Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nagamani vs State Of Karnataka on 7 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
WP No. 15264 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 15264 OF 2020 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGAMANI
W/O. SRI. VENKATARAMANAPPA,
AGE: 39 YEARS,
2. M. MANJUNATH
S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT
KYALASANAHALLI VILLAGE,
HULIMANGALA POST,
Digitally signed
by SWAPNA V JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
Location: high BANGALORE - 560 105
court of
karnataka ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
BAGALUR POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE CITY,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 01.
2. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA,
W/O. LATE. G. VENKATESHAPPA,
R/AT BHASKER BUILDING,
GROUND FLOOR,
MANCHANAHALLI ROAD,
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK,
BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT - 560 105
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
WP No. 15264 of 2020
SRI. GANAPATI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO - ISSUE ORDER
QUASHING OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT AND CONSEQUENTLY
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR NO.225/2020 ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC DEVANAHALLI
REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 406, 420, 465,
468 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3 are seeking to
quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them on the
basis of the private complaint lodged by respondent No.2 in
PCR.No.225/2020, on the file of the learned Principal Civil
Judge & JMFC, Devanahalli ,which came to be registered in
Crime No.110/2020 of Bagalur police station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 468 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2
filed the private complaint in PCR No.225/2020 against accused
Nos.1 to 3, alleging commission of the offence as stated above,
stating that the husband of the complainant late
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
Venkataramanappa during his lifetime, got grant of the land
vide grant certificate dated 03.02.2004 and the same was
standing in his name. After his death, the property devolved on
the complainant and her children.
3. It is stated that accused No.3 is running Real Estate
business and persuaded the informant that he will help in
getting the revenue records for mutating the land in his name.
He managed to get registered General Power of Attorney(GPA)
dated 24.10.2013 in his favour. It is also alleged that on
19.01.2019, accused No.3 without bringing it to the notice of
the complainant executed an agreement for sale in favour of
one Ganesh K.V agreeing to alienate 1 acre of land belonging to
the complainant for a total consideration of Rs.1.29 crores. The
agreement also discloses that accused No.3 had received
Rs.20,00,000/- as advance. After coming to know about the
same, the complainant and her family members cancelled the
GPA deed, which was got executed by him. This was brought to
the notice of accused No.3 and also to Ganesh K.V, who is the
agreement holder.
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
4. The complainant further stated that accused No.3 in
collusion with his father-in-law - accused No.1 and wife accused
No.2 with an intention to grab the property belonging to the
complainant concocted the document styled as agreement for
sale said to be executed by the complainant in favour of
accused Nos. 1 and 2, agreeing to sell the property for
Rs.7,50,000/- and also that they have paid advance of Rs.
3,75,000/- to the complainant. It is the contention of the
complainant that all these documents were concocted and
forged documents by accused Nos. 1 to 3, to make wrongful
gain. Therefore, they sought for registration of the criminal
complaint and initiation of action for the above said offences.
5. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence
and directed the police to register the FIR. Accordingly, Crime
No.110/2020 of Bagalur police station came to be registered.
6. The petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3 are
before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. It
is stated that accused No.1 is already dead and criminal
proceedings against him is abated.
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
7. Heard Sri Sachin B. S, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Smt. K. P. Yashodha, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Ganapati
Bhat Vajralli, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the
materials on records.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that
admittedly, the complainant had executed a registered GPA
deed in favour of accused No.3. It was a power of attorney
deed coupled with interest, as accused No.3 was authorized to
lease or mortgage the property or even sell it to third parties.
Under such circumstances, the complainant had no right under
Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act to get the deed cancelled.
However he, got executed the registered cancellation deed,
which cannot be recognized in the eye of law. He placed
reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court
in Smt. Madhumati w/o Mahadevappa Kerimattihalli @
Bheemakkanavar v/s State of Karnataka1, wherein, the
Court after referring to Section 31 of Specific Relief Act held
that, once a registered GPA coupled with interest is executed,
the person who seeks cancellation of the said document has an
2020 0 Supreme (Kar) 544
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
efficacious remedy available to him under law to seek
cancellation under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act. But the
Sub-Registrar will not have any power to register the
document, seeking cancellation of such deed in absence of both
the parties. The Court has also referred to Section 17 of
Registration Act and held that there is no express provision in
the Registration Act, which empowers the Registrar to recall
such registration.
