Karnataka High Court
Sri Nagesh N vs State By on 4 June, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
CRL.P No. 2084 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2084 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NAGESH N
S/O LATE D. NARAYANAPPA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
HAL 2ND STAGE, NEAR HAL,
2ND STAGE POST OFFICE
BENGALURU - 560 008.
2. SRI H NAGARAJ
S/O G P HANUMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/O GIRANAHALLI VILLAGE
KEMBODI POST, HUTHUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101.
Digitally signed by
NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
3. UDAY KUMAR M
S/O LATE A E MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/O ABBANI VILLAGE,
SHAPUR POST, HUTHUR HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 101.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. H MUNISWAMY GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
CRL.P No. 2084 of 2022
AND:
1. STATE BY
VEMAGAL POLICE STATION
REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI N BACHANNA
S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST
R/O DINNE HOSAHALLI VILLAGE
NARASAPURA HOBLI
KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 563 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B N JAGADEESH, ADDL. SPP. FOR R1;
SRI. R SHASHIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH
THE F.I.R (CRIME) NO.21/2022, REGISTERED BY THE VEMAGAL
POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHBALE U/S. 465, 468, 420
R/W SECTION 120 (B) OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DIV) AND JMFC COURT AT
KOLAR AT ANNEXURE 'A'.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
CRL.P No. 2084 of 2022
ORDER
The petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court
calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.21/2022,
pending before the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC
Court at Kolar, for the offences punishable under Sections 465,
420 and 468 r/w. 120B of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri H. Muniswamy Gowda, learned counsel for
petitioners, Sri B.N.Jagadeesh, learned counsel for respondent
No.1, Sri R. Shashikumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The facts in brief, germane are as follows:
The complainant is said to be the owner of certain landed
property. The complainant executes certain agreement to sell
in favour of the present accused. The agreement to sell was
not taken forward by the complainant, which lead these
accused before the civil Court in O.S.No.40/2021 and in the
said original suit, the complainant and the accused arrived at
settlement by filing an appropriate compromise petition before
the concerned Court on 27.03.2021. Thus, the suit ended with
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
a compromise. After the signing of the compromise petition
and closure of the suit, the complainant registers the subject
private complaint on 08.12.2021 in P.C.R.No.169/2021, for the
offences as afore-quoted. It is the contention that the
compromise petition was drawn by playing fraud and therefore,
it should be obliterated and initiated certain proceedings
seeking annulment of compromise petition before the
concerned Court and the decree passed thereon.
4. The reference of the private complaint for the afore-
quoted offences, by the learned Magistrate under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C., results in registration of the crime, in
Crime No.21/2022, leads the petitioners to this Court in the
subject petition. This Court in terms of the order dated
15.03.2022, interdicted further proceedings in Crime
No.21/2022, which is in subsistence even today.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
complainant himself appears and signs on the compromise
petition; the suit is decreed on the basis of the compromise
petition; the cheques that were handed over to the complainant
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
were not presented and in the execution, the petitioners had
deposited the amount that was the subject matter of the
compromise. Learned counsel would further submit that the
complainant had preferred the suit to cancel the decree of
compromise arrived at, which is also dismissed by the
concerned Court, against which the complainant has preferred
an appeal before the first Appellate Court and the same is
pending adjudication.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant
would refute the submissions to contend that the signatures of
the complainant were obtained for something else and what is
presented is a compromise petition. Therefore, it is a fraud
played by the petitioners and resultant decree on the strength
of the compromise petition. He would submit that not even a
rupee is paid from the hands of the petitioners in terms of the
compromise petition. He would submit that the petition be
dismissed and further investigation be permitted to continue.
7. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would toe
the lines of the learned counsel for respondent No.2,
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
contending that the petition should be dismissed and it is a
matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and
requires no reiteration. The agreement to sell having entered
into by the complainant in favour of the petitioners, is a matter
of record. The allegation was that the complainant did not
come forward to execute the sale deed and this results in filing
of a suit for specific performance by the petitioners in
O.S.No.40/2021. The O.S.No.40/2021 is closed and the decree
is drawn on a compromise entered into between the
complainant and the petitioners. It is an admitted fact that the
complainant did sign on the compromise petition and the
proceedings come to be closed by drawing up a decree in terms
of the compromise. After the suit was closed, comes the
impugned complaint. The complaint reads as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
"COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 OF Cr. P.C.
