Criminal Petition No. 12361 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7396 CRL.P No. 12361 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12361 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SRI. LOKESH D. S/O. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT DURGESHWARI NILAYA, NO.339, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, PANCHASHEELA NAGARA, MUDALAPALYA, BENGALURU - 560 072 (BY SRI. SHRIDHARA .K., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: SMT. UMADEVI .R., W/O. LATE ARKESH T.M., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.1/5, TENT ROAD, SANJEEVINI NAGAR, RAMAIAH COMPLEX, MUDALAPALYA BANGALORE - 560 072
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. NARASIMHARAJU, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE RESPONDENT IN C.C.NO.34700/2022 (PCR.NO.19550/2021) ANNEXURE-A PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 467, 469 AND 506 OF IPC. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7396 CRL.P No. 12361 of 2022 ORAL ORDER Petitioner being the sole accused is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in CC No.34700/2022 arising out of PCR No.19550/2021, on the file of the learned XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 463, 464, 467, 469 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'). 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent as complainant filed PCR No.19550/2021 against the petitioner before the Trial Court alleging commission of the offence as stated above. It is her contention that she is a widow and taking advantage of her helpless condition, petitioner forged her signatures, concocted the documents styled as GPA deed and based on the said forged document, got executed the sale deed in his own favour in respect of property belonging to the complainant and thereby committed the offences. 3. It is also the contention of the complainant that she has filed the complaint with the police, but the police have not taken any action and therefore, she is compelled to approach the Trial Court by filing the private complaint. Accordingly, she - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7396 CRL.P No. 12361 of 2022 requested the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offence and to initiate legal action. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and registered CC No.34700/2022 for the above said offences, summoned the accused to appear before the Court. In the meantime, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 4. Heard Sri.Shridhara K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Narasimharaju, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials on records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Negative’ for the following: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7396 CRL.P No. 12361 of 2022 REASONS 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that there is non-compliance of mandatory requirements of law as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others1. It is stated that even though an affidavit is filed by the complainant before the Trial Court, while filing the private complaint stating that she had filed the police complaint against the petitioner but the police have not registered the FIR nor taken any action, and she was compelled to file the private complaint, but no documents are produced in support of such contention. The Court while considering filing of private complaint before the learned Magistrate without complying with the requirements of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C held that it is obligatory on the part of the complainant to file an affidavit regarding compliance of such requirements to make the complainant accountable with regard to the contents of affidavit. But nowhere the Hon’ble Apex Court compelled the complainant to produce the documents in support of such contentions taken in the affidavit. When admittedly the complainant has made specific averments 1 (2015) 6 SCC 287 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7396 CRL.P No. 12361 of 2022 in the affidavit filed along with the private compliant that she indeed approached the police by filing the complaint, which was not entertained by them, itself complies with the direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra). Thus the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that no document to support the contention of the complainant that she had filed the police complaint prior to filing the private complaint, cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings. 7. The next contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the complainant has filed the suit OS.No.2645/2000 before the Trial Court seeking eviction of petitioner. She has also filed suit OS.No.5606/2021 seeking cancellation of sale deed dated 30.09.2021 and for declaration of her title and both the suits are still pending. Similar allegations are made in both the said suits and therefore, the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and the criminal proceedings cannot be proceeded with. But the fact remains that it is the specific contention of the complainant that even though she is not the wife of the petitioner and she was a - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7396 CRL.P No. 12361 of 2022 widow, taking advantage of her helpless condition, the petitioner forged her signatures, fabricated the documents styled as GPA deed said to be executed by the complainant in favour of the petitioner and based on the said fabricated document, he managed to execute the sale deed dated 30.09.2021 as GPA holder of the complainant in his own favour as the purchaser of the property. When such specific allegations are made by the complainant regarding forgery of her signatures and fabricating of the GPA deed, the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered the criminal case. 8. Filing of suit OS No.2645/2000 on 17.06.2020 seeking eviction of the petitioner from the suit property and filing of the suit OS.No.5606/2021 on 18.10.2021 seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 30.09.2021 and declaration of her title are for different reliefs altogether. By instituting private complaint, the complainant wants the Trial Court to take cognizance of the offence committed by the petitioner. Therefore, it cannot be said that the dispute is of civil nature. Unless the sale deed dated 30.09.2021 is cancelled and it is declared that petitioner is the owner of the property by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7396 CRL.P No. 12361 of 2022 competent court of civil jurisdiction and unless the petitioner who is in occupation of the premises is evicted in due process of law by instituting the suit, she cannot get any relief as a owner of the property. But instituting the criminal proceedings is to seek that the petitioner be punished for the offence under IPC. Since the reliefs claimed in all these proceedings are distinct and separate, I do not accept the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is of civil nature, the complaint is filed only to tease and harass the petitioner and it is in abuse of process of law. 9. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had instituted proceedings in MC No.656/2021 filed on 29.01.2021 seeking restitution of conjugal rights against the respondent, and it is still pending for consideration, it is the specific contention taken by the learned counsel for the respondent that said petition is already dismissed for default as per order dated 11.08.2023. Under these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:7396 CRL.P No. 12361 of 2022 10. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
Decision
ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12