Vijayalakshmi G vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1278 Kant

                             1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 21st DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.5743/2020
BETWEEN:

1.     VIJAYALAKSHMI G
       W/O. LATE G. SRINIVASA MURTHY
       AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

2.     VISHALAKSHI ANAND
       W/O ANAND
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

       PETITIONER Nos.1 AND 2 BOTH
       RESIDING AT:
       No.480, 6TH MAIN
       HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR
       BANGALORE-560 032.
                                       ... PETITIONERS

            (BY SMT. SRUTI CHAGANTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY PULAKESHINAGAR P.S,
       REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC
       PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT BUILDING
       BANGALORE-560 001.

2.     SAHANA GHANTASALA
       W/O SRIKANTH GHANTASALA
       AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
       RESIDING AT:
                                 2



     NO.B103, OASIS NINE APARTMENTS
     7TH CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT
     BANGALORE-560 078.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

          (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1
             SRI. S VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.52/2020
REGISTERED BY PULAKESHI NAGAR P.S. BENGALURU CITY
REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 406, 409, 420, 464, 120B, 34 OF IPC AND PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE IV A.C.M.M, AT BENGALURU CITY AND
IMPOSE EXEMPLARY COSTS ON RESPONDENT No.2 FOR
ABUSING THE PROCESS OF LAW FOR ENGAGING IN FORUM
SHOPPING.

    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON                       FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE                         THE
FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

praying this Court to quash the FIR in Crime No.52/2020

registered by the Pulakeshinagar P.S., Bengaluru City for the

offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, 464, 120B

R/w Section 34 of IPC, 1860 pending on the file of IV

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the

complainant who is arraigned as respondent No.2 in this case

has filed a complaint stating that the property was purchased

in the name of father-in-law K. S Srinivasamurthy, mother-in-

law Vijayalakshmi and Vishalakshi Anand's name. The

father-in-law passed away in 2015 and subsequently, in 2017

based on a false and fraudulent release deed, an application

to transfer the khata to Vishalakshi's name was filed in BBMP

Lakshmidevi nagara office. It is specifically mentioned in the

complaint that it seems in an effort to cheat the complainant,

the mother-in-law has forged the signature of Vishalakshi's

signature when she was not in India to have the khata

transfer done in a haste. It is also alleged in the complaint

that in 2018 Ganesh Ramalingam executed a sale agreement

based on a unregistered sale deed in favour of Faiz pasha and

registered a false document stating that her father-in-law

Srinivasa Murthy left behind only Vijayalakshmi,

Vishalakashi Anand and another daughter Leelavathi.

Knowing fully well suppressing the right of her husband

Srikantha Ghantasala's name. The specific allegation is that

these two petitioners were indulged in creation of documents

and also committed fraud and cheated complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently

contend that the complaint averments made in the complaint

does not attract the offences invoked against them and this is

the fourth complaint, earlier complaints were also registered,

'B' report was filed in respect of two complaints and for one

complaint NCR issued. The very intention of the complainant

is that causing threat to the petitioners to come for settlement

except that there is no any intention. The learned counsel in

support of his contention relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Md. Ibrahim & Ors. v. State of

Bihar & Anr. reported in (2010) Crl.L.J 2223 and brought

to notice of this Court para Nos.12, 13 and 17 with regard to

invoking of offences under Section 402, 420 and 465 and

vehemently contend that the principle laid down in judgment

of the Apex Court is aptly applicable to the case on hand.

The question of cheating alleged to have committed by

executing false deed does not come within purview of offences

invoked against them. Learned counsel also submits that

already civil suit filed before the Court questioning the very

sale of the property and civil case is coloured as criminal case

and hence it is nothing but an abuse of process of law.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would

submit that the complaint averments is very clear that not

only they suppressed the rights ignoring the rights of her

husband. There is no dispute that property was in the name

of father-in-law of the complainant and subsequently the

documents are created and fraudulent release deed was also

created and there was a forgery in forging the signature of one

of the daughter. It is also contended that suppressed the fact

that husband of the complainant is one of the son of owner of

the property and in a deceitful manner the property was sold

hence, the very complaint averments discloses the offences

which are invoked in the complaint. If the Court exercises the

power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it is nothing but

interference in the premature stage of enquiry in the matter

regarding serious allegations made in the complaint and

hence, this Court cannot exercise power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C.,.

6. Having heard the arguments of the respective

counsels and also on perusal of the complaint, this Court

while exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for

quashing the FIR the Court has to take note of the facts that

whether contents of the complaint prima-facie invoking the

offence.

7. The Apex Court in its judgment in the case of

Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat and

others reported in (2018) 3 SCC 104 laid down the law and

principle in exercising the power challenging the FIR the Apex

Court in its judgment categorically held that

"In order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise powers like an appellate court - Question is required to be examined, keeping in view, contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof - At such stage, High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on - It is more so, when the material relied on is disputed - In such a situation, it becomes the job of investigating authority at such stage, to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material - Once the court finds that FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in CrPC.

8. This Court would like to rely upon the judgment of

Apex Court in the case of HDFC Securities Limited and

others v. State of Maharashtra and Another reported in

(2017) 1 SCC 1 has categorically held that order directing

the investigation not causing any injury of irreparable nature

cannot be quashed at premature stage. The Apex Court in

paragraph No.24 held that investigation by the Police cannot

be said to have caused an injury of irreparable nature, which

at this stage requires quashing of the investigation. It further

observed that we must keep in our mind that the stage of

cognizance arrives only after investigation report is filed.

Therefore, at this stage high Court correctly assess the facts

in this situation. It is held that filing of the petition under

Article 227 of Constitution of India or under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C., at this stage is nothing but premature. It is observed

that inherent powers in the Court under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. should be sparingly used. In these circumstances, I

do not find any error in the impugned order and illegality has

been committed by the Court.

9. Having perused the principles laid down in the

judgments stated above supra and also perusing the

judgments relied on by the petitioners' counsel in Md

Ibrahim's case (quoted supra) it is clear that only the

complaint does not discloses any offence invoke hence, the

Court can invoke the Section 482 of Cr.P.C., or else it is

nothing but coming in the way of investigating the matter.

10. In the case on hand, the allegation in the

complaint is specific that after the death of the father-in-law,

the petitioners herein have suppressed the name of the

husband of the complainant and not only that allegation and

also an allegation is made that release deed was executed and

also there was a forgery of forging the signature and false

documents are created. There is also specific allegation that

when executing the documents also it has discloses that her

husband is one of the legal heir of her father-in-law and

suppressing the same have created the documents. These are

the allegations made in the complaint and the Court has to

look into the contents of the complaint and if the complaint

discloses the offences invoked, the question of invoking

Section 482 does not arise. The Court can invoke Section 482

of Cr.P.C., only there is an abuse process of law which leads

to miscarriage of justice and hence, I do not find any such

circumstances in the case on hand. The complaint is specific

that suppressing the right of the husband of the complainant,

the petitioners have indulged in creating of false documents

forging the signature and with dishonest intention cheated

the complainant. When the specific contents are set out in the

complaint, the question of invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

does not arise.

11. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

following:-

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nms