Sri Narendra Kumar S vs State By Magadi Road Police ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5397 Kant

                               1


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                             BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11228 OF 2022

BETWEEN

1.   SRI NARENDRA KUMAR S
     S/O LATE N. SRIKANTAIAH
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS

2.   SMT. SHANTHI NARENDRA KUMAR
     W/O SRI. S. NARENDRA KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS

3.   SRI. NITESH KUMAR N.
     S/O S. NARENDRA KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

4.   MISS. SHWETHA .N
     D/O S. NARENDRA KUMAR
     AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

     PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.300,
     66TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK
     RAJAJINAGARA
     BENGALURU 560 010

5.   SRI. RAVISHANKAR ILLANGOVAN
     S/O LATE ELANGAVAN
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
     RA/T NO. 584/1, THIRU NAGAR
     STATE BANK COLONY -II
     MEYYANUR, ALAGAPURAM
     SALEM
     TAMILNADU - 636 004
                              2


6.    SRI. SUBRAMANIAN ILLANGOVAN
      S/O LATE ILLANGOVAN
      AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
      R/AT NO.259/1
      THIRU NAGAR EXTENSON
      STATE BANK COLONY-II
      MEYYANUR, ALAGAPURAM
      SALEM
      TAMILNADU - 636 004
                                             ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAJENDRA K.R., ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE BY MAGADI ROAD POLICE STATION
      BENGALURU
      REPRESENTED BY S P P
      OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL
      HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
      BANGALORE - 560 001

2.    SRI ENGINEER S. NARESH KUMAR
      S/O LATE SRI. N. SRIKANTAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
      ENGINEER
      NO.300, 66TH CROSS
      5TH BLCOK, RAJAJINAGAR
      BENGALURU 560 010
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
CR.NO.182/2022 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., NRUPATHUNGA
ROAD, BENGALURU (REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE).

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 4.8.2023 THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
                                    3


                                 ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.1 to

4, 6 and 7 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') for quashing the FIR in

Crime No.182/2022 registered by the Magadi Road Police

Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections

406, 420, 379, 120B, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State and respondent No.2-party in person.

3. The case of the petitioners is that on the complaint

of respondent No.2 registered on 27.09.2022, the Police

registered the case and it is alleged by respondent No.2 that

petitioner No.1 is his younger brother and petitioner Nos.2 to 4

and other petitioners are the family members and relatives of

petitioner No.1 were stolen the property documents belong to

their father situated at Horamavu and contended that the

petitioners and others were all residing at Rajajinagar and

recently shifted from the said place and on verifying, he came

to know that the petitioners have stolen the property

documents with an intention to sell off those properties in

collusion with accused No.8 and wife of petitioner No.1. He

further contended that petitioner No.1 is unemployed and

during 1995, he did not have any source of income, but, he has

educated his sons to become Engineer. Petitioner No.1 spent

money for their education out of misappropriated amount. He

further contended that there were 6 sites purchased by his

father in his name and two sites were got registered in the

name of petitioner No.1 and entire documents were taken by

the petitioners. During 1995 till 2005, the petitioners knocked

out the entire properties belong to the undivided joint family.

In spite of the request, he was dodging and did not return the

said documents. The petitioners have amazed the property in

the name of their relatives who were staying at Salem.

Therefore, in order to find out the truth, it is necessary for

registering the FIR and to take action against them. After

receipt of the complaint, the Police registered the FIR which is

under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended that absolutely there is no ingredient to attract any

of the offences alleged by the complainant. The dispute

between the parties was civil in nature. The sister of petitioner

No.1 has already filed a partition suit which is pending in the

Civil Court. Two sites have been purchased by petitioner No.1

and he has sold the said sites, since he is ACC Cement agent

and the remaining 6 sites are still in the name of the father.

The said documents can be summoned by the Civil Court

during the trial. The allegation was pertaining to the year

1995-2000. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint.

The complaint was filed on 20.09.2022, but it was registered

on 27.09.2022. The complaint has been filed to harass the

petitioners by making all the family members as accused.

Hence, prayed for quashing the FIR.

