Karnataka High Court
Smt Sabeenaprakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 31 March, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7281 OF 2020
BETWEEN
SMT. SABEENA PRAKASH
AGED 58 YEARS,
W/O DR. L. S. RAVIPRAKASH,
KALAFARM, CHANNASANDRA,
SUBRAMANYAPURA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 061 ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI. S.MAHESH, ADV.]
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SRI. K. P. SUNIL
S/O K. N. P. NAIDU,
AGE NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
GIRIDHAMA NAGARA,
DODDABETTAHALLI,
VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BANGALORE DISTRICT-97
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. K.VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R2]
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.291/2015 AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONER HEREIN REGISTERED BY THE 1st
RESPONDENT ANEKAL P.S., PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn.) AND J.M.F.C.,
ANEKAL.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.291/2015, registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 468 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard Sri.S.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri.K.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows: 3
The petitioner is the wife of one Sri.L.R.Raviprakash, who owns several lands in the area in which the subject land or the disputed land is situated. The subject land was purchased by the petitioner in the year 2002 on 27.03.2002. Since then the petitioner was in possession of the said land. In the year 2015, the second respondent/complainant claiming to be the grand son of one Sri.R.Krishnareddy, the vendor of the petitioner, registers a complaint on 14.10.2015 alleging that the said land is sold by R.Krishnareddy, who had by then died. According to the death certificate, which is appended to the objections, the said R.Krishnareddy had died in the year 1980 and therefore, it a case of impersonation, was alleged in the complaint by the complainant. The moment complaint is registered, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this Court, in the subject petition. The case having 4 been entertained, further proceedings/investigation has been stayed by this Court.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri.S.Mahesh, would submit that the petitioner is an innocent purchaser from the hands of one R.Krishnareddy, whether R.Krishnareddy had died by then or not, was not what the petitioner had known at the time when the sale took place. As all the documents that were placed for sale were showing the name of R.Krishnareddy and if at all any prosecution has to be instituted, it should be against the vendor. The petitioner is in possession of the property from 27.03.2002 and the complainant, who claims to be the grand son registers the complaint of such impersonation in the year 2015.
5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant would submit that impersonation is very clear as R.Krishnareddy died in 5 the year 1980 and sale deed is executed on 27.03.2002 to knock off the property belonging to the petitioner. The complainant claims that he was not aware of the sale, as he all around the State in several employments and suddenly sprung into action in the year 2015, when he came to know that R.Krishnareddy had died and the property was sold in favour of the petitioner, in the year 2002. The learned counsel would further submit that it is a matter of investigation that the petitioner has to later come out clean as impersonation is on the face of it found in the case at hand.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-quoted fact of sale on 27.03.2002 is not in dispute. The offences alleged are ones punishable under Sections 420, 465 and 468 of IPC. 6 The provision of law, Section 420 of IPC reads as follows:
"420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.--Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 420 would not get attracted in the case at hand, as the petitioner has not induced any victim to part with the property with a dishonest intention. In fact, the petitioner is a purchaser of the property from the hands of one R.Krishnareddy, who according to the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has been 7 impersonated. Therefore, Section 420 of IPC cannot be laid against the petitioner.
8. The other alleged offence is under Section 465 of IPC. Section 465 of IPC, reads as follows:
"465. Punishment for forgery.-- Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both"
For an offence to become punishable under Section 465 of IPC, which deals with punishment for forgery. Forgery will have to be proved, as obtaining in Section 464 of IPC. The petitioner is a purchaser of the property. The alleged impersonator is the vendor. The petitioner has no role to play in creation of any false document. It is in fact the vendor against whom the petitioner can initiate prosecution for creating a false document and selling the same to the petitioner. 8 Therefore, the offence of forgery also cannot be laid against the petitioner in the case at hand.
9. What remains is Section 468 of IPC. Section 468 of IPC reads as follows:
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.-- Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 1[document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 468 of IPC deals with the forgery for purpose of cheating and whoever commits forgery intending to cheat, will become punishable for the offence of forgery. If the offence of forgery cannot be laid against the petitioners, the offence of Section 468 of IPC also cannot be laid.
9
10. It transpires that after registration of the present complaint the complainant has also instituted civil proceedings for cancellation of a sale deed dated 27.03.2002 and the said civil suit is pending adjudication before the Competent Court. The complainant has to first succeed in the civil suit by getting a declaration that the land belonged to him as he has sprung into action after about 13 years of the sale and the defense is that, he was wandering throughout the State of Karnataka on employment and was not aware of both the sale and the death of his grandfather. It is for the civil court to pronounce upon the veracity of the sale deed. The present case in the teeth of the facts narrated herein above would not touch upon any of the offences either of Section 420, 465 or 468 of the IPC.
11. The complainant getting a declaration that the land did belong to him, as the complainant has 10 sprung into action after about 13 years of sale. The offences that would touch upon either Sections 420, 465 or 468 of IPC cannot be laid against the petitioner. It is for the Civil Court to pronounce upon the veracity of the sale deed, that has taken place on 27.03.2002 and also consider whether the document was forged or otherwise and impersonation. The result of the civil proceedings can then become a subject matter of a criminal proceedings, if available in law, at that juncture, for the complainant to agitate. At this stage, when the right of the complainant itself is inchoate alleging criminal offences, that too of Sections 420, 465 and 468 of IPC against the petitioner, a purchaser of the subject property cannot be laid.
12. Permitting further proceedings or investigation to continue, without the complainant himself not having an absolute right over the property, as it is pending determination before the civil court in a 11 suit filed by the complainant for declaration and possession of the subject property, would become an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER i. Criminal Petition is allowed. ii. Proceedings in Crime No.291/2015 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and J.M.F.C., Anekal, stands quashed.
However, the complainant is at liberty to initiate such proceedings, if available in law, once the Civil court would pronounce upon the impersonation or the forgery, as the case would be.
It is made clear that the observations made in the course of this order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Sections 482 of Cr.P.C., the same shall not influence or 12 bind the Civil court in the pending civil proceedings, which shall consider the case independent of the observations made in the case at hand.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG