Sri Veerasangappa vs Sri Gurubasappa on 18 July, 2008

[Cites 9, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Veerasangappa vs Sri Gurubasappa on 18 July, 2008

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY gqtsai.    ' 1%

BEFORE V V _ % A _

'i'HE'..HON'BLE MR.JUS'I'ICI§'N.}iﬂ}KNIf§Ay_:.A'A'- = V' 

CRIMiNAL PETITION  op?  
CRIMINAL PE'Iv',E--T..I'ON 935;.-9§i1S"'o§'  

Sri Vc¢rasangappa  '  j'  _  
S/0. Ugrappa      "   
Age: 60 Yﬁars    _   'V   V'    ' »
000: Business _V -:j__ 

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5 i'14i20e9? i'

R/o. Opp. A2355: 1: G51:-ggaiiiﬁaaa

Bijapur. .. . Petitioner

. (By  Gow;iéa2--VSig_ig1appa, Advocate)

 *AND:'- 

3:1 c;k;;rgmasa&p;5aTL 
S / o~.. Ugx*app€*!_§~iat31'

_   Age: 55 years. QQC: Retimd I).H.O.

Rio.  Bidar. ...Respo11dcnt

  S:é._Saﬁﬁ1osh Biraciar, Advocate)

  'f'Ei1'.s petition £3 filed under section. 482 Cr.P.C., praying

  quash the: impugned order dated 16.10.2007, pased by
.. Prl. Sessions Judge, Bijapur, in Crl.R.P.No.40/ 200'? and

quash the impugned order dated 25.01.2007, passed by the

 JMFC 1 Court at Bijapur in (3. C. No.8Ei3 /2002 and etc.



IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.51 15/200?
BETWEEEN: 
Sri Vcerasangappa

S/o. Ugrappa Ham'

Age: 60 years  
Occ: Business, 110. Opp. APMC 
Indi Road  " % --- A_ 
Bijapur.     ...Peﬁﬁ-ﬁner

(By Sri Bapu Gowda Siddajspa, .Ad_v(3-.céatc)'    _

AND:   I     % 

1. Sri Gmnbesapga      
S/o- Ugrappa :aae~r:%   "  A
Age: 56    . 
Dec: RctiI?:d"--!3;&I.O. 3  V V
R/o;  Biégir.

2. Police Sub4Insp:ic1:di'»._.  
Golgtngbaz PoZice""S'tsatti911'
Bijapur .V V   "

Rgp; By State__  ?rosecutor
  of 

.  _ Baxlgaiorég. ...Rcspondc11ts

(l§y.  Bimdar, Advocate for R1; Subhas

 ».  Mailfapm', HUG}? far R2)

This gggﬁiién is ﬁled under section 482 Cr. P. (3., praying

: .et;.:$'-quash impugned order dated 16.10.2097, passed by the

  Sessions Judge at Bijapur, in Cr1.R.?.No.61/2007 and

  'q1ia._sh_tE:e impugned order dated 25.01.2007, passed by
 «JMFT3. I Court at Bijapur in C.C.Nc-.853/2002 as etc.

 j  "'" Thcse two petitions coming on for ﬁnal hearing this
  gay, the Court made the following:-



sections 465 and 471 I PC, peﬁﬁcsﬁér, :»   M

Crl.R.P.No.61/2007 before the Pnr,;5§:;:g¢{1at}*~;

Bijapur. The learned Prl. Sessiz>¢ns;  ;}ud°ge '* 
Cr1.R.P.No.40/2007 and   'Vito
frame charges for oﬁiznccfs    465,
46'? and 471 IPC   sessions
Judge dismissed QrI.R.P,N9;.61/ﬁggéy' L} petitioner.
Therefore,   

4.  fomiigaposal of petitions are

as follows}:

