IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.852 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. SMT D S BRUNDAMMA W/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED 58 YEARS, 2. SRI KRISHNA REDDY S/O LATE N.HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED 63 YEARS, 3. SHASHANK S/O KRISHNA REDDY, AGED 23 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT NO.20, EAST END "D" MAIN ROAD, JAYANAGAR 9TH BLOCK, BANGALORE-560069.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: S.K. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE A/W B V MALLA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE BY BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION BANNERGHATTA, ANEKAL TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT.
2. SMT PAVITHRA W/O LATE S.SREENATHA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.102, "SRISHYLA NILAYAM", I FLOOR, 8TH CROSS, DOMLUR, BANGALORE-560071.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 N RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CR.NO.260/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, ANEKAL, BANGALORE BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in Cr.No.260/2015 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Anekal, Bengaluru Rural District.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1.
2. The above proceedings are initiated against the petitioners based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent. First petitioner is the sister-in-law of the complainant and petitioner No.2 is the husband of the first petitioner. Petitioner No.3 is the son of petitioner Nos.1 and 2. The allegations against the petitioners are that in respect of the property comprised in Sy.No.82/2 measuring 2 acres, 2 guntas of Banerrghatta Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, the petitioners herein fraudulently registered the said land in their names and are in possession of the said land and in respect of Sy.No.82/3 measuring 2 acres 3 guntas of Bannerghatta village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, the petitioners in collusion with each other obtained a collusive decree with intent to defeat the rights of minor son of respondent No.2/complainant. Further, it is alleged that the ancestors of the petitioners and respondent No.2 viz., Shankar Reddy had entered into an Agreement of Sale to purchase properties comprised in Sy.No.82/3 of Banerrghatta Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk measuring 2 acres 3 guntas with one Ajja Reddy. After the death of her father Shankar Reddy, petitioner No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of the said agreement in O.S.No.897/1995. In the said suit, the petitioner No.1 made a false statement to the effect that she is the sole legal heir of Late Shankar Reddy and accordingly obtained a decree in her favour and on the strength of the said decree alienated the said properties in various bits.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners’ submits that the suit for partition in O.S.No.244/1995 was filed during the life time of husband of respondent No.2. The son of respondent No.2 was aged hardly two years as on the date of the said decree. It was open for the minor to agitate his right within three years from the date of attaining majority. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature. Moreover, the son of the second respondent having filed a suit in O.S.No.5467/2015 for declaration and consequent reliefs in respect of the said properties, the criminal prosecution on the same set of allegations is wholly illegal and abuse of process of the Court. Further, with reference to the suit for specific performance, learned counsel for the petitioners firstly submits that the suit for specific performance of the aforesaid agreement in O.S.No.897/1995 was filed by petitioner No.1 in her capacity as nominee of Shankar Reddy and in her capacity as legal heir of Shankar Reddy- the original agreement holder. Therefore, there was no misstatement or misleading statement attracting the criminal offences alleged by the second respondent. Further, he submits that even assuming for the sake of argument that such a submission was made before the Civil Court in respect of the proceeding before it, in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C., only the Court should have taken cognizance of the said fact and in view of the bar contained under Section 195 Cr.P.C., the complaint could have been lodged on the direction of the Civil Court and therefore the initiation of the proceedings based on the above allegations cannot be sustained and is a sheer abuse of process of the Court and is liable to be quashed at the hands of this Court.
4. Refuting the submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 however submits that the allegations made against the petitioners squarely attract the ingredients of the offences narrated in the FIR. The fact that petitioner No.1 had made a deliberate false statement with intent to knock off all the properties of the minor son of the complainant is reflected in the copies of the documents produced before the Court as well as in the decrees obtained by the first petitioner, which manifestly establish the criminal intention on the part of petitioner No.1.The subsequent sale deed having been executed would only indicate that with intent to knock off the properties, the petitioner No.1 had resorted to criminal acts which require to be investigated and hence, there is no case for quashing of the said investigation at this stage. In support of his submissions, learned counsel has relied on various decisions viz., a. K. KARUNAKARAN vs. STATE OF KERALA reported in (2007) 1 SCC 59.
b. V.S. ACHUTHANANDAN vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER reported in (2007) 1 SCC 61.
c. STATE OF A.P. vs. GOLCONDA LINGA SWAMY AND ANOTHER reported in (2004) 6 SCC 522.
d. UMESH KUMAR vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in (2013) 10 SCC 591.
e. ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION, BANGALORE vs.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2013) 10 SCC 611.
f. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER vs. P.P. SHARMA, IAS AND ANOTHER reported in 1992 SUPP (1) SCC 222.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
5. Insofar as the allegations made against the petitioners with regard to partition suit in O.S.No.244/1995 is concerned, though it is alleged that a collusive decree was obtained by the petitioners and the husband of the second respondent, yet the fact remains that the said decree was not questioned during the life time of husband of respondent No.2/complainant and it is also an admitted fact that after the death of her husband, the minor son of the complainant instituted proceedings for declaration of his right and for cancellation of the said decree. Therefore, I do not find any elements of fraud or deception evident in the said case. However, insofar as the plaint submitted by petitioner No.1 in the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.897/1995, there is a specific misstatement made by petitioner No.1 to the effect that she is the sole legal heir of deceased Shankar Reddy. Though learned counsel for the petitioners has put forth a contention that the said suit was filed by her, in her capacity as nominee of Shankar Reddy, there is nothing in the said plaint indicating that she has sought for specific performance of the agreement in her capacity as nominee of late Shankar Reddy. On the other hand, the circumstances narrated in the plaint as well the facts reflected in various documents produced before the Court clearly indicate that Shankar Reddy has left behind the husband of the complainant as one of the legal heir. He died on 24.04.2014. There is nothing on record to indicate that the complainant had knowledge of the said decree until the date of death of her husband. Therefore, the contention urged by the petitioners that the dispute raised by the petitioners is purely civil in nature and adequate remedy is available to the son of the complainant to work out his remedy before the Civil Court, cannot be accepted. As the decree in O.S.No.897/1995 is obtained by making a patent false statement, in my view, the allegations made against petitioner No.1 attract the offences alleged in the FIR, which requires to be investigated. Hence, the FIR registered against petitioner No.1 cannot be quashed. However, insofar as the implication of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 is concerned, I do not find anything in the FIR or in the documents produced before the Court to come to the prima-facie conclusion that petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are involved in the alleged collusion or fraud alleged to have been played by petitioner No.1. The documents produced before the Court indicate that petitioner No.1 filed a suit as well as executed various sale deeds in her individual capacity and not on behalf of petitioner Nos.2 and 3. Specific details of alleged collusion or fraud by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are not forthcoming in the complaint and no supporting material is disclosed to prove their involvement in the alleged offences. Therefore, I am of the view that the implication of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in the alleged offences is illegal and an abuse of process of the Court. To this extent, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Hence, the following order:-
a. Crl.P.No.852/2016 is allowed-in-part.
b. The FIR registered against petitioner No.2 Sri. Krishna Reddy and petitioner No.3- Shashank(accused Nos.2 and 3) in Cr.No.260/2015 for the offences punishable under sections 408, 420, 468 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed.
c. Proceedings against petitioner No.1 shall be proceeded with in accordance with law.
In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.1/2017 for vacating stay does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-