Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ramanna @ H.G. Ramu vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29 T H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5526 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
Sri Ramanna @ H.G.Ramu,
S/o Late H.S.Gangapp a,
Aged about 59 years,
Occ: Business,
R/at No.3309, 4 t h Cross,
'C' Block, Gayathrinag ar,
Beng aluru-560021.
...Petitioner
(By Sri Balakrishna M.R., Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
By Mag adi Road Police Station,
Beng aluru City,
Represented by its
State Pub lic Prosecutor,
Hig h Court Build ing,
Beng aluru-560001.
2. Smt. Asha Rani C.H.,
Husb and's name not known,
Major in ag e,
Senior Sub Registrar,
No.B-89, 5 t h Main Road ,
Rajajinag ar Industrial Area,
Beng aluru-560010.
...Respondents
(By Sri R.D.Renukarad hya, HCGP for R1 & R2)
:: 2 ::
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., p raying to quash the FIR and continuation
of criminal proceed ings in Cr.No.66/2020 dated
20.06.2020 for the alleg ed offences punishable under
Sections 419, 420, 465, 468 read with 34 of IPC
registered and being investigated by the respondent
No.1 police now pending on the file of the III
A.C.M.M., Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission
this d ay, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri Balakrishna M R, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for first respondent-State, at the time of admission of this petition.
2. The petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.66/2020. FIR was registered at the instance of second respondent, who is a Senior Sub-Registrar.
3. The allegations are that on 01.03.2019, a sale deed was registered in the office of the second respondent, in respect of a property :: 3 ::
bearing No.3399. One P.N.Vasudevaiah, was the seller and one Smt. Manju H, was the purchaser. It was brought to the notice of the second respondent that the sale deed was a forged instrument. Therefore, the second respondent lodged an FIR with the police.
4. In the FIR, the name of the petitioner is not specifically mentioned. The purchaser-Smt. H.Manju, is shown as accused No.1 and the seller- Sri P.N.Vasudevaiah, is shown as accused No.2. Without mentioning the name of anybody, it is mentioned that still there is involvement of three other accused. It appears that when accused No.3 Chandrashekar N, was being interrogated, he said that the petitioner had absconded, though he did not say anything specifically against the petitioner. In this view, the petitioner is under the apprehension that he too has been implicated in the FIR.
:: 4 ::
5. Sri Balakrishna M R, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 06.03.2020, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Commissioner of Police, stating that the true owner of the property was threatened and then without allowing him to come near the office of the Sub-Registrar, accused No.2 sold the property in favour of accused No.1. Therefore it is his argument that without holding investigation on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner before the Commissioner of Police on 06.03.2020, he has been implicated as accused No.4, in the FIR registered at the instance of second respondent. There is nothing to indicate the involvement of the petitioner in execution of the sale deed. If investigation is held against him, it is nothing but abuse of process of Court.
6. The petitioner has produced copy of the complaint dated 06.03.2020, made by him to the :: 5 ::
Commissioner of Police. He has also produced the endorsement issued by the Subramanyanagara police station on 14.05.2020, pursuant to the petitioner's complaint to the Commissioner of Police. This endorsement shows that the police were of the opinion that the dispute is civil in nature.
7. Now, as argued by Sri Balakrishna M R, though the name of the petitioner is not specifically mentioned in the FIR, but the other accused, i.e., accused No.3 has revealed the name of the petitioner. The specific overt-act against the petitioner is not there, however, it cannot be said that the matter does not require investigation. The role of the petitioner is to be investigated by the police. In this view, I do not think that the FIR can be quashed at this stage.
8. However it remains a fact that the petitioner also made a complaint to the :: 6 ::
Commissioner of Police on 06.03.2020 and it was forwarded to Subramanyanagara police station. But the FIR which is sought to be quashed has been registered at Magadi Road police station. Since the petitioner has complained in his letter dated 06.03.2020 to the Commissioner of Police, that the true owner of the property was kept away from the office of the Sub-Registrar by putting threat to him, Magadi Road police may consider the complaint that the petitioner has made to the Commissioner of Police while conducting investigation on the basis of the complaint made by the second respondent herein, relating to property bearing No.3399. The Magadi Road police shall procure the complaint dated 06.03.2020, from Subramanyanagara police station, for the purpose of investigation. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.
:: 7 ::
IA Nos.1/2020 and 2/2020 do not survive for consideration, they too stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE Kmv/-