Karnataka High Court
Prahlad vs State Of Karnataka on 25 January, 2022
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101459/2015
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2962/2015
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101111/2015
IN CRL.P.NO.101459/2015
BETWEEN:
1. PRAHLAD @ PRAHALADACHARYA
S/O DAMODACHARYA UMARJI,
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
R/O: VIDYAGIRI, 8TH CROSS, BAGALKOTE.
2. NARAYAN S/O DAMODACHARYA UMARJI
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE,
R/O: VIDYAGIRI, 15TH CROSS, BAGALKOTE.
3. VINOD S/O RAGHVENDRA DESHPANDE
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,
R/O: NEAR SUBHAS PATIL HOSPITAL,
OLD BAGALKOTE.
4. VIJAYENDRA S/O RAGHAVENDRA DESHPANDE
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: PWD ENGINEER,
R/O: KESHAV NAGAR, DHARWAD.
5. VIJAYENDRA @ VISHAL RAGHVENDRA
DESHPANDE
AGAE: 64 YEARS,
OCC: RETIRED BANK EMPLOYEE,
R/O: KESHAV NAGAR, DHARWAD.
2
6. SHREEDEVI VILAS DESHPANDE
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: CHABBI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI,
DIST: GADAG.
7. RAJLAXMI S/O DAMODACHARYA UMARJI
W/O NARAYANACHARYA GUDI,
AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: VIDYAGIRI, 15TH CROSS, BAGALKOTE.
8. RAJU S/O VENKAJI KULKARNI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR,
R/O: GUJJARGALLI, NEAR PARABAR
SETHJI HOUSE, VIJAYAPUR.
9. JANAMEJAYA S/O PAREEKSHITACHRYA UMARJI
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: VIDYAGIRI, 15TH CROSS, BAGALKOTE.
...PETITIONERS.
(BY SHRI S H MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PSI, BILAGI POLICE STATION,
BAGALKOTE,
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT.
(BY SHRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6/2015 ON THE FILE OF JMFC,
BILAGI AND ORDER DATED 09/02/2015 ISSUING NON BAILABLE
WARRANT TO THE PETITIONERS BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
3
JMFC, BILAGI, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
420, 465, 466, 468, 471 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE, 1860, ETC.,.
IN CRL.P.NO.2962/2015
BETWEEN:
KAPIL S/O PAREEKSHITACHARYA
UMARJI
AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT
R/O BADGI, TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOTE-582110
...PETITIONER.
(BY SHRI N L BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. SHERISTEDAR
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
BILAGI, TQ: BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOTE-582110
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH PSI BILAGI P S
DIST: BAGALKOTE
REP. BY ITS SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001
...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP.)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE AND ISSUE OF PROCESS FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 466, 467, 468,
4
471 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, BY
THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BILAGI, IN C.C.NO.06/2015
DATED 9.2.2015 AGAINST THE PETR. HEREIN, AT ANNEXURE-A,
ETC.,.
IN CRL.P.NO.101111/2015
BETWEEN:
PAREEKSHITACHARYA
S/O DAMODARACHARYA UMARJI
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. BAGALKOTE, DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...PETITIONER.
(BY SHRI S S YADRAMI, ADVOCATE.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BILAGI POLICE
REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
2. THE SHERISTEDAR/
CHIEF MINISTRIAL OFFICER
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE COURT BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
3. THE SPL. LAND ACQUISITON OFFICER
UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT, BILAGI
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
...RESPONDENTS.
(BY SHRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP, FOR R.1;
R.2 AND 4.3 - NOTICE SERVED.)
