SUKESH N. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR registered in Crime No.84/2019 on the file of the Netaji Nagar Police Station, Raichur for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) The brief facts leading to the case are that the petitioner No.1 is the son of Nageshwar Rao while petitioner No.2 is the son of late Bheemanna who is the brother of Savarappa and petitioner No.3 is the brother of late Bheemanna and uncle of late Savarappa while petitioner No.4 is the son of Savareppa. Petitioner No.4 is the son of Savareppa born to his first wife Vijayalakshmi. It is the further case that Savareppa has obtained divorce from his first wife and then contracted second marriage with Jayashree. It is further the case that both Savareppa and his second wife Jayashree died in a road traffic accident on 01.05.2009. That the respondent No.2 is the son of the other brother of Savareppa by name Narasimhalu; that the father of respondent No.2 Narasimhalu died prior to 2009 and the respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint on 26.12.2019 claiming that after the death of Savareppa and his wife Jayashree, the petitioners have taken certain amount from NEKRTC by impersonating the present petitioner No.4 as their son and by filing an affidavit the amount was drawn. It is also alleged that from second marriage of Saverappa with Jayashree, they did not have any issues and they have also obtained Heirship Certificate by showing that the petitioner No.4 is the legal heir of Saverappa. Hence, he lodged a complaint for initiation of the action. On the basis of the complaint, the investigating officer has issued FIR in crime No.84/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the FIR and complaint on the ground that it is an abuse of process of law.

(3.) Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsels for the respondents.