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

- 1 -

CRL.P No. 7814 of 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7814 OF 2018

BETWEEN:

1.

SATISH R SHET

S/O RAMDAS SHET

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

NO. 660/2, 12TH CROSS

M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR

BENGALURU - 560 040.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K ., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY

INSPECTOR OF POLICE

HALASURU GATE POLICE STATION

HALASURU GATE

BENGALURU - 560 002.

2.

SMT. PRATHIMA ARUN

W/O MR. S. ARUN KUMAR

AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS

NO. 73/1, 15TH CROSS

6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM

BENGALURU - 560 055.

3.

S. ARUN KUMAR

S/O LATE A.SUBBA RAO

Digitally signed by

POORNIMA

SHIVANNA

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

- 2 -

CRL.P No. 7814 of 2018

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

NO. 73/1, 15TH CROSS

6TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM

BENGALURU - 560 055.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1

Ms. B.P. RENUKAMBA, ADVOCATE, FOR R2 & R-3)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C WITH

A PRAYER TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE

RESPONDENT NOS.2 AND 3 IN PCR NO.6823/2016 ON THE

FILE OF THE LEARNED VI ACMM, BANGALORE FOR THE

ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 199,415,419,420,463 TO 466,468

AND 471 OF IPC WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE B AND

ETC.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

1.

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

following reliefs:

i.

Quash the complaint filed by the respondent Nos. 2

and 3 in P.C.R. No. 6823/2016 on the file of the learned

VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for

the alleged offences punishable under Sections 199, 415,

419, 420, 463 to 466, 468 and 481 of IPC which is

produced at Annexure `B'.

ii.

Quash the FIR in Cr.No. 178/2016 which is got

registered by the respondent No. 1 Police in pursuance of

the reference made by the learned VI Additional Cheif

- 3 -

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bengaluru,

in

P.C.R.

No.

6823/2016 which is produced at Annexure `A'.

iii.

Grant cost of this petition.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by

the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru, in PCR No. 6823/2016 whereunder the

said Court took cognizance of the offences and

referred the matter for investigation and in that

background the Halasurgate Police registered crime

No.

178/2016

on

02.08.2016.

It

is

in

such

circumstances the aforesaid reliefs have been sought.

Submission of Mr. Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned

counsel for petitioner is that on very similar

allegations earlier complaint had been filed in P.C.R.

No. 14769/2015 before the VIII Additional Chief

Metropolitan

Magistrate,

Bengaluru

wherein

an

allegation has been made that the petitioner had

forged the signature of the complainant in the

vakalathnama filed in O.S. No. 2966/2015, in the I.A.

- 4 -

filed

under

Section

8 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996, as also in C.R.P. No.

477/2015.

4.

The petitioner had challenged the said proceedings

which had been initiated in Crl.P. No. 1721/2016 and

this Court after taking note of all the factors came to

a conclusion that the complainant had voluntarily

signed the vakalathnamas and entrusted the same to

the petitioner and it is only upon the relationship

have been soured, that out of vengeance a criminal

case was filed and as such quashed the proceedings

in P.C.R. No. 14769/2015 and the orders passed

therein.

5.

He submits that thereafter another private complaint

in P.C.R. No. 3868/2016 was filed before the VI

Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru

on

23.04.2016

during

the

pendency

of

the

proceedings in Crl.P. No. 1721/2016 this time

- 5 -

alleging that the vakalathnama filed in A.A. No.

66/2015 filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and

Conciliation Act, 1996 as also the signature on the

petition filed had been forged by the petitioner. It is

alleged that the respondent did not authorize the

swearing to the affidavit and/or filing of the said

proceedings and as such action was sought to be

taken.

6.

In the very same complaint allegations are also

made as regards the alleged forgery of

the

vakalathnama

in

C.R.P.

No.

477/2015

which

allegations had been earlier made in P.C.R. No.

14769/2015 and in that background it was requested

for punishment to be imposed on the petitioner under

Sections 199, 415, 419, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466,

468, 471 of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC.

7.

The VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Bengaluru, vide order dated 02.05.2016 came to a

- 6 -

conclusion that the allegations made in the complaint

were civil in nature and there is no prima facie case

made out and as such, the complaint was dismissed

before issuance of process.

8.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is

thereafter, on 10.06.2016, that another private

complaint in PCR No. 6823/2016 had been filed by

the petitioner making identical allegation as regards

the forgery of the signatures in A.A. No. 66/2015,

verifying affidavit filed in the said proceedings, the

petition filed therein. Though a reference was made

to forgery in C.R.P. No. 477/2015, he submits, that

the pendency of Crl.P. No. 1721/2016 was not

brought to the notice of the Court nor was the order

passed in P.C.R. No. 3868/2016 dated 02.05.2016

brought to the notice of the Court. In that

background he submits that

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