Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nagamani vs State Of Karnataka on 7 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
WP No. 15264 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 15264 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGAMANI
W/O. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
2. M. MANJUNATH
S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT
KYALASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HULIMANGALA POST,
Digitally signed
by SWAPNA V JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
Location: high BANGALORE - 560 105
court of
karnataka ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BAGALUR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 01.
2. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA,
W/O. LATE. G. VENKATESHAPPA,
R/AT BHASKER BUILDING,
GROUND FLOOR,
MANCHANAHALLI ROAD,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT - 560 105
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
WP No. 15264 of 2020
SRI. GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO - ISSUE ORDER
QUASHING OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT AND CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.225/2020 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 420, 465,
468 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them on the basis of the private complaint lodged by respondent No.2 in PCR.No.225/2020, on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli ,which came to be registered in Crime No.110/2020 of Bagalur police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 filed the private complaint in PCR No.225/2020 against accused Nos.1 to 3, alleging commission of the offence as stated above, stating that the husband of the complainant late -3- NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020 Venkataramanappa during his lifetime, got grant of the land vide grant certificate dated 03.02.2004 and the same was standing in his name. After his death, the property devolved on the complainant and her children.
3. It is stated that accused No.3 is running Real Estate business and persuaded the informant that he will help in getting the revenue records for mutating the land in his name. He managed to get registered General Power of Attorney(GPA) dated 24.10.2013 in his favour. It is also alleged that on 19.01.2019, accused No.3 without bringing it to the notice of the complainant executed an agreement for sale in favour of one Ganesh K.V agreeing to alienate 1 acre of land belonging to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.1.29 crores. The agreement also discloses that accused No.3 had received Rs.20,00,000/- as advance. After coming to know about the same, the complainant and her family members cancelled the GPA deed, which was got executed by him. This was brought to the notice of accused No.3 and also to Ganesh K.V, who is the agreement holder.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020
4. The complainant further stated that accused No.3 in collusion with his father-in-law - accused No.1 and wife accused No.2 with an intention to grab the property belonging to the complainant concocted the document styled as agreement for sale said to be executed by the complainant in favour of accused Nos. 1 and 2, agreeing to sell the property for Rs.7,50,000/- and also that they have paid advance of Rs. 3,75,000/- to the complainant. It is the contention of the complainant that all these documents were concocted and forged documents by accused Nos. 1 to 3, to make wrongful gain. Therefore, they sought for registration of the criminal complaint and initiation of action for the above said offences.
5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and directed the police to register the FIR. Accordingly, Crime No.110/2020 of Bagalur police station came to be registered.
6. The petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. It is stated that accused No.1 is already dead and criminal proceedings against him is abated.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020
7. Heard Sri Sachin B. S, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. K. P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Ganapati Bhat Vajralli, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on records.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that admittedly, the complainant had executed a registered GPA deed in favour of accused No.3. It was a power of attorney deed coupled with interest, as accused No.3 was authorized to lease or mortgage the property or even sell it to third parties. Under such circumstances, the complainant had no right under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act to get the deed cancelled. However he, got executed the registered cancellation deed, which cannot be recognized in the eye of law. He placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Smt. Madhumati w/o Mahadevappa Kerimattihalli @ Bheemakkanavar v/s State of Karnataka1, wherein, the Court after referring to Section 31 of Specific Relief Act held that, once a registered GPA coupled with interest is executed, the person who seeks cancellation of the said document has an 1 2020 0 Supreme (Kar) 544 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020 efficacious remedy available to him under law to seek cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. But the Sub-Registrar will not have any power to register the document, seeking cancellation of such deed in absence of both the parties. The Court has also referred to Section 17 of Registration Act and held that there is no express provision in the Registration Act, which empowers the Registrar to recall such registration.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant has not complied with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v/s State of Uttar Pradesh and Other2, since no complaint was filed before the police. Even though it is contended that the complaint is filed before the police, the same is not a detailed complaint and the allegations made in the private complaint do not find place in the police complaint. He further submitted that even if it is to be taken that section 154(1) of Cr.PC is complied with, admittedly, there is no compliance of Section 154(3) of Cr.PC. The affidavit accompanying the complaint was also not filed and hence, the private complaint is liable to be dismissed. 2 (2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 287 -7- NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020
10. Learned counsel further submitted that accused No.2 has filed the suit OS.No.902/2019 against the complainant for specific performance of the contract. When the suit summons was issued to respondent No.2, she has chosen to file private complaint with oblique motive and to stall the civil proceedings. There are absolutely no other reasons for the complainant to file the criminal complaint, alleging concoction of documents, forgery of the signatures and thumb impressions. When the Civil Court is ceased off the matter to consider the genuineness of the agreement to sell dated 15.02.2019, the Trial Court could not have proceeded with the private complaint and even the police could not have proceed with the investigation on bald allegations made in the private complaint. Learned counsel submitted that, now the civil suit is pending for evidence and if in the meantime, the Investigating Officer is permitted to investigate the matter, it will lead to multiple proceedings, which cannot be permitted. In view of the same, he prays for allowing the petition, while quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against accused Nos. 2 and 3.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 opposing the petition submitted that initially the complainant -8- NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020 filed the first information before the jurisdictional police on 07.12.2019, making specific reference to the GPA deed and agreement to sell dated 15.12.2019. There is also reference to suit O.S.893/2019 filed by accused No. 2 and it is specifically stated that after service of notice, the complainant came to know about the concoction of the said document and immediately, the first information was lodged. The police have not registered the FIR, but issued the NCR on the very same day. Therefore, the complainant has filed the private complaint, making specific allegations against accused Nos.1 to 3. An affidavit that is required to be filed as per the directions issued by Hon'ble Apex court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), is also filed and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is non compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), cannot be accepted.
12. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.G. Premshanker v/s Inspector of Police3 and Balaji Trading Co., and others v/s Saifulla 3 (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 87 -9- NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020 Khan Gaffar Sahukar and another4 in support of his contention that, even though a civil suit is filed and the matter is pending for consideration before the Court of competent civil jurisdiction, registration of criminal complaint is not barred. Both the proceedings could be proceeded simultaneously. Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel contended that in the present case, after registering the FIR, the investigation has not proceeded as there was interim order of stay. While in the civil suit, the issues are framed and the matter is set down for plaintiff's evidence. Under such circumstances, both the proceedings will be proceeded separately, as there is no bar under law.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that, when serious allegations are made regarding forging of signatures and left thumb impression of the complainant and her family members to concoct the agreement to sell dated 15.02.2019 and based on the same, the suit for specific performance of the contract was filed in O.S.893/2019, alleging that an advance of Rs.3,75,000/- was paid in cash, a detailed enquiry is to be held by the Investigating Officer. Looking to the nature and 4 ILR 2017 KAR 4397
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020 seriousness of the offence, he prays for dismissal of the petition, permitting investigation in the matter.
14. Learned High Court Government Pleader supporting the contention taken by learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that as there was interim stay, the investigation could not to be carried out. Since the allegations against the petitioners are of very serious in nature, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
15. 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 Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceeding initiated against them?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
16. The complainant has made serious allegations as stated above against accused Nos.1 to 3. It is stated that
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020 accused No.1 is the father-in-law of accused No.3, is no more. However, the agreement dated 15.02.2019 is said to have been executed by the complainant and her family members in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 and admittedly accused No.2 filed the suit O.S.No.893/2019, seeking specific performance of the contract. As per this agreement dated 15.02.2019, the complainant and her family members agreed to sell 1 acre of land in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 for a total consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/- and they have received advance of Rs.3,75,000/- in cash. It is pertinent to note that there is one more agreement to sell said to have been executed by accused No.3 in favour of one Ganesh K.V on 19.01.2019 just about a month before the agreement dated 15.02.2019, wherein, the value of the land is shown as Rs.1.29 crores and it is stated that accused No.2 had received advance amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. These facts and circumstances and the allegations made by the complainant who is a rustic villager, aged 58 years, who affixed her left thumb impression in the private complaint, assumes importance.
17. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the registered GPA deed executed by the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020 complainant and her family members in favour of accused No.3 could not have been cancelled by executing another registered deed, in view of decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Smt. Madhumati (supra). Even if such contention is to be accepted, the allegations in the private complaint is with regard to the agreement to sell dated 15.02.2019 said to have been executed by the complainant and her family members in favour of accused Nos. 1 and 2, specifically alleging that the signature and left thumb impression found on this agreement to sell is the forged one and that it is a concocted document. These allegations assume importance and more so in view of the fact accused No.1 is the father-in-law of accused No.3 and accused No.2 is the wife of accused No.3. When specific allegations are made that accused No.3 is behind concoction of this document dated 15.02.2019 in favour of accused Nos. 1 and 2, a detailed investigation is required to be held by the Investigating Officer.
18. In K.G. Premshanker (supra) similar contention was raised before the Hon'ble Apex Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings, as civil suit is pending before the competent court of civil jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Apex Court referring to its earlier decisions, categorically held that, if the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020 criminal case and civil proceedings are for the same cause, the judgment of the Civil Court would be relevant, if conditions of any of Sections 40 to 43 of Evidence Act are satisfied. It also categorically held that it cannot be said that the same would be conclusive proof. It further held that there cannot be any hard and fast rule that could be laid down and that possibility of conflicting decision in civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration.
19. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in Balaji Trading Co.,(supra) after referring to the decision of the Constitution Bench in M S Sheriff Vs State of Madras5, recorded a categorical finding that the criminal proceedings cannot be stalled, merely because, the civil suit is pending with reference to same set of documents. However, it has observed that it is not a hard and fast rule that both the cases can continue together, but for special consideration and on any special circumstances, if the civil case and the criminal proceedings which are so near for disposal and if a ground is made out, the Civil Court can stay its proceedings till the criminal proceedings are concluded or vice versa as the case 5 AIR 1945 SC 397
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020 may be under the special and peculiar circumstances of the case. Therefore, pendency of the civil suit seeking declaration in respect of the same documents cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings.
20. Thus the position of law is very well settled that even if the civil case is pending for consideration before the Court of competent jurisdiction, the same can not be the ground to quash the criminal proceedings, as the object of suit and the criminal proceedings are entirely different.
21. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the requirement of law as directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is not complied with. In paragraph No. 30 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court directs filing of the affidavit duly sworn by the applicant, who seeks invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.PC. The copy of the affidavit said to have been sworn by the complainant before the Trial Court is produced by learned counsel for respondent No.2, which complies with the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020
22. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that Section 154(1) and 154(3) are not complied with. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced copy of the complaint dated 07.12.2019, filed by the complainant herein with the police inspector, Bagaluru police station against the accused making reference to the agreement to sell dated 15.02.2019, the GPA dated 24.10.2013 cancellation deed dated 22.03.2019 and also the suit O.S.No.893/2019. He has also produced the acknowledgment issued for having received the first information. But admittedly, no FIR came to be registered. Under such circumstances, the private complaint came to be filed on 22.09.2020. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there is non compliance of Section 154(3) of Cr.PC and therefore, the private complaint is liable to be rejected, cannot be accepted.
23. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that since serious allegations are made against the accused for having committed the offence as stated above in executing various documents, I am of the opinion that the investigation by the Investigating Officer is required to be undertaken to find out
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515 WP No. 15264 of 2020 the truth. It is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings.
24. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE SPV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 16