Karnataka High Court
Sri. T Ramachandraiah vs The Sampigehalli Police Station on 4 April, 2024
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14009
CRL.P No. 3505 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3505 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SRI T. RAMACHANDRAIAH
S/O LATE THAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO 634
THANISANDRA, 1ST CROSS
RACHENAHALLI MAIN ROAD
SRK NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 077.
2. SRI T. NARASYANASWAMY
S/O LATE THAYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.543 THANISANDRA
2ND CROSS, RACHENAHALLI
MAIN ROAD, SRK NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 077.
Digitally signed 3. SRI T. GOVINDARAJU
by PAVITHRA N S/O LATE THAYAPPA
Location: High AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
Court of
Karnataka RESIDING AT NO 544
THANISANDRA, 3RD CROSS
RACHENAHALLI MAIN ROAD
SRK NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 077.
4. SRI T.N. PRAKASH
S/O T. NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.543
THANISANDRA, 2ND CROSS
RACHENAHALLI MAIN ROAD
SRK NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 077.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14009
CRL.P No. 3505 of 2023
5. SRI T.R. MANJUNATH
S/O T. RAMACHANDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.634
THANISANDRA, 1ST CROSS
RACHENAHALLI MAIN ROAD
SRK NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 077.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.P SOMASHEKARAIAH, ADV., FOR
SRI P.M. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE SAMPIGEHALLI POLICE
STATION, SAMPIGEHALLI
BANGALORE CITY
BY SPP H.C. B'DG
BANGALORE - 01.
2. SMT. SRIDEVI
W/O LATE MURTHY @
KRISHNAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.538
RACHENAHALLI MAIN ROAD
ARABIC COLLEGE POST THANISANDRA
BANGALORE - 560 077.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI N.S. VISHWANATHA, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE
COMPLAINT DATED 24.01.2023 AND FIR IN CR.NO.14/2023 DATED
24.01.2023 SAMPIGEHALLI P.S. FALSELY REGISTERED AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCE P/U/S 468,471,420 R/W 120(B) OF IPC AT ANNEXURE A
AND B.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:14009
CRL.P No. 3505 of 2023
ORDER
1. Accused nos.1 to 5 are before this Court under Section
482 of Cr.PC with a prayer to quash the FIR in Crime
No.14/2023 registered by Sampigehalli Police Station,
Bengaluru City, for the offences punishable Sections 468, 471,
420, 120B IPC.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners having reiterated the
grounds urged in the petition submits that there is a civil
dispute between the parties. The validity of the Will dated
19.02.1997 is the subject matter of the suits pending between
the parties. Only to harass the petitioners herein who are the
family members of late Krishnamurthy - husband of respondent
no.2 herein, false criminal proceedings is initiated against
them.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for respondent no.1
and the learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 have
opposed the petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:14009
5. Learned Counsel for respondent no.2 submits that
respondent no.2 is the sister's daughter of petitioner nos.1
to 3. She had married Krishnamurthy who is the brother of
petitioner nos.1 to 3. After the death of Krishnamurthy, with an
intention to grab the properties which were allotted to him in a
family partition, the petitioners herein have created a forged
Will dated 19.02.1997 and on the basis of the said unregistered
Will, they have entered into multiple transactions in respect of
the land which is the absolute property of late Krishnamurthy.
Though there are multiple civil litigations between the parties,
till date, the petitioners have not sought for a declaration in
respect of the alleged Will dated 19.02.1997 and they have not
produced the original of the Will in any civil litigations. Their
conduct rises a serious suspicion against them and also with
regard to the genuineness of the unregistered Will dated
19.02.1997 said to have been executed by Krishnamurthy in
their favour.
6. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute.
Petitioner nos.1 to 3 and late Krishnamurthy are the sons of
late Thayappa. Respondent no.2 is the sister's daughter of
petitioner nos.1 to 3 and late Krishnamurthy. She was married
NC: 2024:KHC:14009
to late Krishnamurthy who was her uncle. During the lifetime of
Thayappa, there was a partition of the joint family properties
on 22.09.1992 and certain items of joint family properties were
allotted to the share of Krishnamurthy. The marriage of
respondent no.2 with Krishnamurthy took place on 09.06.1993
which is subsequent to the aforesaid partition. Krishnamurthy
died on 05.07.1997. Petitioners herein who are the close
relatives of Krishnamurthy claim that he had executed a Will
dated 19.02.1997 in their favour bequeathing the family
properties which were allotted to his share in their favour.