9. Learned counsel further submitted that the
complainant has not complied with the directions issued by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v/s
State of Uttar Pradesh and Other2, since no complaint was
filed before the police. Even though it is contended that the
complaint is filed before the police, the same is not a detailed
complaint and the allegations made in the private complaint do
not find place in the police complaint. He further submitted that
even if it is to be taken that section 154(1) of Cr.PC is complied
with, admittedly, there is no compliance of Section 154(3) of
Cr.PC. The affidavit accompanying the complaint was also not
filed and hence, the private complaint is liable to be dismissed.
(2015) 6 Supreme Court Cases 287
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
10. Learned counsel further submitted that accused
No.2 has filed the suit OS.No.902/2019 against the complainant
for specific performance of the contract. When the suit
summons was issued to respondent No.2, she has chosen to
file private complaint with oblique motive and to stall the civil
proceedings. There are absolutely no other reasons for the
complainant to file the criminal complaint, alleging concoction
of documents, forgery of the signatures and thumb
impressions. When the Civil Court is ceased off the matter to
consider the genuineness of the agreement to sell dated
15.02.2019, the Trial Court could not have proceeded with the
private complaint and even the police could not have proceed
with the investigation on bald allegations made in the private
complaint. Learned counsel submitted that, now the civil suit is
pending for evidence and if in the meantime, the Investigating
Officer is permitted to investigate the matter, it will lead to
multiple proceedings, which cannot be permitted. In view of the
same, he prays for allowing the petition, while quashing the
criminal proceedings initiated against accused Nos. 2 and 3.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
opposing the petition submitted that initially the complainant
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
filed the first information before the jurisdictional police on
07.12.2019, making specific reference to the GPA deed and
agreement to sell dated 15.12.2019. There is also reference to
suit O.S.893/2019 filed by accused No. 2 and it is specifically
stated that after service of notice, the complainant came to
know about the concoction of the said document and
immediately, the first information was lodged. The police have
not registered the FIR, but issued the NCR on the very same
day. Therefore, the complainant has filed the private complaint,
making specific allegations against accused Nos.1 to 3. An
affidavit that is required to be filed as per the directions issued
by Hon'ble Apex court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra), is also
filed and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that there is non compliance of the directions
issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava
(supra), cannot be accepted.
12. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.G. Premshanker v/s Inspector
of Police3 and Balaji Trading Co., and others v/s Saifulla
(2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 87
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
Khan Gaffar Sahukar and another4 in support of his
contention that, even though a civil suit is filed and the matter
is pending for consideration before the Court of competent civil
jurisdiction, registration of criminal complaint is not barred.
Both the proceedings could be proceeded simultaneously.
Placing reliance on these decisions, learned counsel contended
that in the present case, after registering the FIR, the
investigation has not proceeded as there was interim order of
stay. While in the civil suit, the issues are framed and the
matter is set down for plaintiff's evidence. Under such
circumstances, both the proceedings will be proceeded
separately, as there is no bar under law.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that, when
serious allegations are made regarding forging of signatures
and left thumb impression of the complainant and her family
members to concoct the agreement to sell dated 15.02.2019
and based on the same, the suit for specific performance of the
contract was filed in O.S.893/2019, alleging that an advance of
Rs.3,75,000/- was paid in cash, a detailed enquiry is to be held
by the Investigating Officer. Looking to the nature and
ILR 2017 KAR 4397
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
seriousness of the offence, he prays for dismissal of the
petition, permitting investigation in the matter.
14. Learned High Court Government Pleader supporting
the contention taken by learned counsel for respondent No.2
submitted that as there was interim stay, the investigation
could not to be carried out. Since the allegations against the
petitioners are of very serious in nature, the petition is liable to
be dismissed.
15. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
"Whether the Petitioners have made
out any grounds to allow the petition and
to quash the criminal proceeding initiated
against them?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
16. The complainant has made serious allegations as
stated above against accused Nos.1 to 3. It is stated that
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
accused No.1 is the father-in-law of accused No.3, is no more.
However, the agreement dated 15.02.2019 is said to have been
executed by the complainant and her family members in favour
of accused Nos.1 and 2 and admittedly accused No.2 filed the
suit O.S.No.893/2019, seeking specific performance of the
contract. As per this agreement dated 15.02.2019, the
complainant and her family members agreed to sell 1 acre of
land in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 for a total consideration
of Rs. 7,50,000/- and they have received advance of
Rs.3,75,000/- in cash. It is pertinent to note that there is one
more agreement to sell said to have been executed by accused
No.3 in favour of one Ganesh K.V on 19.01.2019 just about a
month before the agreement dated 15.02.2019, wherein, the
value of the land is shown as Rs.1.29 crores and it is stated
that accused No.2 had received advance amount of
Rs.20,00,000/-. These facts and circumstances and the
allegations made by the complainant who is a rustic villager,
aged 58 years, who affixed her left thumb impression in the
private complaint, assumes importance.
17. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the registered GPA deed executed by the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
complainant and her family members in favour of accused No.3
could not have been cancelled by executing another registered
deed, in view of decision of the co-ordinate bench of this Court
in Smt. Madhumati (supra). Even if such contention is to be
accepted, the allegations in the private complaint is with regard
to the agreement to sell dated 15.02.2019 said to have been
executed by the complainant and her family members in favour
of accused Nos. 1 and 2, specifically alleging that the signature
and left thumb impression found on this agreement to sell is
the forged one and that it is a concocted document. These
allegations assume importance and more so in view of the fact
accused No.1 is the father-in-law of accused No.3 and accused
No.2 is the wife of accused No.3. When specific allegations are
made that accused No.3 is behind concoction of this document
dated 15.02.2019 in favour of accused Nos. 1 and 2, a detailed
investigation is required to be held by the Investigating Officer.
18. In K.G. Premshanker (supra) similar contention
was raised before the Hon'ble Apex Court seeking to quash the
criminal proceedings, as civil suit is pending before the
competent court of civil jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Apex Court
referring to its earlier decisions, categorically held that, if the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
criminal case and civil proceedings are for the same cause, the
judgment of the Civil Court would be relevant, if conditions of
any of Sections 40 to 43 of Evidence Act are satisfied. It also
categorically held that it cannot be said that the same would be
conclusive proof. It further held that there cannot be any hard
and fast rule that could be laid down and that possibility of
conflicting decision in civil and criminal courts is a relevant
consideration.
19. The co-ordinate bench of this Court in Balaji
Trading Co.,(supra) after referring to the decision of the
Constitution Bench in M S Sheriff Vs State of Madras5,
recorded a categorical finding that the criminal proceedings
cannot be stalled, merely because, the civil suit is pending with
reference to same set of documents. However, it has observed
that it is not a hard and fast rule that both the cases can
continue together, but for special consideration and on any
special circumstances, if the civil case and the criminal
proceedings which are so near for disposal and if a ground is
made out, the Civil Court can stay its proceedings till the
criminal proceedings are concluded or vice versa as the case
AIR 1945 SC 397
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
may be under the special and peculiar circumstances of the
case. Therefore, pendency of the civil suit seeking declaration
in respect of the same documents cannot be a ground to quash
the criminal proceedings.
20. Thus the position of law is very well settled that
even if the civil case is pending for consideration before the
Court of competent jurisdiction, the same can not be the
ground to quash the criminal proceedings, as the object of suit
and the criminal proceedings are entirely different.
21. The next contention raised by the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that the requirement of law as directed by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) is not
complied with. In paragraph No. 30 of the said judgment, the
Hon'ble Apex Court directs filing of the affidavit duly sworn by
the applicant, who seeks invocation of the jurisdiction of the
Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of Cr.PC. The copy of the
affidavit said to have been sworn by the complainant before the
Trial Court is produced by learned counsel for respondent No.2,
which complies with the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
22. It is also contended by learned counsel for the
petitioners that Section 154(1) and 154(3) are not complied
with. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has produced copy
of the complaint dated 07.12.2019, filed by the complainant
herein with the police inspector, Bagaluru police station against
the accused making reference to the agreement to sell dated
15.02.2019, the GPA dated 24.10.2013 cancellation deed dated
22.03.2019 and also the suit O.S.No.893/2019. He has also
produced the acknowledgment issued for having received the
first information. But admittedly, no FIR came to be registered.
Under such circumstances, the private complaint came to be
filed on 22.09.2020. The contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners that there is non compliance of Section 154(3)
of Cr.PC and therefore, the private complaint is liable to be
rejected, cannot be accepted.
23. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that since
serious allegations are made against the accused for having
committed the offence as stated above in executing various
documents, I am of the opinion that the investigation by the
Investigating Officer is required to be undertaken to find out
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31515
the truth. It is not a fit case for quashing the criminal
proceedings.
24. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