The complainant above named begs to submit as
follows;
1. That the addresses of the parties are given in
the cause title for the purpose of issuing notices,
summonses etc., by this Hon'ble court and complainant
care of his counsels LB Adve and Associates, Ane Market,
M.B BA Road, Kolar
complainant working The complainant submits
that, the respectable etzen in the locality, he is
Agriculturists and he is handicapped person. In view of
that his brother Nagesh and his mother Bachamma are
absolute owner and they are enjoyment of the land
bearing Old Sv. No. 61, new Sv. No. 61/3B, to an extent
of 0-39 guntas, situated al Uddappanahalli Village,
Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk and District, possession
and
3. The complainant further submits that, the
accused persons are call from one our relative by name
Nataraj, Mahesh. R. Venu S/o. Narayanaswamy. called to
accused persons, they are says those accused persons
are practiced advocates in Bengaluru, they are handle in
your cases of pending before the Assistant
Commissioner, Kolar and Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Kolar
in O.S. No. 494/2021 as pending. They are taking the
sign in somany papers and also at before the court also.
That facts has says by the above persons to The
complainant and his brother and mother.
4. Finally shows that has created regarding
compromise petition in O.S. No. 40/2021 on the file of
Prl. Senior Civil Judge at Kolar, then the said above
complainant relations are says to complainant those the
above land properties are sold in favour of said accused
persons, they are issuing cheques before the Lok-
Adalath. Then, the complainant and his brother and
mother have surprised and after verifying the documents
to the another Advocate that has available, that
compromise petition has created without their
knowledge. In view of that all the said lands has created
title in favour of accused persons. As such, they are
fraudulently created the documents in favour of them,
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
that itself has fraudulent documents of said compromise
decree.
5. After came to the knowledge of complaint
immediately lodge the complaint before the
concerned police, the police have says that matter
has not came to our jurisdiction to approach the
concerned forum. Hence, filing this complaint
before this Hon'ble court. The complainant is
herewith producing the complaint copy,
compromise decree of O.S. No. 40/2021, plaint
copy of O.S. No. 40/2021 on the file of Prl. Senior
Civil Judge at Kolar, in that plaint and compromise
stated issuing the cheques are all false, cheques
has not given to complainant and above
complainant mother and brother. In view of that
the accused persons are liable to offender in this
case.
6 The complainant further submits that, the
above accused are offender of punishable under
section 465, 468, 420 R/W 120(B) of IPC.
7. The complainant cause of action arose on
21-10 2021 and on subsequent dates within the
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.
Wherefore, the complainant prays this Hon'ble
court to registered a case against the accused for offence
punishable under sections 465, 468, 420 R/W 120(B) of
IPC and punish the accused for the said offences in the
interest of law and justice.
(Emphasis added)
In the complaint, the complainant himself narrates that
he has initiated proceedings to get the compromise decree in
O.S.No.40/2021 to be annulled before the competent Court. If
that be so, a seemingly civil dispute between the parties is
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
rendered a colour of crime for which, it would become apposite
to refer to the pleadings and the prayer made in
O.S.No.494/2021, which read as follows:
"PLAINT UNDER ORDER VII RULE 1 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
CODE
The plaintiffs above named most humbly submit as
follows:-
1. The addresses of the parties correctly set out in
the cause title for the service of summons and notices
etc., from this Hon'ble court and the address of the
plaintiffs are also C/o. Sri. C. Srinivas, Advocate,
Jayashyla Building, Kataripalya 1st Main Road, Opposite
Nagarakunte, Kolar City, Kolar. to
2. The Plaintiffs submit that, one Sonnabachappa
is the original propositor of the joint family, the said
Sonnabachappa had a wife by name Krishnamma, both
are now no more, they are having three female children
namely Dodda Byranıma, Chikka Byramma (Defendant
No.1), Bachamma (Defendant No.2), the said Bramma
died leaving behind the plaintiffs herein as her sons and
daughters. For better clarification the plaintiffs are
herewith producing the Genealogical Tree for kind perusal
of this Hon'ble court
3. The plaintiffs submit that, the plaintiffs and
defendants are all joint family members and in joint
possession of the suit schedule property. The defendant
no.1 is the manager of the joint family. she is misusing
the income of the joint family funds and till today the
property is standing in the name of 2nd defendant, the
death of original propositor, the defendants are colluded
each other, the 2nd defendant has changed the katha and
mutation in her name on the basis of Pavathi Varasu. The
suit schedule property is the ancestral property of the
plaintiffs and defendants. They are jointly cultivating the
suit schedule property by enjoying their joint possession
and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The
plaintiffs mother was died on 25-12-2016. During the life
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
time of Doddabyranma who is the plaintiffs mother herein
have filed a suit against the defendants before the Hon'ble
Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C at Kolar in O.S. No.
