Sri B A Prasanna Kumar vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 704 Kant

                            1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

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

             CRIMINAL PETITION No.8759/2019

BETWEEN:

SRI B.A. PRASANNA KUMAR,
S/O ANNAYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT NO.36, CHIKKAJALA VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 157.       ... PETITIONER

           (BY SRI ANANDA H.C., ADVOCATE FOR
          SRI M. THIMMARAYA SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       BY CHIKKAJALA POLICE
       CHIKKAJALA
       BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 157.

2.     SMT. C.S. SHOBHA RAJ,
       W/O M.P. RAJASHEKAR,
       AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.C, 144, 5TH MAIN ROAD,
       HEBBALA, BENGALURU - 560 024.    ... RESPONDENTS

           (BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1,
           SRI A. SAMPATH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
                                  2

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE FIR
REGISTERED IN CR.NO.109/2019 BY THE CHIKKAJALA
POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 419, 420, 465, 471 AND
468 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-A.
    THIS CRIMINAL  PETITION COMING ON                     FOR
ADMISSION  THIS  DAY,  THE  COURT MADE                    THE
FOLLOWING:
                  ORDER

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

praying this Court to quash the FIR registered in Crime

No.109/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections

419, 420, 465, 471 and 468 of IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the

complainant in the complaint dated 23.11.2019 made an

allegation against the petitioner that in order to knock off

the property, the petitioner created the false documents

of gift deed and the same does not bear the signature of

his father. The petitioner in connivance with the revenue

officials, though the land was converted, made an entry in

the RTC that the same is an agricultural land and

trespassed the said land. The suit is pending before the

Civil Court and an order has been passed to maintain

status-quo.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would

submit that there is a civil suit before the Civil Court

between the parties and filing of the complaint is nothing

but an abuse of process of law and it requires interference

of this Court. In support of his contentions, the learned

counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of SADAR ALI KHAN V. STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2020 SC 626.

Referring this judgment, the learned counsel would submit

that when a civil suit is pending, there cannot be a

criminal proceedings and the Apex Court has observed

that when there is a serious factual disputes which are of

civil nature, continuation of criminal proceedings amounts

to abuse of process of law.

4. Having perused the averments of the

complaint, specific allegation is made that the petitioner

had indulged in creating the gift deed and forging the

signature of his father. An allegation is made that in

connivance with the revenue officials, an entry was made

in the revenue records that the land was converted, but

the same was agricultural land. When the specific

allegation of creation of gift deed and forgery is made, the

very principles laid down by the Apex Court in the

judgment referred supra, is not applicable to the case on

hand. No doubt the Apex Court has held with regard to

serious factual disputes which are of civil nature, it

amounts to abuse of process of law. In the case on hand,

it is not a serious factual disputes of civil nature and the

allegation is with regard to the creation of gift deed and

forging the signature.

5. Having considered the specific allegations

made in the complaint at page No.2 in paragraph No.2, I

am of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise the

power under section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. The

Court has to exercise the power under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C. sparingly and it should not exercise its power

when it is premature as held in the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of HDFC SECURITIES LTD. AND OTHERS

v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in

AIR 2017 SC 61. It requires investigation and hence, I do

not find any merit in the petition.

6. In view of the discussions made, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD