Case Summary of “Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust Vs. State of Karnataka”
Case Summary of “Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust Vs. State of Karnataka”- By Yashika Soni
Sri Sathya Sai Central Trust and others, the petitioners, have moved to the court to invalidate the FIR and the filing of a charge sheet in connection to offences punishable under sections 420, 511, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under section 82 of the Indian Registration Act.
B.N. Narasimha Murthy, the complainant, filed a private complaint in the court of II Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura, under section 200 Cr.P.C. It was claimed that on 20.6.2017, petitioners executed a lease deed in favour of Sri Satya Sai Central Trust, i.e., the first petitioner in Crl.P.1422/2021, for 37 guntas of land that are a portion of his land in Sy. No. 43. He claims that vested interests are attempting to engulf his land with a mala fide intention. This is a fraudulent transaction. The executors of the lease deed have no right, title, or power over Sy. No. 43's land. Through the lease deed dated 20.6.2017, the petitioners sought to persuade the complainant and therefore claimed his property.
The Magistrate referred the case to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., 1973 based on the complaint. Following that, the police filed a FIR and a charge sheet.
In 1973, the complainant was allocated 4 acres of land (4.06 acres including kharab) in Chikkamudenahalli, Chikkaballapur Taluk, according to the court. It appears that the Tahasildar awarded new survey numbers to several areas in 2013, most likely as a result of resurvey, as the complainant claims. Due to the assignment of new survey numbers, the complainant's land of 4 acres was awarded survey No.43, while the 37 guntas of land acquired by Loka Seva Trust were given Survey No.23/1. Because the petitioners were unaware of the change in survey number when they signed the lease deed on June 20, 2017, they listed the leased property's survey number as 43.
After reviewing the undisputable facts, the court concluded:
"It is difficult to say that the complaint discloses offences alleged by the complainant. He has to take recourse to a civil action if really he is under the impression that his land has been included in the lease deed. It is not the case of the complainant that there is forgery, that a false document is created and that there is impersonation."
Additionally, "37 guntas of land belong to Loka Seva Trust, about which there is no dispute and cannot be disputed also. If in respect of that land, a lease deed was executed, it does not amount to cheating. The complainant cannot taint these uncontroverted facts with the colour of criminality. The dispute is purely civil in nature."
The petitioner's learned counsel also cited the case of Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs State of U.P. and Others, in which the court stated that "nothing is there in the case on hand indicating the remedies under Section 154(1) and Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. being availed and that no affidavit is also filed. The affidavit attached to the complaint is quite cryptic, and thus fails to fulfil the mandate in Priyanka Srivastava."
As a result, the court granted the petition and ordered the FIR and charge sheet to be quashed and set aside.