SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Kar) 574

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P. Sandesh, J.
Jayaprakash M.R. S/o Revannasiddaiah - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Karnataka By Belur Police Station, Represented By State Public Prosecutor, High Court Of Karnataka, Bengaluru - Respondent
Criminal Petition No.2947 of 2023
Decided On : 23-11-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, senior counsel for Sri G.S.Prasanna Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent: Sri Devadas, AAG A/W Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, Addl. SPP, Sri. Sree Harsha A.K., Adv.

The court affirmed that the burden of proving an alibi lies with the accused during trial, and the discharge application must be evaluated based on available material.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420, 465, and 468 - Criminal petition for discharge - The petitioner, accused No.3, sought discharge from charges of fraud and impersonation related to a relinquishment deed executed post the death of the original owner - The Trial Court dismissed the discharge application, finding sufficient material for trial - The petitioner claimed an alibi, asserting he was in Germany during the deed's execution, but evidence indicated he was present in India during the property mutation - The court emphasized that the plea of alibi must be proven at trial, not at the discharge stage - The court upheld the Trial Court's decision, stating no error was committed in rejecting the discharge application. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 21)

(B) Discharge Application - The court reiterated that the discharge application must be evaluated based on the material available, and the burden of proof for an alibi lies with the accused during trial. (Paras 15, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was accused of fraudulently obtaining a relinquishment deed for property after the original owner’s death, with allegations of impersonation and document creation. The FIR was registered based on a complaint detailing these allegations.

Findings of Court:
The court found sufficient evidence to proceed with the trial, rejecting the discharge application based on the material presented.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the discharge application and the validity of the alibi presented by the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Trial Court correctly assessed the material on record, emphasizing that the burden of proving an alibi lies with the accused during the trial.

Result: The criminal petition is dismissed.

ORDER :

H.P. Sandesh, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AAG for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2.

2. This criminal petition is filed praying this Court to set aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Belur, Hassan, in C.C.No.452/2019 rejecting the discharge application filed by this petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.3, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC, registered by the respondent police.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant/respondent No.2 is that, in the complaint he has made an allegation that this petitioner along with other accused persons have indulged in creation of documents. Based on the complaint dated 02.08.2019, the police have registered the FIR in Crime No.156/2019. The main allegation in the complaint is that one Siddegowda S/o Chandregowda, who is the father of accused No.1 and grandfather of the complainant died on 25.04.1996. However, accused No.1, father of the complainant, after the death of his father by impersonation executed a relinquishment deed dated 06.02.2007 in favour of accused No.2, who happens to be the father of this petitioner in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.65/3 measuring 15 guntas. Accused No.2 based on the said relinquishment deed got the revenue records mutated in the name of this petitioner. The police based on the complaint allegations, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465 and 468 of IPC and the same is registered as C.C.No.452/2019.

4. The petitioner submits that he filed Crl.P.No.2717/2020 along with his father and other accused persons for quashing of the criminal proceedings and this Court was pleased to reject the same vide order dated 12.02.2021. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner had filed an application under Section 239 of Cr.P.C seeking for his discharge on the ground of alibi contending that the petitioner has been out of India and working as Engineer at Hamburg in Germany since 27.06.2005. It is contended that between 19.06.2006 to 01.12.2008, he never visited India. The Trial Judge has committed an error in dismissing the same without giving credence to the said contention.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds which have been urged in the discharge application contend that as per the allegations made in the complaint, specific allegation is made that accused Nos.2 to 4 together have induced accused No.1 to commit the alleged offence of creating of relinquishment deed. The learned counsel contend that the petitioner was not in India and also produced the passport details and the Trial Court failed to appreciate the documents available on record. The learned counsel contend that O.S.No.102/2019 is pending in respect of the subject property instituted by respondent No.2/complainant against the petitioner and others. When a civil suit is pending, ought not to have initiated the criminal proceedings and the same is only with an ulterior motive to harass the petitioner and others for illegal demand. It is contended that the petitioner is innocent and has not involved in the alleged offence and hence it requires interference of this Court.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant would contend that he has filed the statement of objections and in the statement of objections, in detail set out the factual aspects of the case. It is a clear case of fraud and with an intention to cheat the complainant/respondent No.2, all of them have indulged in creation of document of relinquishment deed and also produced topography of the property bearing Sy.Nos.65/3 and 58/2, copy of the sale deed dated 28.03.1987, encumbrance certificate, copy of mutation register, copy of RTC, copy of the death certificate of Siddegowda, copy of the registered release deed dated 06.02.2007, co

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top