As

¶51

1 (2023) 15 SCC 135

¶52

2 (2024) 10 SCC 690

¶53

3 2024 SCC Online SC 268

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:33959 CRL.P No. 8554 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

per the supplementary trust deed dated 15.10.2013, the Administrative powers of the trust vested with the Managing Trustee, i.e., respondent No.2 Walter Stephen Mandis. As per the memo of understanding dated 08.10.2013, between accused No.1 and respondent No.2 it was agreed that respondent No.2 would become life trustee, for which he is required to bring in Rs.5 Crores to improve the facilities such as building etc., for the school. It was also agreed by accused No.1 to transfer his property in Kinnigoli and Kaikamba used for school purpose to the trust, which is clear in 5^th resolution of the trust dated 10.10.2014 and MOU 08.10.2013.

¶58

7.1 Accordingly, respondent No.2 began

¶59

developmental work such as playground for children, interlocks in front of the school, painting of the school, partitions of the class room, improvement of library, furniture to the school, various activities for the school children like inter-school competition, talent show, fancy festival, sports day, annual day, eye camp for parents

¶60

7 -

¶61

NC: 2025:KHC:33959 CRL.P No. 8554 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

and also conducted many PTA meetings, staff meetings

¶64

and appointment of new staff to improve the quality of teaching especially for science, maths and computer. As per the resolution dated 23.10.2014, for construction of the new school building, he has spent Rs.2,000 per square feet and already around 10,000 Sq.ft construction is made spending Crores of rupees. While the work was in progress, accused No.1 with the intention of cheating respondent No.2 without any legal authority wanted to sell the school. Therefore, he cancelled the lease deed on 07.01.2014 and also tried to sell the school, which is clear from the newspaper advertisements dated 06.03.2014.

¶65

7.2 As per the supplement deed and all other resolution, the complete management of the school/trust is rest with respondent No.2. The bank account is to be operated jointly by respondent No.2 and accused No.1. However, accused No.1 has not closed the earlier account and continued the transaction and thereby accused No.1

¶66

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:33959 CRL.P No. 8554 of 2023

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

has misappropriated upto Rs.20 lakhs, as a result salaries could not be paid to the staff. He has also illegally removed important documents of the school, including resolution book, which were in the custody of the Principal. He has also informed the Principal that he has manipulated the resolution book and illegally called staff meeting and gave threat to them. Along with accused No.1, his son i.e., accused No.2 is involved in criminal conspiracy. They have forged the trust resolution book and other documents. In this regard, respondent No.2 has filed complaint, based on which case is registered and after investigation, charge sheet is filed. Matter requires detailed trial to establish the allegations made in the charge sheet. Without providing opportunity to the prosecution, the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶69

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶70

9 -

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:33959 CRL.P No. 8554 of 2023

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

Thus, petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.2 is seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against him, contending that the entire allegations are against accused No.1, who is his late father and during the pendency of the criminal proceedings, he died and as such continuation of the proceedings against him amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

¶74

It is not in dispute that initially, Bharath Matha Educational and charitable Trust was run by accused No.1 and he was the President of the trust. Petitioner/accused No.2 is its life trustee. Respondent No.2 is the Managing Trustee of the said trust, which is running two schools by name Lawrence Indian School at Kinnigoli and Lady of Pompie at Gurupura of Kaikamba. They have entered into a memorandum of understanding dated 08.10.2013 and resolution dated 10.10.2013, as per which respondent No.2 has agreed to invest around Rs.5 Crores. As a result of the same, a joint account is

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:33959 CRL.P No. 8554 of 2023

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

required to be opened and it is to be operated jointly by accused No.1 and respondent No.2. However, it is alleged that the earlier account was not closed and on the other hand, it was being operated by accused No.1 spending more than Rs.20 lakhs belonging to the trust/schools.

¶79

As per the resolution dated 23.10.2013, already respondent No.2 has constructed around 10,000 Sq.ft by spending Rs.2,000/- per Sq.ft. As per the understanding between the parties, accused No.1 was to hand over land measuring 1 acre 14 guntas and 59 guntas to the trust/schools. However, accused Nos.1 and 2 have cancelled the lease unilaterally without the knowledge of other trustees. They have also attempted to sell the schools by giving advertisements in the newspaper. Even though on the face of it, the dispute appears to be civil in nature, in fact there are specific allegations of misappropriation of funds, criminal breach of trust and other allegations. After detailed investigation charge sheet is field. Unfortunately accused No.1 has died. There

¶80

11 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:33959 CRL.P No. 8554 of 2023

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

are specific allegation that petitioner is hand in glow with

¶84

accused No.1. The allegation made against the petitioner are required to be proved in full fledged trial. In the light of prima facie material to proceed against the petitioner,

¶85

the decisions relied upon by him are not applicable and the criminal proceedings cannot quashed. In the result petition fails and according, the following:

¶86

ORDER

¶87