Skip to main content

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.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Understanding Counterclaims: A Comprehensive Guide

  Understanding Counterclaims: A Comprehensive Guide In legal proceedings, a counterclaim is a vital tool that allows defendants to assert their own claims against the plaintiff. This strategic maneuver not only defends against the plaintiff's allegations but also enables defendants to seek their own relief. In this comprehensive guide, we delve into the intricacies of counterclaims, exploring their purpose, procedures, and implications in various legal contexts. Introduction to Counterclaims Definition A counterclaim is a legal claim brought by a defendant against the plaintiff in response to the plaintiff's initial complaint. It serves as a means for defendants to assert their own rights, defenses, or causes of action arising from the same transaction or occurrence as the plaintiff's claim. Purpose The primary purpose of a counterclaim is to allow defendants to present their side of the story and seek appropriate remedies or relief. By filing a counterclaim, defendants ca...
7 comments
Read more

Title: Understanding "Your Complaint has been Disposed under a Closed Complaint"

  Title: Understanding "Your Complaint has been Disposed under a Closed Complaint" When you receive a notification stating "Your complaint has been disposed under a closed complaint," it signifies the closure of the complaint you filed with the respective entity or organization. This phrase is commonly used by customer service departments, grievance redressal cells, regulatory bodies, or complaint management systems to inform complainants about the resolution status of their complaint. Here's a detailed explanation of what it means and its implications: Disposition of Complaint (0-7 days) : "Disposed" indicates that the complaint has been addressed, reviewed, and resolved by the concerned authority or entity. The closure of the complaint signifies that the responsible party has taken appropriate action to address the issues raised in the complaint. Closure Status (0-7 days) : "Closed complaint" indicates that the complaint resolution process ...
4 comments
Read more

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and inst...
10 comments
Read more