Karnataka High Court
Shri N Venkatesh vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 April, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3059 OF 2019
CONNECTED WITH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.911 OF 2019
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.3059 OF 2019
BETWEEN
SMT VIJAYALAKSHMI D
W/O N VENKATESH,
AGED 56 YEARS,
R/AT NO.41, IST "F" MAIN,
8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 080. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DR. J.S. HALASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
RAJA RAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION,
NOW BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. RAVI AGARWAL
S/O VISHNU AGARWAL,
AGED 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.256, 2ND FLOOR
LRDE LAYOUT, KARTHIKNAGAR,
3RD CROSS,
BENGALURU-560037
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI S.V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH/SET ASIDE THE FIR DATED
24.04.2018 IN CR.NO.117/2018 REGISTERD BY THE 1st
RESPONDENT POLICE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE
STATION, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 466,420,471,468 OF IPC PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE III A.C.M.M., BENGALURU IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER (ACCUSED NO.2) IS CONCERNED WHICH IS
MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.911 OF 2019
BETWEEN
SHRI N VENKATESH
S/O SHRI A NARAYANAPPA (LATE)
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
RESIDENT AT NO.41, 1ST F MAIN,
8TH CROSS, GIRINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 085. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI DR. J.S. HALASHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
REPRESENTED BY ITS
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
"VIDHANA SOUDHA"
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
IN KARNATAKA
NRUPATHUGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001
3. THE STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION,
R R NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 098.
3
4. RAVI AGARWAL
NO.256, II FLOOR,
LRDE LAYOUT, 3RD CROSS,
KARTIK NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 03.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 AND R3
SRI S.V. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED IN CR.NO.117/2018
BEFOR THE LEARNED III A.C.M.M., BENGALURU VIDE
DOCUMENT NO.1 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Crl.P.No.3059/2019 is filed by accused No.2 and Crl.P.No.911/2019 is filed by accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime No.117/2018 registered by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 420, 471 and 468 of IPC on the complaint filed by one Ravi Agarwal-Defacto complainant.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the 4 respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant-respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before the Police alleging that he has purchased site No.61 carved out of survey No.10 measuring 60x40 under the sale deed executed by accused No.1 on 08.08.1997 for the valuable consideration. Subsequently, he came to know that accused No.1 has encroached a portion of property measuring 20x40 feet by creating revenue documents and sold the same to accused No.2, his wife by sale deed dated 16.07.2014 by showing the site number as 61-A. Therefore, filed the complaint for taking action against the petitioner. However, the case was registered and the Police took up the investigation which is under challenge.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the complainant-Ravi Agarwal has already gifted the property in favour of Kushal Agarwal, his own brother on 12.09.2014 under the registered gift deed. 5 Subsequently, the said Kushal Agarwal has already filed a complaint against the petitioners-accused Nos.1 and 2 which is registered in Crime No.78/2016 and the Police have also investigated the matter and filed the charge- sheet against the accused persons and now they are facing the trial. Such being the case, Ravi Agarwal who is the erstwhile owner of the said property has filed a complaint in Crime No.166/2017, Crime No.236/2018 and Crime No.117/2018 for three subsequent FIRs on the same cause of action for the same offences which is not permissible under the law. Learned counsel also submits that by virtue of sale deed, accused No.2 also filed a suit in O.S.No.3897/2016 against the complainant and his brother. The permanent injunction has been granted by the competent Civil Court on 30.11.2016, it is operating and it is not challenged by the respondent. Subsequently, accused No.2 also said to be gifted the property to accused No.1 on 21.02.2017 and therefore, once the Police already registered a case and filed the charge-sheet for the same offences, registering three FIRs and filing charge-sheet is 6 not permissible under the law. Therefore, prayed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.117/2018.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader objected the petition.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also objected and submitted that the Crime No.236/2018 is filed for trespass and Crime No.166/2017 is filed by Ravi Agarwal where the Police have filed 'B' Final Report and a protest petition is filed by the complainant which is still pending before the Magistrate and therefore, prayed for dismissing the petitions.
7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the records, the petitioner-accused No.1 is said to have sold the site No.61 in favour of Ravi Agarwal under the registered sale deed on 08.8.1997. Subsequently, it is also an admitted fact that he has alienated the property by way of registered gift deed in favour of his brother Kushal Agarwal on 12.09.2014. The further allegation is that the 7 accused No.1 in spite of selling the said property i.e. site No.61 to the Ravi Agarwal, but subsequently, creating a false documents and revenue documents has sold the portion of the property measuring 20x40 in favour of his wife i.e., accused No.2 and therefore, the complaint came to be filed in Crime No.78/2016 by the Kushal Agarwal who is said to be the owner of the property by way of gift deed executed by Ravi Agarwal. It is further contended that the investigation is completed and the Police have filed charge- sheet previously against accused No.1 as the complaint also filed against accused No.1 and after three years, the Police have filed additional charge-sheet against accused No.2-Vijayalakshmi by showing accused No.2 in the additional charge-sheet. Once the Police already investigated the matter, filed the charge-sheet and cognizance taken by the Magistrate for the same offences, once again two more FIRs cannot be registered. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not in dispute that the Crime No.78/2016 registered by the Police against accused No.1 and also filed charge-sheet 8 against him subsequently, they have filed additional charge-sheet under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. by showing the wife of accused No.1 as accused No.2. Since she has purchased the property from accused No.1, subsequently, she has also alleged to have been gifted the property to accused No.1 and therefore, they are facing the trial. Though accused No.2 filed Crl.P.2029/2021 before this Court but she has withdrawn the same. On perusal of the entire records and allegation made in Crime No.117/2018 which is under challenge and Crime No.78/2016 are one and the same offence and allegation also one and the same. Merely the complainant wants to make a comprehensive investigation, the Police have no authority to register second FIR for the same offences. Of course, there is some substance in the arguments made by the respondent counsel that the Crime No.236/2018 is filed for trespass and other offences, but not for the same offences. But fact remains in both Crime Nos.166/2017 and 236/2018, the police have already filed 'B' Final report and the protest petition said to have been filed which is 9 pending for consideration by the Magistrate. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot analyse anything about the Crime Nos.166/2017 and 236/2018. However, the allegation in Crime No.117/2018 and Crime No.78/2016 are one and the same. Therefore, for same cause of action, the second FIR is not permissible and it is not the case for investigating the matter. Such being the case merely the complainant wants a comprehensive investigation, that cannot be permissible under the law. Therefore, Crime No.117/2018 and further investigation in this offence required to be quashed.
8. Accordingly, the criminal petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.117/2018 against petitioners- accused Nos.1 and 2 registered by Rajarajeshwari Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 466, 420, 471 and 468 of IPC is hereby quashed.
I.A.No.1/2022 filed by the learned High Court Government Pleader in Crl.P.No.3059/2019 for vacating 10 stay does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE GBB