Karnataka High Court
Anthonappa vs State Of Karnataka on 7 March, 2024
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7328 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NOS. 7404/2022,
7559/2022 AND 7625/2022
IN CRL.P NO.7328/2022
BETWEEN:
1. ANTHONAPPA
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT BASAVAPURA VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
2. ELIZABETH RANI
W/O PRABHU KUMAR PJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT 4615/3, MUTTA ROAD,
BEGUR, ANEKAL BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 092.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HULIMAVU LAYOUT P S,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MRS. SUNITHA RAJASHEKAR
W/O MR. RAJASHEKAR K V,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.618,
VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT,
8B MAIN ROAD,
2ND CROSS BANGALORE - 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDITIONAL SPP ALONG WITH;
SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP FOR R1/STATE;
SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CR.NO.144/2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.466, 34,
120-B, 467, 471, 474, 426, 463 OF IPC REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT POLICE THAT IS HULIMAVU POLICE
STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE V
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT
AT BENGALURU.
IN CRL.P NO.7404/2022
BETWEEN:
1. ANTHONAPPA
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
3
R/AT BASAVAPURA VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
2. ELIZABETH RANI
W/O PRABHU KUMAR PJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT 4615/3, MUTTA ROAD,
BEGUR, ANEKAL BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 092.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HULIMAVU LAYOUT P S,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MR. SUDHEER BABU ATTE
S/O MR. BALANNA ATTE,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO.701,
ANANDA VALMIARK DODDA KAMMANHALLI MAIN
ROAD
OFF BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDITIONAL SPP ALONG WITH;
SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP FOR R1/STATE;
SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
4
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CR.NO.144/2022 ARISE OUT OF PCR.NO.8474/2022 FOR
ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.466, 34, 120-B, 467, 471, 474,
426, 463 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE
i.e., HULIMAVU POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF
THE V ACMM, BENGALURU.
IN CRL.P NO.7559/2022
BETWEEN:
1. ANTHONAPPA
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT BASAVAPURA VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
2. ELIZABETH RANI
W/O PRABHU KUMAR PJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT 4615/3, MUTTA ROAD,
BEGUR, ANEKAL BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 092.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HULIMAVU LAYOUT P S,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
5
2. MRS. SOWMYA SRIDHARAN
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO. G1, GJ NEST 5, 23,
LASHMANAPPA NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDITIONAL SPP ALONG WITH;
SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP FOR R1/STATE;
SRI. DHANANJAY JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. KAVITHA DAMODARAN, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CR.NO.143/2022 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.466,
34, 120-B, 467, 471, 474, 426, 463 OF IPC REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT POLICE i.e., HULIMAVU P.S., PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE V A.C.M.M., COURT AT BENGALURU.
IN CRL.P NO.7625/2022
BETWEEN:
1. ANTHONAPPA
S/O CHINNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT BASAVAPURA VILLAGE,
BEGUR HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 068.
2. ELIZABETH RANI
W/O PRABHU KUMAR PJ,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
6
R/AT 4615/3, MUTTA ROAD,
BEGUR, ANEKAL BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE - 560 092.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. AFROZ PASHA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HULIMAVU LAYOUT P S,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
HIGH COURT COMPLEX,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MRS. VIJAYA VARDHINI
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
PRESENTLY R/AT NO. 12,
DEVINA FRAGRANCE GREEN GLEN LAYOUT,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDITIONAL SPP ALONG WITH;
SMT. ANITHA GIRISH N., HCGP FOR R1/STATE;
SRI. VACHAN H U., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CR.NO.141/2022 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S.466, 34,
120-B, 467, 471, 474, 426, 463 OF IPC REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT POLICE THAT IS HULIMAVU POLICE
STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL
CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT
BENGALURU.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 28.02.2024 THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
7
ORDER
Criminal Petition No.7328/2022, Criminal Petition
No.7404/2022, Criminal Petition No.7559/2022 and Criminal
Petition No.7625/2022 are filed by the petitioners-accused
Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the
FIRs in Crime Nos.144/2022, 142/2022, 143/2022 and
141/2022 respectively, registered by Hulimavu Police
Station, Electronic Sub Division, Bengaluru for the offences
punishable under Sections 466, 120B, 467, 471, 474, 426,
463 read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the
respondent No.2 in all four cases.
