Back
B. R. GAVAI, KRISHNA MURARI
BABU VENKATESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The Supreme Court of India reviewed the legality of proceedings initiated under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in the context of allegations of cheating, forgery, and conspiracy related to property transactions and agreements for sale (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that applications under Section 156(3) must be supported by a sworn affidavit from the complainant, ensuring responsibility and veracity of the allegations. Filing such applications in a routine manner without this support can constitute an abuse of process (!) (!) (!) .
The Court highlighted that prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. are necessary before approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3), to establish a proper jurisdictional basis and responsibility (!) (!) (!) .
It was noted that the Magistrate's failure to verify the truth or veracity of allegations, especially when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, undermines the legality of the proceedings (!) (!) .
The Court identified that the filing of complaints after a significant delay, especially when civil suits concerning the same transactions are pending, indicates an ulterior motive to harass the accused, which falls under a recognized category of abuse of process (!) (!) .
The Court reaffirmed that the power to quash criminal proceedings should be exercised sparingly and only in rare cases where continuing the proceedings would amount to an abuse of law or be manifestly unjust (!) (!) .
Based on these principles, the Court set aside the judgments of the High Court that dismissed the criminal petitions and upheld the quashing of the FIRs, thereby concluding that the proceedings were initiated improperly and amounted to an abuse of process (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that the continuation of proceedings without proper verification and support could result in unnecessary harassment, and hence, such proceedings should be halted to prevent misuse of judicial processes (!) (!) .
Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with specific legal questions related to this case?
JUDGMENT
B.R. Gavai, J.
Leave granted.
2. The present appeals challenge the four judgments and orders dated 22nd January 2021, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, thereby dismissing the criminal petitions filed by the present appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.).
3. The facts in brief giving rise to the present appeals, taken from the appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2183 of 2021, are as under:
4. The appellant Nos. 2 and 3 on one hand and respondent No. 2 on the other hand, entered into various Agreements for Sale with respect to properties situated at Bangalore. According to the appellants, the amounts as mentioned in the agreements, were paid by them as consideration by three cheques, one of them drawn from the account of appellant No. 1, another one from account of M/s. S.S.R. V Trans Solutions and other one from the account of M/s. Shobha Tours and Travels, which are operated by appellant No. 1. All these three cheques were bearer cheques. It is the case of appellants that, all the cheques were encashed by the respondent No. 2.
5. It is the case of the appellants that, after receipt
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