7. Respondent no.2 had filed O.S.No.7211/2005 seeking a
decree of permanent injunction in respect of the lands which
were allotted to the share of her husband - Krishnamurthy
under the partition deed dated 22.09.1992. Petitioner nos.1 to
3 and their father Thayappa were defendants in the said suit.
The said suit was decreed on 04.01.2010. It appears that
subsequently on the basis of the alleged Will dated 19.02.1997,
the petitioners herein have executed gift deeds inter se
between themselves and on the basis of the said registered gift
deeds, they have now filed three separate suits in
O.S.Nos.6583/2019, 6677/2019 & 6991/2019 seeking
NC: 2024:KHC:14009
declaration of their title on the basis of the gift deeds executed
inter se between themselves. Till date, the petitioners have not
sought for any declaration of their title on the basis of the
alleged Will dated 19.02.1997. They have not produced the
original of the said Will either in O.S.No.7211/2005 or in the
three suits now filed by them against respondent no.2.
8. In the first information submitted by respondent no.2 on
24.01.2023 which has resulted in registering FIR in Crime
No.14/2023 registered by K.G.Halli Poilce Station, Bengaluru,
she has specifically alleged that after the death of her husband
Krishnamurthy on 05.07.1997, she has succeeded to the
properties which were allotted to him under the family partition
dated 22.09.1992 and she was also granted a decree of
permanent injunction in respect of the said lands in
O.S.No.7211/2005. She has alleged that with a view to grab
the properties left behind by her husband late Krishnamurhty,
the petitioners herein who are his brothers and nephews have
created a forged Will and based on the same, they have
created gift deeds inter se between themselves and are trying
to grab the properties on the basis of the aforesaid fraudulent
documents.
NC: 2024:KHC:14009
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
of the view that the allegations made in the first information
needs to be investigated and it cannot be said that a false
complaint has been filed by respondent no.2 as against the
petitioners herein for the reason that they are close relatives of
her husband who has executed a Will in their favour. Merely for
the reason that there are civil disputes pending between the
parties, criminal proceedings wherein serious allegations are
made cannot be quashed.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRATIBHA VS.
RAMESHWARI DEVI & OTHERS - (2007) 12 SCC 369, has held
that it is well settled that criminal and civil proceedings are
separate and independent and the pendency of a civil
proceeding cannot bring to an end a criminal proceeding even if
they arise out of the same set of facts.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANAPAREDDY
MAHEEDHAR SESHAGIRI VS STATE OF A.P. - (2007)13 SCC
165, at paragraph 31, has observed as under:
"31. A careful reading of the above noted
judgments makes it clear that the High Court should be
NC: 2024:KHC:14009
extremely cautious and slow to interfere with the
investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and should
not stall the investigation and/or prosecution except
when it is convinced beyond any manner of doubt that
the FIR does not disclose commission of any offence or
that the allegations contained in the FIR do not
constitute any cognizable offence or that the
prosecution is barred by law or the High Court is
convinced that it is necessary to interfere to prevent
abuse of the process of the court. In dealing with such
cases, the High Court has to bear in mind that judicial
intervention at the threshold of the legal process
initiated against a person accused of committing offence
is highly detrimental to the larger public and societal
interest. The people and the society have a legitimate
expectation that those committing offences either
against an individual or the society are expeditiously
brought to trial and, if found guilty, adequately
punished. Therefore, while deciding a petition filed for
quashing the FIR or complaint or restraining the
competent authority from investigating the allegations
contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling the trial
of the case, the High Court should be extremely careful
and circumspect. If the allegations contained in the FIR
or complaint discloses commission of some crime, then
the High Court must keep its hands off and allow the
investigating agency to complete the investigation
without any fetter and also refrain from passing order
which may impede the trial. The High Court should not
go into the merits and demerits of the allegations
simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus
NC: 2024:KHC:14009
against the author of the FIR or the complainant. The
High Court must also refrain from making imaginary
journey in the realm of possible harassment which may
be caused to the petitioner on account of investigation
of the FIR or complaint. Such a course will result in
miscarriage of justice and would encourage those
accused of committing crimes to repeat the same.
However, if the High Court is satisfied that the
complaint does not disclose commission of any offence
or prosecution is barred by limitation or that the
proceedings of criminal case would result in failure of
justice, then it may exercise inherent power under
Section 482 Cr.P.C."
10. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the
prayer made by the petitioner to quash the FIR cannot be
granted. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KK
