IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2920 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
V. LAKSHMINARAYAN S/O LATE H. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/O NO.36/2, 1ST FLOOR, PATALAMMA TEMPLE STREET, NEAR SOUTH END CIRCLE BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560 004.
... PETITIONER (By SRI.P.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR SMT.VIJETHA.R NAIK, ADV.) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA TRHOUGH JIGANI POLICE REP. BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 2. VINOD GURUPRASAD S/O LATE V. GURUPRASAD AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O NO.3, 5TH CROSS, 5TH MIAN, VIDYARANYAPURAM, BANGALORE-97.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R-1 Ms.GEETA R.SHIONDHE, ADV. FOR R-2) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.56/2016 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT JIGANI POLICE FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 193, 466, 120(B), 468, 420, 474, 191, 465, 192, 463, 120(A), 464, 415 AND 417 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN.) AND JMFC COURT ANEKAL, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1.
2. The petitioner has sought to quash the FIR registered against him in Crime No.56/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 193, 466, 120(B), 468, 420, 474, 191, 465, 192, 463, 120(A), 464, 415 and 417 of IPC.
3. Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint against the petitioner on 30.03.2016. According to the complainant, accused No.1-Santhosh.T.K, had executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of his father Sri.Guruprasad for carrying out developmental projects in an extent of 21 acres 9 guntas of land and his father had paid 60% of the amount to the tune of 1.40 crores vide cheques, Demand Drafts and cash. His father died in the year 2009. After the death of his father, he came to know that accused No.1 filed a Suit and in collusion with the petitioner herein (accused No.2) obtained a collusive decree and thereby have cheated the father of the complainant.
4. The allegations made against the petitioner, in my considered opinion, do not attract any of the criminal offences alleged in the FIR. According to the complainant, accused No.1 had executed Power of Attorney in the name of his father. On account of death of his father, the said Power of Attorney gets revoked. Even if it is assumed that the Power of Attorney executed by accused No.1 in favour of the father of the complainant was an irrevocable Power of Attorney coupled with interest, the proper remedy is available for the complainant to seek redressal in a Civil Court and not under the Criminal law. That apart as per the averments made in the complaint, the said Power of Attorney was executed in the year 2000. The father of the complainant lived nearly for about 9 years after the execution of the Power of Attorney. It is not forthcoming in the complaint, whether the said Power of Attorney was acted upon during his lifetime. Moreover, the execution of the said Power of Attorney does not prevent the executant or the principal from exercising his right in respect of the subjects covered in the Power of Attorney. All these issues cannot be adjudicated or decided by the Criminal Court. The claim raised by the petitioners is purely civil in nature which is required to be examined and decided only by the Civil Court and not by a Criminal Court.
5. Having regard to the nature of allegations made against the petitioners, in the fact situation of the present case, the recourse to criminal action is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court and hence, the said proceedings cannot be allowed to be continued. Even otherwise, the petitioner herein viz., accused No.2 was not a party to the above General Power of Attorney. If for any reason, the decree passed by the Civil Court is a collusive decree, remedy is available to the complainant to challenge the said decree before the Civil Court. As long as the said decree is in force, the complainant cannot raise any grouse on the purported contention that his father has been duped on account of the said decree. Therefore, I do not find any basis for the prosecution of the petitioner for the offences alleged in the FIR.
For the above reasons, the petition is allowed. FIR registered in Crime No. Crime No.56/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 193, 466, 120(B), 468, 420, 474, 191, 465, 192, 463, 120(A), 464, 415 and 417 of IPC, is quashed only insofar as accused No.2 is concerned.
The investigation shall proceed against accused No.1, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.