Criminal Petition No. 3616 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3616 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. SHEELA GOPAL WIFE OF LATE SHRI. GOPAL RAMNARAYAN AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.21, 2ND FLOOR, RAMAKRIPA, BENSON CROSS ROAD, OFF MILLERS ROAD, BENSON TOWN, BENGALURU-560046. (BY SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT KARNATAKA AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KOTHANUR P.S. BANGALORE - 560077 REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. 2. MR. ANILKUMAR AROLIKAR S/O SIDRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, TAHASILDAR, YELAHANKA, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064. (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT (ANNEXURE-A) AND FIR CRIME NO.356/2023 (ANNEXURE-B) FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AT KOTHANUR POLICE STATION, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF 11TH ADDL. C.M.M COURT, MAYOHALL, BENGALURU CITY FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 419 (PUNISHMENT FOR (CHEATING AND CHEATING BY PERSONATION), 420 DISONESTLY INDUCING DELIVERY OF PROPERTY), SECTION 465 (PUNISHMENT FOR FORGERY), SECTION 468 (FORGERY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHEATING) SECTION 470 (FORGED DOCUMENT) AND SECTION 471 (USING AS GENUINE A FORGED DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD) OF IPC, 1860. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER In this petition the petitioner seeks for quashing the impugned complaint (Annexure-A) and FIR registered in Cr.No.356/2023 filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 470 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short referred to 'IPC'). 2. Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on record. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that pursuant to a complaint dated 19.12.2023 filed by the
Facts
respondent No.2 against the petitioner a FIR in Cr.No.356/2023 was registered against the petitioner for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 470 and 471 of IPC. 4. It was specifically alleged in the complaint that the petitioner had fabricated certain documents so as to indicate that his vendor - Muniyappa has obtained necessary permission from the competent authority for the purpose of selling the subject property in favour of the petitioner under the provisions of the The Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (for short referred to as 'PTCL Act') which was granted in favour of the vendor on 22.07.2014. Aggrieved by the impugned complaint and FIR, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and submit that the respondent No.2/Tahsildar who is said to have filed a complaint at the instance of a 3rd party/Sangha, who had - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 no nexus of connection whatsoever with either the petitioner or his vendor. In this context, it is pointed out that sale transaction in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 03.12.2014 was preceded by an order dated 22.07.2014 passed by the competent authority of the State Government granting permission in favour of the petitioner's vendor to sell the property in favour of the petitioner. 6. It is also submitted that the petitioner's vendor did not chose to file any police complaint or a private complaint making any allegations against the petitioner. On the other hand, the said vendor initiated proceedings under the PTCL Act which culminated in faovur of the petitioner vide final order dated 20.11.2024 passed in W.P.No.29578/2024 c/w W.P.No.3402/2024. It is therefore, submitted that in the light of the transaction between the petitioner and his vendor including the question as to obtaining of permission by Muniyappa - vendor of the petitioner having attained finality, the present proceedings deserves to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 8. A perusal of the complaint would indicate that the main allegation made against the petitioner is that the sale permission granted in favour of the petitioner's vendor on 22.07.2014 prior to the said vendor - Muniyappa selling the subject property in favour of the petitioner vide registered sale deed 03.12.2014 was a fabricated and fraudulent document; however, the validity, veracity and legality of the said
Legal Reasoning
document has been upheld by this Court in W.P.No.29578/2024 c/w W.P.No.3402/2024 as there under: "1. The land bearing Sy.No.80 (old No.55) of Bellahalli village admeasuring 4 acres was granted to Muniyappa, the petitioner herein. 2. It is not in dispute that Muniyappa, who belonged to a Schedule Caste, proceeded to sell the land in question, which was his granted land, on 10.08.1988 to one K.Raman. It is also not in dispute that, he proceeded to make an application seeking for resumption in the year 2012-13. 3. The Assistant Commissioner entertained the application and proceeded to pass an order on 11.11.2013 resuming the land in favor of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 Muniyappa and declaring the sale deed dated 10.08.1988 as null and void. Muniyappa was thereafter restored possession of the said land. 4. Thereafter, on resumption of the land, Muniyappa once again proceeded to execute a sale deed on 03.12.2014 in favor of respondent No.3. In this sale deed, there is a recital that Muniyappa had obtained permission from the Government to alienate this land on 22.07.2014. 5. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Muniyappa that this permission dated 22.07.2014 was a bogus permission and no permission at all was granted and therefore, the sale in favour of respondent No.3 was one without securing the permission of the Government as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, ‘the Act’). 6. He therefore contends that the authorities ought to have entertained the application filed by Muniyappa for resumption, but the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 authorities have rejected the said application on the ground that there was indeed a permission on 15.09.2014. 7. He submits that there is no order of permission granted on 15.09.2014 and the petitioner has therefore challenged the so called order of permission dated 15.09.2014 by filing WP No.29578 of 2024. 