- 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.