The péti'ti9n::r   brother of respondent. There

was  of  between petitioner and

 year_ 1971, since then they are residing

 _ 198 1, respondent purchased two

 "s"ites.«__'béa:;§ng Nos.1122/G/2A/2 and 1122/G/23/1,

"  Vin  No.III of Bijapur City and sale deeds were

   favour of respondent. The respondent was in

' pfG$scs§.ion and enjoyment ofsajd sites. 011 05.12.1988 The

 'peiiﬁoncr managed to get his name registered ' Ethe 

ﬁx? 45/Vt



survey records in respect of said sites. For   _  

petitioner created two forged documents' viz' :-  V V
I. Joint application purponed to    "
and petitioner, addxessediq: Gﬁieer' a;J'Bi;a;§i1r;e 

.;

I I. The joint statement  gnade D3*--.pei;§it1?oner
and It:Sp0ndent. V { A _ V'  V' . 
The petitioner forged siginaiextfesv  on both
documents. The  915. of these forged
documents   eeinwtered in city survey

records.

5. T116  4'  on consideration of

 ﬁled   173 Cr. P.C., has held oﬂenccs

T" sections 420, 467 and 453 IPC, are not

tixe learned Magstrate has held oﬁences

   'iaeﬁﬁoner are oﬁences punishable under

H  :' H465'  471 IPC.

 The learned sessions Judge on consideration of

H  V  _€iOC11VI'I1€l1tS filed under sectien 173 Cr.P.C., with reﬁtrence to



sections 465, 467 and 471 I PC has held them    _  

presume petitioner has cemmittcd<""of1'e1;c{:s _: 

under sections 465, 467 and 471   A' 3

Section 465 we deals with %  zérggg.
Section 465 ms mad;::s..;hu§.é:@ﬂ_   %  N
"465. Punishnxexiﬁ   Whoever
commits forgery   with
impitisongnkgnt ._ eithcx? _§.1es§::1*i;ptio11'"Vfor a term
which niay    '*'° , §Vo§' with ﬁne, or

Sectio I1 'V46? IPC  "forgery of valuable security,
Willetc.  4' WV V  

  «  reads thusw

__ _ V' =  of valuable security, will,
 »A.'V'§¥1r.aievcr forges a document which

.   be a valuable security or a Wiil, or an
 xa;uth..(J1*iiy to adopt a son, or which purports to

"  authexity to any person to make or transfer

 valuable security, or to receive the principal,

' " ~ "interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or

deliver any money, movcable property, or



(document or  ' 

valuable security,

or any document  "2  

to be an acquittance or IeceiptAppacknoVi?Ied$i;:1g'."' 4'

the payment of money,

or an  "or = 

receipt for the delivery of any zzioveable pmpe:r£y" VV .

or valuable security,
(imprisonment for life), or ve4iihpv'i211ppIis<5nz11t';;1t 93'
either description fo"r.__.a may exfezid
to ten years, and 

---

Section 4731 dezils iijsi,tji'gV é1s--~'§§enuine a forged V p ' Whoever ﬁ\g:ad11Ienﬂy"»a1fpdishe.nestly uses as genuine any (d",_o.Ei:-u:z3ene%...er record) which he Imows ' -to believe to be a forged (document ﬁecord), shall be punished in the E§£il}Z1C as if he had forged such (docuznent or electronic record).'' A' the case on hand, as per documents ﬁled under "

"..MfG:{gVCIy of two documents. The petitioner has 173 Cr.P.C., petitioner is alleged to have committed 'YV.

forged 'E Q,La,.,WI';\, an application proposed to be joint atpp1icatio11'A. T1z1.-a;c!:VeVV?'" M petitioner and respondent. The petitioner forgery of signature of respondent on "

The petitioner had made use of doctgmeotizzj egg: ﬁis name entered in CTS records Vwfespegt of "Sims Nos.1122/G/2A/2 and 112ét;o/'2I3;:j1, Ward No.11! of Bijapw: City, which iespondent. In petitioner has under sections 465, 467 aﬁd 4'711ooi;,>:c;¥.'Vii.

7. Thc§ef9m,vvIV'&o"V1§ot~.i§i;d any inﬁrmity in the order passed pg learned i:=-:1. sgggions Judge. Accordingly, petitions Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court