Karnataka High Court
Sri K P Narasimha Murthy vs The State By Sub Inspector Of Police on 22 December, 2021
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.38083 of 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI K P NARASIMHA MURTHY
S/O K PUTTANARASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
WORKING AS PHYSICAL EDUCATION TEACHER
GOVERNMENT HIGH SCHOOL
YESHWANTHAPURA
BANGALORE-560 022 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE
(PHYSICAL HEARING)
AND
1. THE STATE BY
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE-562 123
2. SRI. L. DORESWAMY
S/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/A NO.4/1, 17TH CROSS
WEST PARK ROAD,
MALLESWARAM
BANGALORE-560 055 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1
(PHYSICAL HEARING);
R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED COMPLAINT DATED 18.8.2017
GIVEN BY R-2 [ANNEXURE-A] AND IMPUGNED FIRST
INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO.201/2017 DATED
18.8.2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE R-1
[ANENXURE-B] IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED [ACCUSED NO.1]
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING - 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.201/2017 pending before CJ & JMFC Court, Nelamangala, Bengaluru.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1-State.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition as borne out from the pleadings are as under: 3
The petitioner is alleged to have facilitated sale of certain sites in an alleged illegal layout as narrated by the complainant in the complaint. The subject complaint is registered on 18.08.2017 by the second respondent-complainant. The subject matter of complaint is, lands in Sy.Nos.54/1A, 54/3A and 54/2B measuring 6 acres 11 guntas, in which, a layout in the name and style of 'Arugraha' is established wherein 78 sites were sold and the further allegation is, the sites were sold on the basis of forged Forms No.9 and 11 which were the necessary documents then for registration of a sale deed. On the very same facts of the alleged illegal layout and the alleged sale, the Panchayat Development Officer (PDO) of Manne Grama Panchayat under whose precincts the said layout exists had registered a case in Crime No.98/2017. The said complaint was registered on 21.07.2017. 4
4. The Police after investigating in to the offences alleged in the said complaint which were the ones punishable under Sections 419, 420, 417 and 34 of IPC filed 'B' Summary Report on 20.06.2018. The said 'B' Summary Report after following due process is accepted by the competent court and the criminal case in Crime No.98/2017 is closed by the order of the competent court on 08.04.2019.
5. At around the same time, when the PDO had filed the criminal complaint, a month after the first complaint, the second respondent complainant, who was the Ex-President of the Grama Panchayat files another complaint alleging the very same offences that were alleged in the complaint filed by the PDO. The added allegation is for offence punishalbe under Section 120B in the second complaint filed on the same set of facts by the second respondent.
5
6. It is not in dispute that the subject matter of both the complaints was the same on sale of 78 sites in the very same survey number on the strength of forged Forms No.9 and 11. The Police having investigated into the alleged offence and filing 'B' Summary Report and the said 'B' Summary Report being accepted by the competent court are not in dispute and the proceedings which the PDO had initiated ended in filing of 'B' Summary Report. The issue is, "Whether the impugned proceedings would be hit by the doctrine of sameness or the fact that the 'B' Summary Report being filed in an identical complaint alleging identical offence is what is to be answered in the case at hand?"
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. On a complaint registered on the same set of facts, the Panchayath Development Officer had filed a complaint invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner 6 for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 417 and 34 of IPC. The police after investigation have filed a 'B' Summary report, which is accepted and proceedings are closed by the competent criminal Court.
8. On the same set of facts, at the same time, the former President of the Gram Panchayath had also filed a complaint for the very same offences. The other offence is Section 120B. Since both the complaints emanated from the same set of facts and the very same allegations against the petitioner, one having ended in a 'B' report, the other filed by the former President of the Gram Panchayath on the same ground would lose its legs to stand, on the ground of sameness, in the complaint and the allegations leveled against the petitioner.
9. The issue also stands covered by the judgment of this Court in Crl.P.No.3171/2018 disposed on 20.09.2021.
7
For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i) The writ petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned proceedings in Crime No.201/2017 pending before Civil Judge & J.M.F.C., Court, Nelamangala, Bengaluru Stands quashed qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mv/KG