3. The case of the prosecution in all these four
cases are that respondent No.2 in all the cases have filed
private complaint before the Magistrate and got it referred
to the Police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and in turn,
the FIR was registered by the Police which is under
challenge. It is alleged by the complainant that accused
No.1 was the owner of land in Sy.Nos.85/1 and 90/2 of
Kammanahalli Village, Belur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru measuring 15 guntas and 2 acres 32 guntas
where the accused No.1 got converted the land for non
agricultural purpose as on 26.03.1993 and he has executed
registered GPA in favour of one Subboji Rao on 9.8.1995
and the said Subboji Rao executed the sale deed in favour
of Balakrishna Naidu vide sale deed dated 24.03.2004.
Subsequently, the said Balakrishna Naidu formed the
residential layout and sold to the complainants under the
sale deed stated in the complaint. Subsequently, the Khata
was changed in the name of the complainant, they are
paying taxes and they are in possession of the sites. The
site owners also formed an Association and got it registered
under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 in the
name of "Balaji Garden Pragati Owners Welfare Association".
On 17.04.2021, they came to know that some persons had
demolished the sewage drains formed in the layout and had
levelled a portion of the land, hence, the complaint has been
filed to the police, the police have issued NCR stating that it
is a civil dispute, therefore, the complainants have filed
private complaint to the Court and in turn, it was referred to
the Police and FIR has been registered which is under
challenge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has
contended mainly on the ground that for one offence four
FIRs were registered by filing four private complaints by the
site owners for one cause of action and further contended
that 17 civil cases were filed which is pending. The
petitioners never executed any GPA in favour of Subboji
Rao. Therefore, question of purchasing the site by the
respondents does not arise. Accused No.1 was the owner of
the land, he has gifted the land to accused No.2 who is the
daughter and in turn, accused No.2 sold the property to
accused No.3 and accused No.3 borrowed loan from accused
No.4. The matter is civil in nature. There is no layout formed
by the Balakrishna Naidu. There is no sanction order. The
sale consideration was given to the third party but not to
the land owners. Therefore, prayed for quashing the
criminal proceedings.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents
has seriously contended that once accused No.1 executed
the GPA to Subboji Rao which is registered GPA and based
upon the GPA, Subboji Rao sold the land to Balakrishna
Naidu and the said Balakrishna Naidu formed the revenue
land by obtaining permission from the Village Panchayath
and sold the sites to the various persons including the
respondent No.2 in these four cases. There is reference
available in the sale deed which clearly reveals the property
has been sold by accused No.1 through GPA holder.
Therefore, with a criminal intention to cause wrongful loss to
the complainant and in order to cheat them, accused No.1
executed the gift deed and in turn, accused No.2 executed
the sale deed. The matter requires for investigation for
forging or creating the documents or cheating the
complainant. Hence, prayed for dismissing the petition.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader also
objected the petition.
7. Having heard the arguments and on perusal of
the records, which reveals, accused No.1 executed GPA in
favour of one Subboji Rao long back in the year 1995 itself
and in the year 1993, he has converted the land into non
agricultural purpose as per official memorandum dated
26.03.1993. Subsequently, the Subboji Rao sold the entire
extent of land on 30.07.2004 to one Balakrishna Naidu and
in turn, the said Balakrishna Naidu executed the sale deed
in the year 2004 itself to various persons. Accused No.1 lost
the right over the property way back in the year 1995 itself.
By suppressing the fact, he has executed gift deed in favour
of accused No.2 on 17.04.2008 and in turn, accused No.2
sold the same property to accused No.3 and accused No.3
said to be mortgaged the entire property with accused No.4
and borrowed loan for Rs.6 crores were all shows their
criminal intention. Therefore, it cannot be said that it is
purely civil dispute as contended by the learned counsel for
the petitioners. The intention of the petitioners is in order to
cheat the site owners even though he has sold the property
10 years back and the sites were sold to the various
purchasers, suppressing the fact, he has executed the gift
deed in favour of his daughter-accused No.2 and in turn,
accused No.2 sold the property to accused No.3 and accused
No.3 mortgaged the property. Therefore, the matter
requires detailed investigation by the Police.
