Karnataka High Court
Mirle Varadaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9684 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
MIRLE VARADARAJ
S/O LATE BOREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT #544, "DARSHAN"
5TH MAIN, KENGERI SATELLITE TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560060.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)(VC)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KENGERI POLICE, KENGERI
BANGALORE CITY
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. NAYEEM UNNISA
W/O. LATE NAWAB JAN,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT NO.67, 9TH 'A' MAIN,
BTM LAYOUT, 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560029
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. G.M. SRINIVASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS
2
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT AND FIR IN CR.NO.446/2018 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 465, 471 AND 420 OF IPC AGAINST
THE PETITIONER PENDING ON THE FILE OF LVI ADDL.
C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The 2nd respondent/complainant has lodged First
Information Report alleging that a site bearing
No.53-C Khatha No.72/1 situated at Valagerahalli
Village, Vaddarapalya, Kengeri Hobli, Bangalore South
Taluk measuring 30 x 40 was allotted and purchased
by him from the 'Karnataka Minorities Building
Owners Society' by virtue of a registered sale deed in
the year 1994-95.
2. Such being the case, the petitioner and
other accused namely Ramaraju created a false
documents and have sold the said site in favour of 3rd
party. The police registered the FIR against the
petitioner and other accused persons for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 465, 471 of IPC
against which the present petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the subject site was purchased
by the petitioner i.e., T.S.Ramaraju/accused No.2 and
in O.S.No.1090/1988 filed by his vendor, the
jurisdictional Civil Court has granted decree of
permanent injunction restraining the vendor of the 2nd
respondent from interfering with the peaceful
possession and same has attained finality. Hence, he
submits that the dispute between the parties is purely
civil in nature, but given a criminal texture so as to
pressurize the petitioner to enter into a settlement.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel
appearing for the 2nd respondent submits that 2nd
respondent is a bonafide purchaser of the subject site
in question from the society. The petitioner and other
accused persons have created false documents so as
to defraud her. Hence, he submits that the
registration of FIR against the petitioner/accused is
perfectly legal and the same does not warrant any
interference.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for the State
would reiterate the submission made by the learned
counsel for 2nd respondent.
6. I have considered the submissions made
by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Perusal of the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.1090/1988 indicates that the
vendor of the petitioner namely T.S.Ramaraju had
filed a suit for permanent injunction against the
society through which the respondent No.2 is claiming
the subject site and in the said suit a decree is passed
restraining the society from interfering with the
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule
property therein.
8. A perusal of the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.553/2002 connected with
O.S.No.554/2002 indicates that one of the purchaser
of the site from the society had filed a suit for
permanent injunction and the said suits filed against
the vendor of the petitioner as well as the petitioner
herein has been dismissed.
9. The documents are alleged to have been
created by the petitioner/accused in the year 2008,
however, the FIR was lodged after an inordinate delay
of 10 years without offering any plausible
explanation. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M.Madhusudan Rao
reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582, paragraph 30 as
held as follows:
"Time and again, the object and
importance of prompt lodging of the first
information report has been highlighted.
Delay in lodging the first information
report, more of ten than not, results in
embellishment and exaggeration, which is
a creature of an after thought. A delayed
report not only gets bereft of the
advantage of spontaneity, the danger of
the introduction of a coloured version, an
exaggerated account of the incident or a
concocted story as a result of
deliberations and consultations, also
creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its
veracity. Therefore, it is essential that the
delay in lodging the report should be
satisfactorily explained."
In view of the above, I am of the considered
opinion that the dispute between the parties is purely
civil in nature, however, the FIR was lodged as an
afterthought with ulterior motive to wreak vengeance
and pressurize the petitioner/accused to enter into a
settlement. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned FIR in Cr.No.446/2018
registered by the Kengeri Police Station
insofar as it relates to petitioner/accused
No.1 is hereby quashed.
It is needless to state that respondent No.2 is at
liberty to agitate her rights before the jurisdictional
Civil Court in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
rv
