Sri. E Shekar Vs Sri. B Umashankar

¶1

1 -

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶6

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.506 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SRI. E SHEKAR S/O LATE ESHWAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A #18, RAMAKRISHNA ROAD COX TOWN, BANGALORE.

¶9

2 . SRI D LINGARAJU S/O DODDALAKKAIAH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/A #38, GANIGARA LANE M B T TEMPLE STREET CROSS NAGARTHPET, BANGALORE-560002

¶10

3 . SRI P RAJENDRA S/O PILLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A #142, 12^TH CROSS BBMP LAYOUT, 1^ST STAGE BANGALORE-560029

¶11

4 . SRI GNANESHWARA S/O SHYAMARAO AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/A #214, R T STREET BANGALORE-560002

¶12

5 . SRI K VINODKUMAR S/O KUBILAL RANKA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A #35, GANIGARA LANE M B T STREET CROSS NAGARATHPET, BANGALORE-560002

¶13

2 -

¶14

6 .	SRI SURESHKUMAR @ SANJAY S/O SARUPCHAND, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/A #3, RAMANNAPET BANGALORE-560002
7 .	SRI RAJENDRAPRASAD S/O LATE HOTTEPAKSHA RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A #3, 7^THMAIN, SHANKARNAGAR NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560096
8 .	SRI RAMESH S/O LATE ESHWAR RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/A #169/1, 4^THMAIN ROAD 7^THCROSS, CHAMARAJPET BANGALORE-560018
		...PETITIONERS
(BY	SRI.BASAVARAJAPPA D R, ADVOCATE)
AN	D:
	SRI. B UMASHANKAR S/O LATE BANASHETAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/A #43, JUMMA MASJID ROAD CROSS M S LANE, BANGALORE-560002	...RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SMT.ANUSHA.M, ADVOCATE)

¶16

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 25.1.2017 PASSED IN CRL.RP.NO.135/2016 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED LI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-52) AND CONFIRMED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV ACMM, BANGALORE IN PCR.NO.1979/2014 DATED 02.02.2016 AND ETC.,

¶17

3 -

¶18

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.04.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶20

CAV ORDER

¶21

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 to 10 have filed this petition under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the order passed by the Sessions Court in Crl.RP.No.135/2016, directing the trial Court to take cognizance and register the case against them and proceeded in accordance with law.

¶22

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

¶23

In support of the petition, accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 to 10 have contented that the Sessions Court has failed to notice that complainant on his own has involved the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. The complaint is not supported by the affidavit as required under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The complaint is not maintainable in the light of

¶24

the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Reported in Priyanka Srivastava and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

¶25

4 -

¶26

and Ors. ( Priyanka Srivastava i)¹ . The Sessions Court ought to have appreciated the fact that complaint is filed to harass the accused persons by suppressing true facts and has played fraud on the Court. Accused Nos.8 and 9 are no more and the order is passed against dead persons and as such the entire proceedings is vitiated. There is no basis for the complainant to initiate the criminal proceedings. There is no cause of action. The dispute is purely civil in nature. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the complaint. It requires to be restored and pray to allow the petition.

¶27

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the decision in Sri.Sathya Sai Central Trust and Anr. Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.

¶28

( Sri.Sathya Sai Central Trust )² .

¶29

On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent/complainant submitted that a society by name Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power-looms) came to be registered in No.S-538, under the provisions of

¶30

1 (2015) 6 SCC 287 : AIR 2015 SC 1758

¶31

2 Crl.P.No.1422/2021 & connected matters Dt:22.07.2021

¶32

5 -

¶33

Mysore Society Registration Act III of 1904. It was represented by its President B.S.Shankarappa Shetty and Secretary Sri Y.R.Venkataramaiah. The association purchased Property No.48, measuring 39 into 28 1/2 feet, situated at J.M.Cross Road, Makkala Basavanna Temple Street, Bengaluru- 02 (for short property in question), from Shri B.N.Siddalingappa, and his family members, through Registered Sale deed, 10.04.1957, Registered at the office of the sub registrar Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. In the records of survey settlement and land records, the said property is standing in the name of the Mysore Silk. Off late, the said association became defunct. The Registrar of the firms, issued notice dated 19.10.1992, for not applying for renewal and also not submitting the list of the members as well as executive members of the association. However, no reply was sent to the said notice.

¶34

4.1 When things stood us, one Hottepaksha

¶35

Rangaswamy, who was the father of accused No.9 got registered an association by name, Silk Manufacturing Association, during 1999–2000, which is totally different

¶36

6 -

¶37

and distinct from Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power-looms) and has nothing to do with the same. On the basis of the said registration, the accused persons started claiming that the property purchased by the Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power-looms) belongs to them. They have fraudulently got transferred the Khata in their names.

¶38

4.2 Later, accused Nos.1 and 2 have sold the said property in favour of accused No.10 through registered sale dated 21.11.2011. Accused Nos.3 and 7 have attested the said Sale deed as witnesses. Accused No.8 is the king pin to all the above transactions. Accused Nos.4 to 6 claims to be the members of Silk Manufacturing Association. In the Sale Deed dated 21.11.2011, the accused have claimed that earlier Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Powerlooms) was not registered and therefore the members have got the association registered in the name of Silk Manufacturing Association, which is patently false.

¶39

4.3 In fact, after getting Silk Manufacturing Association registered, accused No.8 filed a suit in O.S.No.26457/2012

¶40

7 -

¶41

on 24.7.2012 against accused Nos.1, 2 and 10 for declaration that the Sale deed dated 21.11.2011 is void and non-binding and secured interim order dated 25.7.2012. Later within a week he got it withdrawn stating that the matter is settled out of Court. It is a collusive suit. By registering an association with the similar sounding name as that off Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power looms), the accused persons have laid a false claim over the property belonging to the said association and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 403, 199, 200, 405, r/w 120B of IPC.

¶42

4.4 The trial Court without examining the intention of the accused persons to grab the property in question had dismissed the complaint by holding that it is a civil dispute. However, the Sessions Court after examining all the aspects of the matter has rightly directed registering the criminal case against the accused persons and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶43

8 -

¶44

In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent has relied upon the decision in A.R.Antulay Vs.

¶45

Ramdas Sriniwas Nayak and Anr. ( A.R.Antulay )³ .

¶46

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶47

As evident from the documents produced before the trial Court, as per the Certificate of Registration dated 03.07.1946, an association by name the Mysore Silks Manufacturers Association, Bangalore City Limited, came to be registered under the provisions of Mysore Society Registration Act III of 1904. The Rules of the Association are also certified by the said authority. Through its President Sri B.S.Shankarappa Shetty and Secretary Y.R.Venkataramaiah, the association purchased suit schedule property from Sri B.N.Siddalingappa, his wife and minor children through Registered Sale deed dated 10.04.1957. Encumbrance certificate standing in the name of the said Society indicate that the property in question was transferred in favour of the Society and as on

¶48

3 AIR 1984 SC 718

¶49

9 -

¶50

25.09.2012, it was standing in the name of said Society only.

¶51

The information collected by the complainant under RTI Act indicate that after 05.05.1959, no balance sheet or list of committee members was submitted. The latest list of Committee members was up to 1958–59. It also indicate that a notice was issued by the Registrar of the Society on 19.10.1992. The property card is also standing in the name of Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power looms). The survey department property card is also standing in the name of Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power looms).

¶52

On 07.05.1999, an establishment called Silk Manufacturing Association came to be registered in Registration No.122/99–2000. Father of accused No.9 Late Hottepaksha Rangaswamy and others have signed the covering letter addressed to the Registrar of Society to register the said Association. The proceedings of the General Body Meeting dated 12.04.1999 is also signed by said Hottepaksha Rangaswamy in the list of the office

¶53

10 -

¶54

bearers and members. This Association has nothing to do with the earlier association i.e, Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power looms).

¶55

However, accused Nos.1 and 2 have executed Registered Sale deed dated 21.11.2011 in favour of accused No.10. In this sale deed, the vendors have traced their title through B.N.Siddalinga, Son of Lingappa, who was one of the vendors of Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power looms). However, in the Sale deed, it is stated that the said B.N.Siddalingappa has gifted the property in favour of his brother's, children Shivlinga and Siddappa represented by their guardian mother Rudramma through gift deed dated 19.12.1994. It is also stated that one of the brother Shivalingappa died and therefore the other brother became owner of the entire property. He along with his wife and children sold the said property in favour of Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power looms). It is further stated that Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power looms) was not registered and

¶56

11 -

¶57

therefore, its members are registering the same in the name and style of Silk Manufacturing Association.

¶58

Undisputedly, the Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power looms) was registered with the Registrar of Mysore Societies Registration Act III of 1904. Therefore, the averments that it was not registered is incorrect. There is also no material to show that the members of Silk Manufacturing Association has anything to do with the Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power looms). It appears only to knock off the valuable property belonging to Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power

¶59

looms), the accused persons have formed society and alienated the schedule property. A Rectification deed dated 20.12.2012 also came to be executed by the sellers.

¶60

It appears in order to have some Court decree in respect of schedule property, O.S.No.26457/2012 is filed in the name of Silk Manufacturing Association, represented by accused No.9 against accused Nos.1, 2 and 10 for declaration that the sale dated 21.11.2011 executed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in favour of accused No.10 is not

¶61

12 -

¶62

binding on the plaintiff and for consequential relief of permanent injunction. Later, the same was withdrawn as settled.

¶63

Thus, from the material placed on record, it is quite evident that even though accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 to 10 are not having any right, title or possession over the schedule property. In order to grab the same, they have concocted documents and used them as genuine. The Sessions Court after appreciating all these aspects has rightly held that there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused persons and accordingly gave direction to the trial Court to register the case and proceed with the matter. It appears during the pendency of the petition, accused Nos.8 and 9 have died. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the Session Court. Anyhow, the accused persons are at liberty to bring it to the notice of the trial Court and obtain necessary orders regarding abetment of the complaint against those accused.

¶64

In the present case, since the complaint was not referred to the concerned police for investigation, the

¶65

13 -

¶66

State has not come on record. However, it is necessary to bring to the notice of the State Government regarding the Mysore Silk Manufacturers Association (Power looms) having become defunct and that its property is available, so that it may proceed to claim the said property to the Government. In the result, the petition fails, and

¶67

accordingly the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 4 and 7 & 10 under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.

¶70

(ii) So far as petition filed by accused Nos.8 & 9 abates.

¶71

(iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through email.

¶72

(iv) Also, Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to take steps for claiming the property in question.

¶73

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶74

RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri. E Shekar v. Sri. B Umashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. E Shekar v. Sri. B Umashankar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. P. Boregowda Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Vasantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lingaraju B Vs State by Jalahalli Police

Smt Mani Vs State of Karnataka

Padbanab K B Vs the State of Karnataka

Cristin Cardoza Vs the State by Kolar Cen Crime Kolar