Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10109
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
VENKATESHALU. K, – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P No. 2607 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. MANJUNATH M.R
For the Respondents: SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA
Absence of essential elements for prosecution in criminal cases leads to quashing of proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 420, 506, 504 r/w Section 34 - Quashing of criminal proceedings - Petitioners accused of cheating and related offences - Allegations of collusion to defraud complainants through forged documents and unauthorized sale of land - Court finds absence of essential elements for prosecution, allowing the petitions and quashing proceedings. (Paras 1-18)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Abuse of process - Continuation of proceedings without sufficient evidence constitutes abuse of process of law. (Paras 17-18)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners accused Nos.3 & 5 sought to quash criminal proceedings relating to alleged cheating in property transactions involving land ownership disputes. The petitions were based on claims of forgery and lack of privity of contract.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the essential elements to constitute the alleged offences were absent, leading to the conclusion that continuing the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of process.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the petitioners could be held liable for actions taken by others in the absence of direct involvement or evidence of collusion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere allegations without substantial evidence do not warrant prosecution, emphasizing the necessity of clear culpability for criminal liability.
Result: The petitions were allowed, and the criminal proceedings against the petitioners were quashed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accused involved in property disputes and allegations of fraud. (Para 2) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are accused Nos.3 & 5. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 31.10.2023 in Crl.P Nos.6719/2022 and connected matters, had quashed the proceedings qua accused Nos.1 & 2 by the following order:
"The petitioners who are common in all these petitions are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 , 420 , 506 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC .
2. The Defacto complainant in all these petitions lodged the FIRs alleging that, accused No.1 though not the owner of the property bearing Sy.No.28 measuring 5 acres 14 guntas plus (3 guntas of Kharab) situated at Varthur, Narsipura Village Tavarekere Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore, executed power of attorney in favour of accused No.4 Ravikumar for dealing with the property to an extent of 20 guntas in Sy.No.28. Accused No.4 in turn executed registered agreement of sale in favour of accused No.5 who purportedly formed a residential layout in the said extent of 20 guntas and conveyed 48 sites measuring 30 feet X 40 feet to the de facto complainants and others.
3. Though the sale deeds had been executed in favour of the defacto-complainants, the accused No.1 and 2 came to the sites and objected to the enjoyment of the sites by the defacto complainants. Thereafter, accused No.1 to 4 colluding with each other hatched a plan to grab sites belonging to the defacto complainant by trespassing into the sites and when questioned, accused Nos.1 and 2 are said to have stated that the 20 guntas of land belongs to them. The police after conducting an investigation submitted the charges sheets.
4. The summary of the charge sheets is that, Accused No.1 purchased the land measuring 5 acres 14 guntas + 3 guntas Kharab land through a registered sale deed dated 31.03.2016 from M/s DLF housing Company, and thereafter the petitioner executed a power of attorney in favour of accused No.4 on 16.02.2017 for an extent of 20 guntas, and in turn accused No.4 as a GPA holder executed an agreement of sale in favour of accused No.5 conveying 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.28. Thereafter the accused No.4 and 5 have executed registered sale deeds in favour of the defacto complainant and others conveying 48 sites measuring 30 X 40 for valuable sale consideration.
5. The accused No.1 after executing the power of attorney has conveyed the entire extent of land including the 20 guntas of land in favour of accused No.2 by executing registered gift deed dated 30.03.2017.
6. Accused Nos.1 to 5 in collusion with each other and with a common intention of cheating the defacto complainant after receiving the sale consideration are claiming that the 20 guntas of land belong to Accused Nos.1 & 2.
7. The cognizance taken of the aforesaid offences is impugned in these petitions.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would make the following submissions:
Firstly, the perusal of the signature of the accused No.1 on the absolute sale deed dated 31.03.2016 and the GPA would clearly establish that the accused No.4 by forging the signature of accused No.1 has created GPA and thereafter conveyed the 20 guntas of land in favour of accused No.5.
Secondly, the sites are allegedly conveyed by accused Nos. 4 and 5 as GPA holder and agreement holder, and accused No.1 and 2 are neither parties nor signatories to the sale deeds executed in favour of the defacto complainants, and in the absence of any privity of contract, the petitioners cannot be prosecuted for the offences alleged against them.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2- defacto-complainants would submit that the accused No.1 having conveyed the plots to the de facto- complainants through registered sale deeds executed in their favour by the GPA Holder with an intention to defraud the de facto-complainants has gifted the with entire extent of land including 20 guntas of land in favour of the accused No.2. Consequently, the accused No.4 and 5 as GP
