Karnataka High Court
Vinod S/O Ravasab Halakar vs Annasaheb S/O Naiyku Khot on 16 January, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
CRL.P.NO.101274 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. VINOD S/O. RAVASAB HALAKAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SADALAGA,
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. DARSHAN S/O. KALLAPPA PATIOL,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SADALAGA,
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3. NANA S/O. MARUTI KOGALE,
AGE: 74 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SADALAGA,
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. MARUTI S/O. MALLA PAWAR,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
-2-
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SADALAGA,
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5. SACHIN S/O. DHANAPAL KHOT,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SADALAGA,
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
6. PRAVEEN
S/O. SHRIKANT NIMBALKAR,
AGE: 28 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SADALAGA,
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
7. SANJU S/O. MARUTI PAWAR,
AGE: 32 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SADALAGA,
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
8. VIJAY S/O. MARUTI PAWAR,
AGE: 41 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SADALAGA,
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
9. RAMESH
S/O. APPASAHEB GHATAGE,
AGE: 38 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SADALAGA,
-3-
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ANNASAHEB S/O. NAIYKU KHOT
AGE: 34 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. VADAGOL,
TQ: CHIKKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SADALAGA POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHIVARAJ S BALLOLLI, ADV., FOR R1;
SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN
SADALAGA P.S. CRIME NO.34/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
I-ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKKODI FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 420, 447,
467, 468, 471, 474, 504 AND 506 R/W 149 OF IPC.
-4-
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") seeking quashing of Crime No.34/2017 in Sadalaga Police Station for offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471, 474, 504 and 506 read with section 149 of IPC.
2. The brief facts are that one Annasaheb S/o. Nayaku Khot filed a private complaint before the learned JMFC, Chikodi on 09.03.2017 in P.C.No.47/2017 and on the said private complaint, learned JMFC directed the police to register a case and hold investigation. Subsequently, on 14.03.2017 the complainant-Annasaheb lodged a complaint before the Sadalaga Police Station which was registered as Crime No.34/2017 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 420, 447, 467, 468, 471, 474, 504 and 506 read with section 149 of IPC. In -5- both the private compliant as well as crime No.34/2017, the petitioners and two others are the accused persons.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that on the private complaint filed in P.C.No.47/2017 before the learned JMFC, Chikodi on 09.03.2017, learned JMFC directed the Sadalaga Police to register a case and hold investigation. When the proceedings stood at that, the same complainant went to Sadalaga Police Station and lodged another complaint against the same accused persons and, based on the same, crime No.34/2017 was registered and in both the private complaint as well as Crime No.34/2017 the allegations made are the same and the accused are also the same. He further submits that on the same set of allegations, the petitioners and other accused should not be made to face two investigations and thereafter two trials and therefore the petition deserves to be allowed. He further contended that the allegation in the complaint that the accused petitioner had committed criminal trespass is manifestly absurd as the -6- petitioner No.1 had purchased the land in Survey No.993 of Vadagol village by a registered sale deed dated 21.10.2016 and therefore, the petitioners being the owners of the land they could not have committed any criminal trespass on the same. He also contended that the complainant had filed O.S.No.104/2017 before the learned Principal Civil Judge, Chikodi seeking permanent injunction and in the said case his application seeking temporary injunction was rejected thereby showing that the complainant had no right over the property. He therefore, contended that the complaint filed in crime No.34/2017 before the Sadalaga Police Station is an abuse of the process of law and therefore it should be quashed.
4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/complainant and learned HCGP submit that even though private complaint was filed and learned JMFC had directed Sadalaga Police to register a case and hold investigation, Sadalaga Police have not registered any case and held investigation based on the private complaint. They further -7- submit that on the complaint dated 14.03.2017 lodged before the police, case in crime No.34/2017 was registered and police have commenced investigation. Therefore, according to them, there are no two parallel investigations carried on in respect of same set of allegations and therefore, contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is unsustainable. They also submitted that the allegation in the complaint is to the effect that the accused/petitioners had impersonated the owner of the land in Survey No.993 of Vadagol village and forged his signature and they had created sale deed dated 21.10.2016 and thereby they have committed offences alleged in the complaint before police. According to the further submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP, the petitioners have not become the owners of the said land and since the complainant has been in possession by himself and his predecessors in respect of the land in question ever since 1938, various offences alleged in the complaint are prima facie made out -8- and therefore there is no merit in the petition and same is liable to be dismissed.