5
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,
BILAGI, DATED 05.02.2011, IN L.AC. NO.439/2005 AND CONNECTED
CASES SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE IMPUGNED DIRECTIONS TO FILE
A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE CLAIMANTS FOR FORGERY, AND
CREATION OF FALSE DOCUMENTS AND THEIR USE IN JUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT
AND F.I.R. AND CHARGE SHEET IN BILAGI P.S. CRIME NO.198/2011
(NOW NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.06/2015) VIDE ANNEXURE B, C AND D
RESPECTIVELY AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BILAGI, DATED 09.02.2015 TAKING
COGNIZANCE AND ISSUING PROCESS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 466, 468 AND 471 READ
WITH SECTION 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, SO FAR IT
RELATES TO THE PETITIONER AND ALL OTHER FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.06/2015, VIDE ANNEXURE-E ON THE FILE
OF LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BILAGI, ETC.,.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Shri S.H.Mittalkod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Ramesh Chigari, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent State.
2. The petitioners in all these cases are land losers, whose lands were acquired for the purpose of particular projects. The cases at hand do not concern the proceedings of compensation or its enhancement. The present proceedings arise out of the order passed by the Court hearing the reference 6 under the Land Acquisition Act, seeking enhancement of compensation, for the offence punishable under sections 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. The genesis for the case at hand is LAC No.439/2005, a judgment rendered on 5.2.2011. The reference Court while considering the cases of the land losers for enhancement, passes an order directing the CMO to file a complaint before the jurisdictional police against all the claimants in these cases for the act of preparation of false exhibits P.5 to P.8 i.e., the record of rights showing the entire land, as the land in which sugarcane crop was being grown, by committing forgery of further exhibits P.12 and P.13 and making use of these documents in judicial proceedings and seeking enhancement of compensation after the appeal period was over.
4. It is on the basis of the aforesaid direction issued by the Reference Court in terms of its order dated 5.2.2011, the present proceedings spring. The complaint is registered against the petitioners/land losers in terms of the direction issued by the reference Court for the aforesaid offences. The police after 7 investigation have also filed a charge sheet against the petitioners which is now registered as C.C.No.6/2015. The allegation against the petitioners is that of forgery. The Reference Court prior to coming to conclude that the petitioners have engaged in forgery of documents and a consequent direction to initiate criminal proceedings ought to have followed the procedure as stipulated in section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. 1973, reads as follows:
"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.--(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of Justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,--
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in
writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before 8 such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-
section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,--
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195.
5. It is germane to notice the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M.S.Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana and 9 another, reported in (2000) 1 SCC 278, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
5. Chapter XI IPC deals with "false evidence and offences against public justice"
and Section 193 occurring therein provides for punishment for giving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding. Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) provides that where an act amounts to an offence of contempt of the lawful authority of public servants or to an offence against public justice such as giving false evidence under Section 193 IPC, etc. or to an offence relating to documents actually used in a court, private prosecutions are barred absolutely and only the court in relation to which the offence was committed may initiate proceedings. Provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of any of the offences mentioned therein unless there is a complaint in writing as required under that Section. It is settled law that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution, but (sic) to exercise judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of the administration of justice.
6. Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure as to how a complaint may be preferred under Section 195 Cr.P.C. While under Section 195 Cr.P.C, it is open to the court before which the offence was committed to prefer a complaint for the prosecution of the offender, Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure as to how that complaint may be preferred. Provisions under Section 195 Cr.P.C. are mandatory and no court can take cognizance of offences referred to therein (sic). It is in respect of such offences the court has 10 jurisdiction to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and a complaint outside the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. cannot be filed by any civil, revenue or criminal court under its inherent jurisdiction. The Apex Court has interpreted section 340 of the Cr.P.C. and has held that the Court would not pass an order directing initiation of proceedings against the parties to a lis without at the outset following the procedure stipulated under section 340 of Cr.P.C. supra.
6. Admittedly in the case at hand, there is no procedure followed as contemplated under section 340 of the Cr.P.C., prior to the reference Court directing registration of a criminal case against the petitioners for production of certain documents, which according to the Court were false.
7. In the light of the order of the reference Court not even adverting to any of the condition stipulated under section 340 of the Cr.P.C. for registration of the criminal case against the petitioners, the order impugned is rendered unsustainable.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: 11
ORDER
i) The criminal petitions are allowed.
ii) The proceedings in C.C.NO.6/2015, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bilagi, against the petitioners in all these cases, stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-