Karnataka High Court
Shri.Ravichandra vs The State By S.H.O Of on 4 April, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4 T H DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRL.P.No.6880 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Shri Ravichandra
S/o S.M.Srinivasan
Aged about 50 years
R/o No.1172
'A' 21 s t Main Road
1 s t Sector, HSR Layout
Bengaluru - 560102
...Petitioner
(By Sri S.G Rajendra Reddy, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State by S.H.O. of
Begur Police Station
Bengaluru District
Represented by
State Public Prosecutor
High Court, Bengaluru-560 001
2. Shri K.V.K.Reddy
S/o K.R.Venkata Reddy
Aged about 66 years
R/o No.90/5, 3 r d Cross
24 t h Main, BTM Layout
2 n d Stage, Bengaluru-560 068
...Respondents
(By Sri K. Dilip Kumar, HCGP for R1,
Sri. M.N. Ramesha, Advocate for R2)
:: 2 ::
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the complaint and FIR
in Crime No.244/2019 by the Begur Police,
Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Sections
468, 469, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC
pending on the file of the VI Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission
this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition was earlier disposed on 19.11.2021 allowing the petition. At that time the second respondent did not appear before the court even though he was served with notice. Thereafter the second respondent filed an application seeking hearing on the petition and therefore the order dated 19.11.2021 was recalled and hearing was given to second respondent's counsel as also to the petitioner's counsel.
2. The petitioner is one of the accused in FIR.No.244/2019 which was registered in :: 3 ::
connection with offences punishable under sections 468, 469, 471, 420 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner has sought quashing of the FIR against him.
3. The brief facts are that 17 guntas of land in Sy.No.521 of Sarjapura earlier belonged to second respondent's father and he was cultivating it. The second respondent gave report to the police that in between the years 1995 and 2004, six persons viz., David, Abdul Majid, Ravichandra i.e., the petitioner, Ramachandrappa, Rajappa and Krishnappa created a forged general power of attorney and then used it as a genuine document for transferring the land.
4. Sri. S.G.Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner purchased the land from Abdul Majid under the registered sale deed dated 25.6.2004. The petitioner had no knowledge about the forgery of documents as alleged by the second respondent.
:: 4 ::
In fact the petitioner gave a representation to the Commissioner of Police on 28.01.2020 against the second respondent and that he also filed a private complaint i.e., PCR.2244/2020 against Manjunatha and the second respondent. If the FIR is read, it does not show commission of any cognizable offence. A frivolous report was made to the police. The second respondent has abused the process of court and therefore FIR needs to be quashed.
5. The Government Pleader submits that there is a case for investigation in regard to allegations of forgery and creation of false documents and hence jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised.
6. Sri. M.N.Ramesha, learned counsel for the second respondent argued that the land was granted to Kenchappa under the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act with a condition that it :: 5 ::
should not be alienated. All subsequent alienations are null and void. Section 7A of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act provides for prosecuting the transferee under the illegal transactions. The petitioner purchased the land on the basis of the forged documents. The learned counsel also referred to a legal notice dated 28.7.2020 issued to the petitioner. When forgery of document is alleged, it requires investigation and in fact accused no.1 has given confession statement and in this view, the petition cannot be allowed.
7. I have considered the arguments. It is a well established principle that whenever FIR is sought to be quashed, the petitioner must be able to point out that plain reading of the FIR should not disclose constitution of any offence and that the very initiation of the FIR should appear to be frivolous. In this case, the second respondent has :: 6 ::
alleged forgery and creation of documents in respect of 17 guntas of land which earlier belonged to his father. If the FIR is read, even according to the second respondent general power of attorney might have come into existence in between 1995 and 2004. He is not definite as to when and who created the general power of attorney. He thought of taking action in the month of December, 2019. The second respondent is a retired Asst. Commissioner of Police. He has also not stated as to how he came to know of all the documents which according to him are forged and created. The FIR is so vague and first reading of it does not inspire confidence that there is truth in it. Even in the legal notice that the second respondent's counsel has relied upon, nothing is stated about the approximate date of forging the documents. Legal notice is as vague as the FIR.
:: 7 ::
8. Learned counsel referred to section 7A of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act. The second respondent has produced the grant order dated 29.5.71. Section 7A of the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act prohibits alienation for a period of 15 years from the date of re-grant. The amendment brought to said section with effect from 9.5.2003 prohibits alienation for a period of 15 years. In this case, 15 years period expired in the year 1986. The petitioner claims to have purchased the land under the registered sale deed dated 25.6.2004 from Abdul Majid. Therefore he appears to be a purchaser. This being the factual background, still if the second respondent has got any right over the property, he must approach the Civil Court. Criminal action is not a remedy for him. Prosecuting the petitioner in these circumstances, amounts to abuse of process of court and law. In this view FIR can be quashed against the petitioner. Hence the following:
:: 8 ::
ORDER Petition is allowed. Proceedings pursuant to registration of FIR in Crime No.244/2019 by the first respondent police against the petitioner in relation to offences punishable under Sections 468, 469, 471 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sd