Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, accused Nos. 4 to 6 in private complaint P.C.R.No.74 of 2022, filed a criminal petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the High Court of Karnataka seeking quashing of the complaint and the order dated 28.02.2022 passed by the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Ballari referring the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC for offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 406 read with 120B, 114, 182, 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant, the first respondent, claimed to have purchased land bearing Sy.No.35/A measuring 10 acres on 23-12-2002 from his own earnings and alleged that accused Nos. 4 to 6, who were relatives and former employers, had forged a General Power of Attorney dated 04-08-2012 using his signature and subsequently executed a sale deed dated 06-08-2012 in favour of accused No.4, thereby usurping his property. The complainant stated he discovered the fraud only after receiving a notice from the Income Tax Department in 2020 following a search and seizure operation in 2019. Initially, a police complaint was lodged on 12-08-2021 but after a preliminary inquiry as per the Supreme Court judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., the police closed the complaint on 25-10-2021 holding the matter to be civil in nature. Undeterred, the complainant filed the subject private complaint on 24-02-2022, leading to the impugned reference order. The petitioners contended that the dispute was purely civil, the complaint was filed after an unexplained delay of nearly ten years since the GPA and sale deed were executed in 2012, and the order of reference exhibited complete non-application of mind by the learned Magistrate. They argued that the complainant's claim of ignorance was improbable as the adjoining property remained in his name and possession. The complainant, on the other hand, urged that the fraud came to light only in 2020 with the Income Tax notice, and that the investigation should proceed as no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners at this stage. The Court heard senior counsel Sri Ravi Varma Kumar for the petitioners, Sri T.Hanumareddy for the first respondent, and the High Court Government Pleader for the State. After considering the material on record, the Court noted the undisputed facts and the sequence of events, including the prior police closure report, and reserved the matter for orders. The provided judgment text does not contain the final decision of the Court; the order was pronounced on 06-10-2023 but the text is incomplete.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the registration of a private complaint in P.C.R.No.74 of 2022 and the order of reference for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC should be quashed
Case Details
2023 LawText (KAR) (10) 16
CRIMINAL PETITION No.8076 OF 2023
SRI RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SRI PRAVEEN P.TARIKAR, SRI T.HANUMAREDDY, SRI V.S.KALASURMATH
SRI N.BHARATH REDDY, SRI N.SURYANARAYANA REDDY, SMT. N.SUVARNA
SRI C.SUNIL KUMAR, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of a private complaint and the order of reference for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC for alleged offences of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust, and conspiracy.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (accused Nos. 4 to 6) are seeking quashing of the private complaint and the order of reference for investigation.
Filing Reason
The petitioners allege that the complaint is based on stale and civil disputes, with unexplained delay of 10 years, and that the order of reference was passed without application of mind.
Previous Decisions
The police had conducted a preliminary inquiry and closed the complaint on 25-10-2021, holding the issue to be civil in nature. The complainant then filed a private complaint on 24-02-2022, which was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Issues
Whether the private complaint and the order of reference for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC should be quashed given the delay and the civil nature of the dispute.
Whether the order of reference passed by the Magistrate suffered from non-application of mind.
Submissions/Arguments
The learned senior counsel for the petitioners contended that the property dispute is purely civil in nature; the complaint was filed after a decade with no plausible explanation for the delay, and the complainant's claim of ignorance cannot be believed as his adjoining property remains in his name. The order of reference under Section 156(3) CrPC was passed mechanically without application of mind, and the preliminary inquiry had already closed the matter as civil.
The learned counsel for the first respondent argued that the complainant discovered the fraud only upon receiving the Income Tax Department notice in 2020, after which he promptly gathered documents and lodged the complaint. The investigation should be allowed to proceed as mere reference to investigation causes no prejudice to the petitioners.
Judgment Excerpts
The result of the preliminary inquiry was closure of the complaint in terms of the endorsement dated 25-10-2021 holding that the issue is purely civil in nature.
The learned Magistrate, on perusal at the private complaint, refers the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
A civil transaction has been given a colour crime. The complainant has also instituted civil suits on the same cause of action. He would therefore contend that delay of 10 years in registering the private complaint has gone completely unexplained on a flimsy ground of cause of action, which on the face of it, is improbable and unbelievable.
Procedural History
The complainant purchased land on 23-12-2002 and claimed to be in possession. A General Power of Attorney was allegedly executed on 04-08-2012 and a sale deed on 06-08-2012 in favour of accused No.4. In 2019, Income Tax officials searched the firms and houses of accused Nos. 4 to 6, seizing documents including the complainant's property papers. The Income Tax Department issued a notice to the complainant in 2020, leading to his discovery of the alleged fraud. On 12-08-2021, the complainant lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police, who conducted a preliminary inquiry and closed the complaint on 25-10-2021, concluding the matter was civil in nature. The complainant then filed private complaint P.C.R.No.74 of 2022 before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Ballari on 24-02-2022. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 28-02-2022, referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC. The petitioners (accused Nos. 4 to 6) then filed the present criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court of Karnataka seeking quashing of the complaint and the reference order.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482, 156(3)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 420, 465, 468, 471, 406, 120B, 114, 182, 191, 192
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
