IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8001 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI G JAYASHEEL S/O K GOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.340, SECOND B CROSS, 4TH MAIN, OMBR LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BENGALURU-560043 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: JAYAKUMAR.S.PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI: A.V.SRIHARI, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE HALASUR PS 2. SMT PADMAMMA @ RADHAMMA W/O K GOPALA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, 1ST CROSS, VENKATRAMAIAH LAYOUT, RAMMURTHY NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560043 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 SRI: K.V.SHYAM PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 27.04.2015 LODGED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X ACMM, MAYOHALL, BANGALORE AND QUASH THE FIR DATED 28.04.2015 AT ANNEXURE-B PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE X ACMM, MAYOHALL, BANGLAORE IN CR.NO.162/2015.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is the son of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint in Crime No.162/2015 before Halasur Police alleging that the petitioner herein being her son forged her signature on a General Power of Attorney and on the strength of the said Power of Attorney executed two gift deeds in his own name on 2.9.2014 relating to the immovable property belonging to the complainant.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the dispute raised by the second respondent is purely civil in nature. In an earlier proceeding, second respondent herself had executed power of attorney authorizing the petitioner herein to represent her in the civil suit and to conduct and manager the properties of the complainant. Later, in respect of the very same property, petitioner herein filed an injunction suit in O.S.No.5537/2015 and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw the said suit and to institute a comprehensive suit for larger relief. Further he submitted that the second respondent herself has filed a suit in O.S.No.4317/2015 seeking cancellation of the alleged General Power of Attorney and gift deeds. The mother of the second respondent also has questioned the title of the second respondent in respect of the very same properties in O.S.No.7659/2015. There are also several other suits filed by other persons relating to the very same properties. During the pendency of these proceedings, second respondent has also entered into a Joint Development Agreement in respect of the said properties and therefore, the dispute between the parties being purely civil in nature, initiation of criminal prosecution against the petitioner is wholly illegal and abuse of process of court.
3. Refuting the submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 however submits that the allegations made against the petitioner squarely attract the offences alleged in the FIR. Petitioner had left the house in the year 2012 and he was is not in good terms with respondent No.2; in order to knock off the properties of respondent No.2, he has forged signature of his mother (second respondent) and executed gift deeds in his own name. The nature of the documents executed by the petitioner prima facie discloses the criminal intention of the petitioner which clearly constitute the offences under 468, 471, 420 of Indian Penal Code. Pendency of the civil litigation has nothing to do with the alleged commission of offences. Suits are filed subsequent to registration of complaint and therefore, on the said ground, the impugned proceedings cannot be quashed.
4. Considered the arguments and perused the records.
The basic facts are not in dispute. The specific allegation against the petitioner is that he forged the signature of the second respondent on a General Power of Attorney and on the strength of the said General Power of Attorney executed gift deeds in his own favour. The very fact the second respondent has challenged this transaction by filing a suit for cancellation of the General Power of Attorney and gift deeds in O.S.No.4317/2015 indicate that without her authority, the documents have been executed in respect of the properties belonging to the second respondent. These allegations, in my view, prima facie attract the ingredients of the offences under sections 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code. No doubt various civil proceedings are pending against the petitioner, but pendency of the said proceedings do not absolve the petitioner from the criminal prosecution as the allegations made against the petitioner attract the ingredients of the offences. In my view, the above allegations require to be investigated. Therefore, I do not find any justifiable good ground to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Bss Sd/- JUDGE