8. Apart from that, though there are civil cases
filed by the site owners which are all pending in the Civil
Court and though the petitioners denied the signature in the
GPA, therefore, if the signature found on the GPA and
signature of the accused in the gift deed or any admitted
signatures were required to be sent to the FSL for getting
hand writing experts opinion, it will be helpful for both police
as well as Civil Court for coming to the right conclusion.
Therefore, matter requires investigation and the FIR cannot
be quashed.
9. It is also brought to the notice of the Court that
the respondents and other site owners have filed suit for
easement right for ingress and egress to their sites from the
adjacent owners where the portion of property said to be
acquired for Mysore-Bangalore infrastructure corridor.
Therefore, whether the compensation received by the
accused or not are required to be investigated by the police
and therefore, FIR cannot be quashed.
10. However, the another contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioners is that for same cause of action
there are four cases registered. In this regard, the learned
counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tarak Dash
Mukharjee & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 731, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held at paragraph Nos.11 and 12 as
under:
"11. We have perused both the FIRs. The
respondent no.4 is the first informant in
both the FIRs and the same are based on
the same agreement for sale executed on
14th June 2006. The allegation made in
both the FIRs is the same. The allegation
is that by practising forgery and fraud,
the appellant no.1 has sold the subject
property to appellant no.2 thereby
deceiving the respondent no.4. The
second FIR, which is the subject matter
of challenge, was registered nearly four
years after the first FIR was registered.
The challenge to the first FIR is pending
before the High Court. These aspects
have been completely overlooked by the
High Court in the impugned judgment.
12. If multiple First Information Reports by
the same person against the same
accused are permitted to be registered in
respect of the same set of facts and
allegations, it will result in the accused
getting entangled in multiple criminal
proceedings for the same alleged offence.
Therefore, the registration of such
multiple FIRs is nothing but abuse of the
process of law. Moreover, the act of the
registration of such successive FIRs on
the same set of facts and allegations at
the instance of the same informant will
not stand the scrutiny of Articles 21 and
22 of the Constitution of India. The
settled legal position on this behalf has
been completely ignored by the High
Court."
11. Admittedly, the purchasers were filed four
complaints to the Police and the police have given
endorsement and registered the NCR and refused to register
the FIR, therefore, respondent No.2 in all four cases have
filed individual complaints before the Magistrate, the same
was registered as four PCRs and same were referred to the
Police for investigation. But the offence alleged against the
accused was that accused No.1 gifted the property to
accused No.2 and accused No.2 sold the property to accused
No.3 by suppressing the GPA and sale deeds executed long
back with an intention to cheat the site owners. The cause
of action arose against the petitioners who are one and the
same in all four cases for having executed the gift deed in
order to cheat the complainants. One cause of action arose
against the accused for having committed the offence where
there were more number of site owners were affected and
the accused also one and the same. Therefore, registering
four FIRs is not required which is nothing but registering
multiple FIRs for the same offence or one cause of action.
Therefore, other three FIRs and PCRs are liable to be
quashed and permitted the Police to investigate all the
matters as one offence and file the charge sheet by
enquiring respondent No.2 in other three cases. Therefore, I
am of the view, the Hulimavu Police can investigate in one
Crime No.141/2022 and enquire all the complaints in other
three cases and file the charge sheet in Crime No.141/2022
which is challenged in Crl.P.No.7625/2022.
12. In view of the above findings, the FIRs in Crime
Nos.144/2022, 142/2022 and 143/2022 are liable to be
quashed. Accordingly I proceed to pass the following order:
The petition filed by the petitioners-
accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P.No.7625/2022
(Crime No.141/2022) is hereby dismissed.
The petition filed by the petitioners-
accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crl.P.Nos.7404/2022,
7559/2022 and 7626/2022 are hereby allowed.
The FIRs in Crime Nos.142/2022,
143/2022 and 144/2022 arising out of PCR
Nos.8474/2022, 8475/2022 and 8476/2022
respectively, are hereby quashed.
The police are permitted to file the charge
sheet in Crime No.141/2022 by enquiring with all
the above said site owners-respondent No.2 and
any other witnesses available.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GBB
CT:SK