8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 contends that Muniyappa, after securing resumption of the lands, made an application to the authorities seeking for permission to alienate the land that had been resumed in his favor. The Tahasildar had made an inquiry and thereafter, proceeded to submit a report to the Assistant Commissioner on 26.03.2014, which is at Annexure “R5” to the counter. 9. He pointed out that pursuant to the said report, the Assistant Commissioner in turn submitted a report to the Deputy Commissioner on 09.05.2014 vide Annexure ‘R6’ and the Government ultimately accepted this recommendation and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 proceeded to pass an order on 15.09.2014 vide Annexure “R4” according permission as contemplated Section 4(2) of the Act, enabling Muniyappa to sell the land and accordingly, the property was purchased by respondent No.3 with the due permission of the State Government. 10. The learned counsel pointed out that as a matter of fact, when the application for permission under Section 4(2) of the Act was submitted by Muniyappa, he had informed the authorities that he had decided to purchase another property and as a matter of fact, he had purchased the property under the registered sale deed dated 28.02.2014 and it was because Muniyappa purchased an alternative property, the Government had accorded permission. It is therefore contended that it would not be open to Muniyappa to even contend that he had not sought permission. 11. In light of the above, it will have to be ascertained as to whether permission was obtained by Muniyappa for the sale of the land in favor of respondent No.3. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 12. If the answer to the above question is in the positive, then obviously Muniyappa could not have invoked the provisions of the Act, since there would be no sale in contravention of the provisions of the Act. If the answer to said question is in the negative, then the application for resumption becomes valid. 13. It is no doubt true that in the sale deed executed in favor of respondent No.3, there is a mention about the permission accorded by the Government on 22.07.2014. 14. The learned Senior Counsel therefore argued that unless this permission was granted by the Government, the sale deed in favour of respondent No.3 would be invalid. 15. He sought to impress upon the Court that a criminal complaint had been lodged in respect of this concocted permission and therefore, no credence can be given to the assertion of respondent No.3 that permission had been secured under Section 4(2) of the Act. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 16. It is to be stated here that there is no requirement in law that the order granting permission would have to be mentioned in the sale deed. Merely because an order is mentioned in the sale deed, that would not lead to an inference that permission was granted or was in fact refused. 17. What is to be ascertained is as to whether an application for permission had indeed been filed by the grantee and the Government had considered the said application and had accorded permission to the grantee to sell the land. 18. In this case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the purchaser, on the application filed by Muniyappa seeking permission to alienate the granted land, the Tahashildar did make a report on 26.03.2014 as per Annexure “R5” and in this report, there is a clear mention that Muniyappa had purchased an alternate property and that was one of the considerations for recommending the request of Muniyappa for transfer of the granted land. This report of the Tahashildar - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 has been affirmed and forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner and on the basis of these reports, the Government has indeed passed an order on 15.09.2014 according permission to Muniyappa to sell the granted land. 19. It has to be noticed here that Muniyappa has thereafter sold the land granted to him on 03.12.2014. Thus, as on the date Muniyappa sold the land, it is clear that the Government did accord permission as contemplated under Section 4(2) of the Act and if the permission was obtained for transfer of the granted land as contemplated Section 4(2) of the Act, it is obvious that no proceedings could have been initiated by the grantee for an alleged violation of the provisions of the Act. 20. I am therefore, of the view that the Deputy Commissioner was absolutely justified in allowing the appeal of the purchaser and rejecting the application for resumption. 21. It is also pointed out by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the grantee that the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 grantee has instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale deed and is seeking for permission to sue in forma Pauperis in P.Misc. No.1 of 2019. 22. The fact that the grantee has filed a suit for cancellation of sale deed presupposes that he had indeed sold the property to the purchaser. As already noticed above, since this sale was preceded by a valid permission accorded by the Government, the grantee could not have invoked the provisions of the Act. 22. The writ petitions filed by the grantee challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner and also challenging the
Decision
order of the Government granting permission to alienate the land does not deserve acceptance and therefore, they are dismissed." 9. In view of the conclusive finding of this Court that the petitioner's vendor had obtained permission prior to selling the subject property in favour of the petitioner, the circumstances clearly lead to the sole inference that the said - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:2918 CRL.P No. 3616 of 2024 permission was not a fabricated or fraudulent document and as such, I am of the considered opinion that the continuation of the proceeding qua the petitioner would amounts to abuse of process of law warranting interference in the present petition. 10. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Petition is allowed; and (ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.356/2023 arising out of Crime registered by the Kothanur Police Station, pending on the file of the 11th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, qua the petitioner-accused is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25