R. Jayaram vs The State of Karnataka

S.N. Satyanarayana, J.—Accused Nos. 1 and 3 in C.C. No. 9423/2011 pending on the file of I ACMM Court, Bangalore, have come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid proceedings, which is initiated against them for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 467, 468, 471 and 420 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, in effect the allegations against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 9423/2011 is that the accused have created a Sale Deed dated 20.05.1983 registered on 24.05.1983 as if it is executed by complainant in favour of father of accused Nos. 1 to 3 with reference to the property referred to in the Sale Deed with an intention to cheat the complainant.

Admittedly the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 9423/2011 are the sons of H.V. Rangappa, purchaser under the Sale Deed dated 24.05.1983. In the complaint, it is stated that the complainant is none other than the wife of H.V. Rangappa, which is denied by the accused Nos. 1 to 3. However, this Court would not enter into controversy regarding the correctness or otherwise of the relationship between the complainant and accused, vis-a-vis, H.V. Rangappa, purchaser under Sale Deed dated 24.05.1983. This petition is filed seeking quashing of the complaint in C.C. No. 9423/2011. A document referred to as Power of Attorney is filed in this petition at Annexure-"J". The said document is said to be the Power of Attorney given in favour of complainant by one Yathiraj, S/o. Veerappa, authorizing her to deal with the property in question in whatever manner she deems it fit. With this, it is seen that the complainant is the Power of Attorney Holder of the property, which was standing in the name of Yathiraj.

However, coming to the complaint it is stated that initially complaint, was filed on 27.06.2008, i.e., one year exactly after the death of H.V. Rangappa, purchaser under the disputed Sale Deed, who is said to have died on 14.06.2007. Admittedly from the date of sale in favour of H.V. Rangappa till the date of his death, no development has taken with regard to the title to the suit property in question. It is only after his death when the accused Nos. 1 to 3 started to claim right to the said property as legal heirs of deceased H.V. Rangappa, the dispute arose. In this background, the complaint is filed on 27.06.2008. Initially the complaint which was filed against the children of H.V. Rangappa was referred to investigation u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C., to Vijayanagar Police, who filed "B" report into the matter after investigation. Subsequently, it is seen that private complaint in PCR No. 7365/2008 is filed on the file of V ACMM Court, Bangalore, wherein after recording the sworn statement, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and has registered complaint against accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 9423/2011, which is sought to be challenged in this petition.

Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and as well as respondents. The dispute between the complainant and accused is with reference to the property, namely plot bearing No. 67/1 measuring East to West 60 feet, North to South 165 feet, situated at Kamakshipalya, Sanegouranahalli, Yeshwanthapur Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which is said to be property of complainant pursuant to Power of Attorney executed in her favour by Yathiraj. It is seen that a Sale Deed is executed subsequently in favour of H.V. Rangappa on 20.05.1983 and registered on 24.05.1983. According to complainant, the said Sale Deed is executed without her knowledge and according to her, H.V. Rangappa being her husband, she was under the impression that the property which was standing in her name was looked after by him. It is only after the death of H.V. Rangappa, when the accused Nos. 1 to 3 started staking claim to the said property as if it is their property, she realized that behind her back, Sale Deed is executed. Hence she has filed the complaint.

Be that, as it may. In this proceedings what is to be seen is whether there is involvement of accused Nos. 1 to 3 in creating the aforesaid Sale Deed. It is clearly seen that the Sale Deed is said to have executed by Gangalakshmi and the beneficiary is none other than H.V. Rangappa, who according to her was her husband. In the said transaction, the accused are neither the scribe nor witness to said transaction. There is nothing on record to show that they had a hand in creating the said document. Assuming for a moment, the said document is a fake document, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners are involved in creating the same.

Further it is also seen that merely because the said document is executed in the name of complainant, it does not mean that the said Sale Deed dated 20.05.1983 is a genuine document and it is executed by the complainant. The allegation that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are involved in creating the aforesaid Sale Deed in the year 1983 does not get credence from the materials available on record. Therefore nothing remains on record to support in pursuing the proceedings against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 9423/2011. In the absence of any materials prima facie showing their involvement, the same is required to be quashed.

However, this would not enure to the benefit of the accused Nos. 1 to 3 with reference to stake their claim to property in question, which they are claiming as legal heirs of H.V. Rangappa. In the event, the complainant is able to establish that the Sale Deed is not executed by her and it is a created document, in such an event, if the Sale Deed is proved to be fake document, accused Nos. 1 to 3 as sons of H.V. Rangappa would not get any right over the said property by succession to stake their claim on the property. The correctness or otherwise of the said document can be gone into by the complainant by initiating a civil suit and she is at liberty to initiate a suit in the jurisdictional Civil Court. In the said suit she has right to establish that the Sale Deed is not executed by her. In such an event, the exclusive right over the property remains with her, if she is able to establish that the Sale Deed dated 20.05.1983 registered on 24.05.1983 is fake document.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C. No. 9423/2011 pending on the file of I ACMM Court, Bangalore, is hereby quashed.

It is hereby made clear that the complainant is entitled to take benefit of the opinion which is already furnished by the police and other authorities in holding that the Sale Deed dated 20.05.1983 is fake document and thumb impression of Gangalakshmi, which is found in the said document as fake can be relied upon in the original suit to be filed by Gangalakshmi.