Sri Shivanaiah vs. State Of Karnataka

Facts

The petitioners are challenging the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.4428/2020 for alleged offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 506, and 120(B) read with Section 34 of the IPC. The dispute arises from property transactions. The complainant's father had executed agreements to sell certain sites in 1996. Subsequently, registered sale deeds for these sites were executed in favour of the petitioners in 2006. Around ten years later, the complainant filed a civil suit (O.S.No.1879 of 2016) seeking partition and possession of joint family properties, including those sold to the petitioners. During the pendency of this civil suit, the complainant registered a criminal complaint in 2017, which led to the charge sheet and the current proceedings. The petitioners argue that the criminal proceedings are an abuse of process, attempting to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute.

Held

The Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the proceedings. The Court found that the complainant had already chosen the civil court to agitate his rights regarding the partition of property amongst brothers. The averments in the civil suit, which indicated that the properties were acquired for the betterment of joint family members and were treated as joint family properties, were in contrast to the allegations of forgery made in the criminal complaint. The Court observed that the criminal proceedings were initiated after a considerable delay of about ten years from the execution of the sale deeds in favour of the petitioners, and the complainant was neither a party to the sale deeds nor a member of the society. Citing Apex Court judgments, the Court held that permitting further proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law and would degenerate into harassment for the petitioners. Therefore, the Court exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the criminal proceedings initiated by the complainant constitute an abuse of the process of law, given the pendency of a civil suit concerning the same property dispute? (Question of law) 2. Whether the averments in the criminal complaint, when read with the plaint in the civil suit, disclose any cognizable criminal offence against the petitioners? (Question of mixed law and fact) Contentions: Petitioner: The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the criminal proceedings are an attempt to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. They highlighted that the averments in the civil suit are in favour of the petitioners, while the criminal complaint takes a contrary stand. The registration of the crime is alleged to suffer from a lack of bonafides, especially considering the significant delay between the sale deeds and the criminal complaint. Revenue/State: The learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the petitioners are alleged to have committed forgery of documents, which is a criminal offence. They argued that the pendency of a civil suit does not render a criminal complaint non-maintainable or warrant its quashing, as both operate in different circumstances. Therefore, they sought dismissal of the petition.