Back
2022 Supreme(Kar) 971
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K. Natarajan, J.
P G Nataraja & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State By Begaluru Police Station, Bengaluru & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Petition No. 225 of 2022, 8329 of 2021
Decided On : 21-02-2022
A.S. Ponnanna, Advocate, Mahesh Shetty, Advocate, M.R. Rajgopal, Advocate, Santhosh Raj Urs, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court cannot quash FIRs based on allegations of criminal offenses without detailed investigation, especially when the ingredients of the offenses are attracted.
Headnote:
Quashing of FIR - Property Dispute - IPC 406, 420, 447, 380, 323, 465, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the allegations of property fraud, creation of false documents, theft, and assault, and found that the ingredients of criminal offenses were attracted. The court cited the State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and Others and Priti Saraf vs. State of NCT of Delhi cases to support its decision not to quash the FIRs.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two criminal petitions filed by the accused to quash the FIRs related to property disputes and alleged criminal activities, including fraud, theft, and assault. The complainants alleged fraudulent property transactions, creation of false documents, and assault, leading to the filing of criminal cases.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of property fraud, creation of false documents, theft, and assault attracted the ingredients of criminal offenses under IPC sections 406, 420, 447, 380, 323, 465, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34. The court held that the matter required detailed investigation and dismissed the criminal petitions.
Issues: The issues involved allegations of property fraud, creation of false documents, theft, and assault, and whether these allegations constituted criminal offenses under the IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the ingredients of criminal offenses were attracted by the allegations, and detailed investigation was required. The court cited the State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal and Others and Priti Saraf vs. State of NCT of Delhi cases to support its decision not to quash the FIRs.
Final Decision: Both the criminal petitions were dismissed, and the court held that the FIRs required detailed investigation, and the court could not interfere at that stage.
JUDGMENT
K.Natarajan, J. - Criminal Petition No.225/2022 is filed by the petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR and investigation in Crime No.210/2021 registered by Bagalur Police Station, Bengaluru offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 447, 380, 323, 465, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2-Smt.Rathnamma.
2. Criminal Petition No.8329/2021 is filed by accused Nos.1 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime No.215/2021 registered by Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506, 420, 468, 471, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC on the complaint of respondent No.2-Ms.Ramya H.M.
3. Both the matters are interlinked with each other as the defacto complainant-Smt.Rathnamma in Crime No.210/2021 claimed to be owner of the property and the defacto complainant-Ms.Ramya H.M. is said to be GPa holder of Smt.Rathnamma and claiming their rights on the same property. Hence, taken together for common disposal.
4. Sri a.S.Ponnanna, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner counsel in both the cases and Sri M.R.Rajgopal, Senior counsel appearing for the defacto - complainant - respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.225/2022 and Sri Srihari, learned counsel appearing in Crl.P.No.8329/2021.
5. Heard the arguments on both sides.
6. The case of the prosecution in the Crl.P.No.225/2022 in respect of Crime No.210/2021 wherein, Smt. Rathnamma filed a complaint on 03.11.2021 before Bagalur Police alleging that she is the owner of the agricultural property in Survey No.35/2 (Old Survey No.35) of Sathanur Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru and the same was inherited from her husband who died in the year 1992. She further alleged that on 31.08.2017, she has executed a registered agreement of sale with possession of the property in favour of Ms. Ramya H.M before the Sub-Registrar, Jala (Gandhinagar) Bengaluru and accused No.1-P.G.Nataraj was confirming party in the sale agreement who has received Rs.93.00 lakhs. On the very same day, an irrevocable General Power of attorney (GPa) was executed in favour of Ms.Ramya before the Sub-Registrar, Jala (Gandhinagar). On 18.03.2018, accused No.1-P.G.Nataraj have executed a registered Deed of Declaration in favour of Ramya H.M declaring that he has no right and title over the said property. She has constructed the house in the property consisting of two bed rooms, a living area and bathrooms. Herself and Ramya H.M. had engaged one Sandeepa as a care taker of the house work and Sanjay as Security Guard. The said Ramya H.M used to visit frequently to her house and during the months of March-april 2021 due to COVID-19, she was residing in her daughter's house at Telangana. She further alleged that on 01.07.2021, the said Ramya H.M informed her that accused No.1-P.G. Nataraja is said to be representing himself as partner of Hindustan Ideal Estates have fraudulently with dishonest intention submitted fabricated documents before the assistant Commissioner and got the Katha and RTC transferred in the name of Hindustan Ideal Estates. Based on the fabricated documents, P.G. Nataraja in collusion with accused No.2-Hiriyanna Shetty have transferred the property in favour of one Umesh Shyama Raju on 26.07.2021. The order of the assistant Commissioner has been challenged and is set aside. The assistant Commissioner made all the relevant observations and passed the order in her favour and restored back the RTC in her name. She further alleged that on 27.09.2021, she received a notice from the Bagalur Police Station concerning to a false complaint filed by P.G. Nataraja and the said P.G.Nataraja, Hiriyanna Shetty and 25 others who were their associates have assaulted and threatened Sandeepa and Sanjay and also threatened to kill the complainant and Ramya H.M, if they were involved in the said property. Therefore, she filed complaint seeking protection on 25.10.20
