Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a joint development agreement (JDA) executed between the complainant, B. Ankamma Rao, and M/s Mahidhara Projects Private Limited for developing land into residential sites. Following the JDA, a partition deed was entered into on 02-03-2021, and certain sites fell to the share of the complainant. The complainant mortgaged 13 sites with SBICAP to secure a loan. Allegedly, without the complainant's knowledge or consent, a Special Power of Attorney holder, Chikka Kondappa, executed sale deeds in respect of those very sites. The sale deeds were in favour of the first petitioner, a director of Bhoomika Infrabuild Private Limited, and subsequently transferred to his children, the other petitioners. The complainant filed a complaint on 02-01-2023, alleging that his signatures were forged and that the accused conspired to cheat him. An FIR was registered under Sections 417, 418, 420, 464, 465, 34 IPC. The petitioners approached the High Court in Criminal Petition No. 1372 of 2023 seeking quashing of the FIR. A coordinate bench initially stayed investigation but later dismissed the petition on 16-06-2023, holding that investigation was imperative. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 16-03-2024, and the Magistrate took cognizance in C.C. No. 2600 of 2024. The petitioners then filed the present petition under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS, seeking quashing of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet, and the cognizance order. The principal legal issue was whether a second petition for quashing on the same grounds after charge sheet is maintainable when an earlier petition was dismissed. The petitioners argued that the dispute was civil in nature and that the complainant had authorized the power of attorney holder. The respondents contended that the power of attorney was limited to presentation, not execution, and that the sale deeds were fraudulent. The High Court, after noting the earlier order of the coordinate bench, held that the second petition was not maintainable, as it sought to review the earlier decision. The court observed that the earlier order had considered the rival contentions and found that investigation was necessary, and the coordinate bench's decision could not be re-examined. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, leaving the petitioners to seek remedy before the Supreme Court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR/Charge Sheet - Maintainability of Successive Petition - Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - The High Court considered a petition under Section 482 CrPC filed after a coordinate bench had dismissed an earlier petition for quashing the FIR. The earlier petition was dismissed on the ground that investigation was imperative. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed. The Court held that a second petition on the same grounds and for the same relief is not maintainable as it would amount to a review of the earlier order. The proper remedy is to approach the Supreme Court. Held, petition dismissed as not maintainable. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the complaint, FIR, and charge sheet after charge sheet, on grounds identical to those in an earlier petition which was dismissed by a coordinate bench, is maintainable?
Final Decision
The criminal petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The High Court held that the earlier order of the coordinate bench dismissing the petition for quashing of FIR, after considering the rival contentions and holding that investigation was imperative, barred the present second petition on the same grounds. The proper remedy for the petitioners was to approach the Supreme Court.
Law Points
- second petition under Section 482 CrPC on same grounds after charge sheet not maintainable when earlier petition dismissed
- coordinate bench's order binding
- proper remedy is to approach Supreme Court
- investigation held imperative is res judicata for subsequent quashing plea
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (09) 33
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9078 OF 2024
C.V. Nagesh, Varun S., Jagadeesha B.N., Akash R. Rao, Sandesh J. Chouta
Sri Arjun Anjaneya Reddy, Sri Harsha Vardhan Anjaneya Reddy, Sri Papaiah Srinivasa Reddy, Sri M. Sundar Murthy, Sri V. Muniraju, Sri Poovayya T.M.
State of Karnataka through Anekal Police Station and Sri B. Ankamma Rao
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS seeking quashing of complaint, FIR, charge sheet, and cognizance order for offences under Indian Penal Code.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (accused nos. 3 to 8) sought quashing of the complaint dated 02-01-2023, FIR dated 03-01-2023, charge sheet dated 16-03-2024, and the order of cognizance dated 04-04-2024 in C.C. No. 2600 of 2024.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, arising from a joint development agreement, and that the criminal proceedings were an abuse of process; they filed the second petition after the charge sheet was submitted, despite an earlier dismissal of a similar petition.
Previous Decisions
A coordinate bench of the High Court in Criminal Petition No. 1372 of 2023 dated 16-06-2023 dismissed the petitioners' earlier petition for quashing of the FIR, holding that investigation was imperative. Interim stay of investigation granted on 17-02-2023 was vacated upon dismissal.
Issues
Whether a second petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of complaint, FIR, and charge sheet, after charge sheet, on grounds identical to those urged in an earlier petition which was dismissed by a coordinate bench, is maintainable?
Submissions/Arguments
For petitioners: The dispute was purely civil; the complainant had executed a Special Power of Attorney; the sale deeds were valid and the allegations of forgery were false; reliance was placed on Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of West Bengal.
For respondent No. 2: The Special Power of Attorney was only for presentation, not for execution of sale deeds; the sale deeds were silent on consideration and mode of payment; the properties were already mortgaged to SBICAP; the purchasers were the family members of the first accused, indicating fraud; investigation was necessary; the earlier order had settled the issue.
Ratio Decidendi
A second petition under Section 482 CrPC for quashing of criminal proceedings, on grounds identical to those urged in an earlier petition that was dismissed by a coordinate bench, is not maintainable before the same High Court, as it would amount to a review of the earlier order. The aggrieved party must approach the Supreme Court.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioners/accused Nos.3 to 8 are before this Court seeking quashment of the complaint filed by the 2nd respondent dated 02-01-2023 and charge sheet dated 16-03-2024 and have also sought setting aside the order dated 04-04-2024 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal in C.C.No.2600 of 2024 arising out of crime in Crime No.3 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420, 464, 465 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
The petitioners had knocked at the doors of this Court in Criminal Petition No.1372 of 2023 dated 16-06-2023, which comes to be dismissed holding that the investigation in the case at hand was imperative.
Procedural History
On 02-01-2023, respondent No. 2 filed a complaint with Anekal Police Station, leading to registration of FIR in Crime No. 3 of 2023 on 03-01-2023 for offences under Sections 417, 418, 420, 464, 465, 34 IPC. The petitioners filed Criminal Petition No. 1372 of 2023 before the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. On 17-02-2023, a coordinate bench granted an interim stay of investigation. After hearing, the petition was dismissed on 16-06-2023, holding that investigation was imperative. The police completed investigation and filed a charge sheet on 16-03-2024. The Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal took cognizance in C.C. No. 2600 of 2024 on 04-04-2024. The petitioners then filed the present Criminal Petition No. 9078 of 2024 under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS on 27-09-2024, seeking quashing of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet, and the cognizance order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: 528
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 417, 418, 420, 464, 465, 34