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader

objected the petition and contended that there were various

allegations made by the complainant in his complaint.

Irrespective of the civil suit, the matter is required for

investigation. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. Respondent No.2-party-in-person also filed the

statement of objections and voluminous documents more than

1000 pages and contended that accused No.1 is his brother,

accused No.2 is the wife of accused No.1. Accused Nos.3 and 4

are the children of accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.5 is the

another brother of accused No.2, but there is no document to

show that he was dead. Accused Nos.6 and 7 are the other

brothers of accused No.2. All of them colluded together and

committed the offence. He has admitted the filing of the

partition suit by his sister. But contended that the petitioner

dodged for giving any share and the sister was resided in US

and she has filed a suit through GPA holder and now her

husband has given GPA to some other person. The accused

persons knocked out the properties by creating the false gift

deeds and constructed the building letting out by enjoying the

rent. The property of the parents has been misused and duped

the complainant. The matter is required for investigation to

find out the truth. The Court should not curtail the power of

the Police to investigate the matter at this stage. Hence,

prayed for dismissing the petition.

7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of the

records, especially the statement of objections and voluminous

documents produced by the respondent which reveals they are

the sale deeds, gift deeds and other documents. The case of

the complainant is that petitioner No.1 being the brother of the

complainant who was residing in the joint family property at

Rajajinagar by misusing the absence of the complainant stolen

the property documents including the father's property.

Though the petitioner counsel contended that the properties

still stands in the name of the father, he had purchased two

sites and sold subsequently were all the matter of

investigation. This Court cannot sit and conduct the mini trial to

come to the conclusion that the complaint and its averments

are false without going for the investigation. The gift deeds

also executed by them in favour of some other brother which is

not a property mentioned in the suit schedule property in the

civil suit. Though the petitioner has contended that the

properties are still in the name of the father, but he has not

filed any written statement in the civil suit confirming the

same. On the other hand, only the defacto-complainant have

filed the written statement. Though the dispute between the

brother and sisters in respect of some properties belong to the

father, but the main allegation is that the Police are required to

find out whether the documents were stolen by petitioner No.1

or not or still it is in the same house and also required to verify

that the petitioner have sold any sites belongs to his father

apart from other valuables kept in the house since both parents

were no more. The father of respondent No.2 and petitioner

No.1 was died in the year 2000 and the mother was died in the

year 2010 and the petitioner is said to be dodged continuously,

therefore, now the complainant constrained to file the

complaint to the Police. Though the petitioner counsel has

contended that there is no entrustment of the property in order

to show criminal breach of trust and there is no cheating but

the allegations cannot be said as false at this stage without

going for the investigation.

8. However, the allegation against other petitioners

especially brother of respondent No.2, the children of the 1st

and 2nd petitioner, there is no specific allegation against them

and petitioner Nos.5 and 6 are residing at Tamil Nadu. Merely,

they are the relatives of petitioner No.2 that itself is not a

ground to show that they have involved in the commission of

offence or made any conspiracy to commit the offence.

Therefore, I am of the view, there may be a dispute between

petitioner No.1 who is the brother of respondent No.2, but the

remaining family members were all simply implicated in the

case as they are family members and there is no ingredient to

attract any of the provisions against those petitioners to show

that they have committed the offence. Therefore, except

petitioner No.1, there is no case made out in the FIR to

investigate the matter. Though the respondent has relied upon

various judgments and petitioner counsel also relied upon the

judgment in respect of quashing the criminal proceedings in

respect of the civil dispute, this Court have gone through all

the judgments and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in respect of quashing the FIR. Therefore, I am

of the view, except petitioner No.1, other petitioners are

entitled for relief under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and investigation

and proceedings against them are abuse of process of law.

Hence, liable to be quashed.

9. Accordingly, the petition is allowed in-part.

The petition filed by petitioner No.1-accused No.1 is

hereby dismissed.

The FIR in Crime No.182/2022 registered by the Magadi

Road Police Station, Bengaluru against petitioner Nos.2 to 7-

accused Nos.2 to 4, 6 and 7 are hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE GBB