497/2014 for the relief of Permanent Injunction, the said
suit is abated and the entire order sheet in the above suit
is herewith producing for kind perusal of this Hon'ble
court.
4. The plaintiffs submit that, the plaintiffs are
also entitled for 1/3rd legitimate share in the suit
schedule property as plaintiffs are the joint family
members and in joint possession of the suit
5. The plaintiff submits that, the 1 defendant
by colluding with 2nd defendant, they have colluded
together and they are trying to create charge in the
suit schedule property behind the back of plaintiffs
and they are denying the share over the suit
schedule property and also the 1s defendant herein
has mismanaging the joint family funds and they
are not shown the accounts of the joint family
funds. In this regard the plaintiffs have brought
these illegal activities of defendants, as such the
plaintiffs has convened panchayath, in that
Panchayath, the panchayathdars advised the
defendants to give share to the plaintiffs, but the
defendants not obeyed the advice of the
panchayathdars. Hence, without any alternative,
the plaintiff filed this suit for partition.
7. The cause of action for the suit arose,
when the defendants are refused to give share to
the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property on 25-
09-2021 and on subsequent dates, the suit schedule
property is situated at Uddappanahalli Village,
Narasapura Hobli, Kolar Taluk., within the
jurisdiction of this Hon'ble court.
8. The suit is valued as per the Karnataka
Court fee and suits valuation Act and separate
valuation slip is here with produced.
Wherefore, the plaintiffs pray that this
Hon'ble court pleased to pass judgment and decree
in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
a) For partition and separate possession of
the suit schedule property by directing the
defendants to allot the plaintiffs 1/3rd share and
put them in separate possession of so allotted
share;
b) Directing the defendants to pay costs of
the suit and grant such other reliefs deems fit to be
granted, in the ends of justice and equity.
SCHEDULE
1. The land bearing Sy. No. 61/3B, measuring 0-
39 guntas, situated at Uddappanahalli Village, Narasapura
Hobli, Kolar Taluk & District.. bounded on:
East : Land of Govindappa,
West : Land of Thotappanavara Muniyappa,
North : Land of Thotappanavara Muniyappa,
South : National High Way.
(Emphasis added)
The foundation laid by the complainant before the
concerned Court to get the compromise petition annulled, is
identical to what is narrated in the complaint, invoking Section
200 of the Cr.P.C. The suit comes to be rejected. The
rejection of the suit has led the complainant before the first
Appellate Court, in a regular appeal and the same is pending
adjudication. In the teeth of the issue being civil in nature,
unless it is determined by the competent Court of law, that the
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
compromise decree is obtained by playing fraud, the
continuance of the investigation in the subject petition would be
permitting a civil dispute, that is given a colour of crime to
continue, this would run foul of plethora of judgments of the
Apex Court, on the issue. Quoting them would only bulk the
subject judgment.
10. However, the quashment of the investigation against
these petitioners would remain only till a determination comes
about by the competent civil Court, that the compromise
petition is obtained by playing fraud. At which point in time,
the complainant is at liberty to seek revival of these
proceedings, on such findings being rendered by the competent
civil Court.
11. On the aforesaid reasons and observations, the
following:
ORDER
a. The criminal petition is allowed.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:19201
b. The crime in Crime No.21/2022, pending on the file of
the I Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC Court at
Kolar, stands quashed.
c. Liberty is reserved to the complainant to seek revival
of these proceedings, in the light of the observations
made in the course of the order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
NVJ