5. The allegation in the complaint based on which crime No.34/2017 is registered in Sadalaga Police Station is to the effect that originally the land in question belonged to one Bala Hari Tonne and since 1932, the said person was not seen and heard of in the village and the complainant and his predecessors have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the said land ever since 1932 and since from 1948 the complainant and his predecessors have been shown as occupiers and cultivators of the said land. The further allegation is that subsequently the land Tribunal had granted occupancy right in respect of a portion of the land in favour of the predecessors in title of the complainant and in regard to the other portion they have been uninterruptedly in possession of the same. It is also stated that by creating some false documents, somebody was made to impersonate as Bala Hari Tonne and thereafter by creating -9- some more false documents, the alleged sale deed dated 21.10.2016 was brought about and accordingly, the various offences under sections 468, 467, 471, 474 and 420 of IPC were committed by the accused-petitioners. Further allegation is to the effect that on 14.03.2017, the accused-petitioners and two others who have been named in the complaint had trespassed into the land and thereafter they had made Galata there and abused the complainant and others. In that view of the matter, the submission of the learned counsel that there is no specific allegation in the police complaint is not sustainable. Insofar as contention regarding two parallel investigations in respect of the same set of allegations is concerned, the records disclose that the police have not registered any case pursuant to the direction by the learned JMFC in the private complaint filed by the complaint. Only one case namely Crime No.34/2017 has been registered and investigation was commenced. Even otherwise, if the investigation is commenced by the police on both the complaints, by following the provisions under Section 210 -10- of Cr.P.C., learned JMFC could either stay the inquiry or the investigation in the case before him (generally referred to as the complaint case) or if the final reports are filed, he has to club them and hold a common trial. A reference to Section 210 of Cr.P.C., makes the position clear.
"210. Procedure to be followed when there is a complaint case and police investigation in respect of the same offence. - (1) When in a case instituted otherwise than on a police report (hereinafter referred to as a complaint case), it is made to appear to the Magistrate, during the course of the inquiry or trial held by him, that an investigation by the police is in progress in relation to the offence which is the subject-matter of the inquiry or trial held by him, the Magistrate shall stay the proceedings of such inquiry or trial and call for a report on the matter from the police officer conducting the investigation.
(2) If a report is made by the investigating police officer under section 173 and on such report cognizance of any offence is taken by the -11- Magistrate against any person who is an accused in the complaint case, the Magistrate shall inquire into or try together the complaint case and the case arising out of the police report as if both the cases were instituted on a police report.
(3) If the police report does not relate to any accused in the complaint case or if the Magistrate does not take cognizance of any offence on the police report, he shall proceed with the inquiry or trial, which was stayed by him, in accordance with the provisions of this Code."
6. Under such circumstances, grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners in this behalf is unsustainable.
7. His further submission is that in the civil suit filed by the complainant, no temporary injunction has been granted and therefore, the registration of crime No.34/2017 is unsustainable also is not entitled to be accepted. There are specific allegations in the complaint that the accused/petitioners have committed certain -12- offences of impersonation, forgery, criminal trespass and use of abusive words against the complainant and others. Taking into consideration the entire allegations made in the complaint, it cannot be said that the proceedings registered in crime No.34/2017 is an abuse of process of law and the complaint do not make out the ingredients of the offences for which the case has been registered. Accordingly, I am of the view that there is no case made out by the petitioners to quash the proceedings as prayed for and therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
In view of the above, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, do not
survive for consideration and accordingly
dismissed.
-13-
The observations made herein above are
only for the limited purpose of disposal of this petition and the learned Court below shall not be influenced by them.
Sd/-
JUDGE yan