Karnataka High Court
Sri C A Subbaiah vs The State Of Karnataka By Siddapura ... on 28 May, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT %
Dated This The 28th Day Of May2t{_):1O 5&1] dd _: "
BEFORE;
THE HON'BLE MR.JIJ'S'fiCE'ARALI dd
Csirninal Petition N0..d282Q Of V}
Between
S1'iC.A.Subbaiah '
S/0 Late Acha.i..a11,v--._ 'L '
Aged about 5.8 years, _ _ "
Resident Qf'EvI%;l.d'a~:'e'_VVi11age,"~~_V "
Siddapura,._Vi1iaj;pet'1'aIuk;f .,
K0dagutDist1'iet. "if; --. Petitioner
(By sriss. ',j_f4._di:iV_:Vf'()1% Sri A.K. Subbaiah and A.S.
P0nnanr13t,Advs)_ = .
' '.'~The,_VState"of Karnataka
._-By vSi'd.dapur'a Police Station,
. " . Represented by S?P,
C.o5art of Karnataka,
Bangalore.
tf" Smt. Yashoda,
"-W/0 Raghu
R/0 Diddalii Viliage,
Chennaiahnkote Grrampanchayat.
Siddapur,
Virajpet Taiuk,
Kodagu District. Respondents
(By Sri Vijayakumar Majage, HCGP for
M.T.Nar1aiah, Adv for R2) V
This Cr1.P. is filed U/s.:'*4i82«.C1;P._C,"prayingto '_
quash the Charge Sheet in C.(3_. No.,'27006'-ontithezfile
of the JMFC, Virajpet filed byythe respontient*:.P'o1iceV
against the petitioner and at-sso set=aside theV.or¢1er of the *
JMFC, Virajpet, dated "iissuing__N'BW against the
Petitioner. _
This Petition Corning this day, the
Court made the fo1loWi_rig_:V j_ * 'V
is accused No.4 in
oethe file of the learned Civil
Judge (hereafter referred to
asyitfieai Cci1:.rt"V'for:short) has filed the present petition
482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the
r Aentire'p1*ooe'edings in the said ease. Accused Nos. 1 to 6,
the present petitioner, are chargesheeted for
it the offence under Section 420 of IPC. The present
petition came to be filed before the charge could be
framed against the accused in the said case.
W
2. Heard the arguments of Sri 'the
learned Counsel for the petitioner-aCCu's.ed--i./Landit 'El-ri
Vijaykurnar Majage, the learned '4
complaint, statements of c'ha'rgesh,eet;tti dtwitnessesi.
recorded under Section alt other
documents found iii._ti1e 'originairecords obtained from
the Trial Court. it
3. Sri" the i'ea"rne'dcj'Cxounse1 for the petitioner
[A4):.:dVstro_ngiy that-tflabsolutely no allegation is
made"a_glainst._thjis petiltioner in the complaint and the
statements'-.of 'the Witnesses including the beneficiaries
" A other oflicials of the Bank, of which, the present
._ been the President, constituting any of
the ingredients of Section 420 of IPC and therefore the
V = proceedings in the said case as against this petitioner
deserve to be quashed. He further contends that the
it documents produced by the I.O._ along with the
chargesheet also do not disclose that this petitioner (A4)
('N-f\'"--\----*""
was in any way responsible for jthe
beneficiaries to obtain loan from
purchase of cattle (cows) and vcaiii
be framed against the present petivtioner
under Section 420 IPC. _ V V
4. Per contra, strongly contends
that though there this petitioner
in the complainant and
the "disclose that the present
petitioner-.._Vbeingfilthe':l?li'esident of the Bank which lent
to the" «b.e.n.eficiaries for purchasing cows, was
' the creation of the relevant documents
it the loan transactions and also in respect of
the aileged distribution of cows to the beneficiaries and
'bi .the_refore there is enough material, placed on record by
Hithe I.O, for framing charge against this petitioner-
accused for the offence under Section 420 IPC read with
Section 34 of IPC for having cheated the beneficiaries.
*
5. Stated in brief the case of the proseci1tton.j' could be gathered from the complaint .. filed before the Police concerned the viz., Smt.Yashodha and.' the svtatements of complainant and the othetrfchuargesheet witnesses including the beneficiaries its as .L1'm_:':er:~, _
a) About",;t§vo y1ears"prio:_j'to' the date of the said«"oorn'f.)1ain't,.:A11-...Appaji. S/o Kencha of Diddali_i'_.w v:11age~,4j- Taluk} Virajpet made repres,enté:u_ti.or1»-_ to th~e.....<:omp1ainant and other eper_sons -belonging to her community 7--.ViZ., Gowri, Raju, Seethe, Susheela, V Ramesh, Janaki, Lathe,» Savithri...-~'t'and Deva, respectiveiy CWs.i~. to" '12 that he would get for them isubpsidy the Government and loan _ "'frorr1*«.the bank, for purchasing cows. By " the said representation, he "'b,"roughvt*"' some cows and got the photographs of the complainant and the persons taken by making each of '~ Vthem to stand with a cow. All those cows belonged to different persons.
b) Thereafter, the said Appaji (A1) got the caste certificates in respect of each of them, took them to the Maldare Badaga Service Co-operative Bank at Maldare Viilage and introduced them to the Manager of the said Bank [A2, (.__r"\r----xx 6 K.G.Gar1apathi). The said Manages obtained from each of them certain documents and also obtained theirf... signatures on certain other docur_ne1it.s----._ saying that each of the said persons' d would be given subsidy ofgRs. 10.000/:'~ a'nd- _ loan of Rs.3,340/« t0ward's'«purchas'e._oi'*~' . cows and the cows would be distributed 2;] them. 7 " V " " '
c) Few days thereaft.ei'; the"'c,ornp3iainant and all the said pe_r.sor1s'=approached_5the Manager of said Ba'r1.ii.ga1:td asked him as to when they-.wo_u?1d. b'efgiVen the loan amount/cow. He not"~er1t"er_t.ain them. The s.:ua_ Appaji'{A1_)"r1eft the Village and went" to;.i-Mysore, "but _he"d...i.d not return. Fewl"d_ay.s-';7_thereaft.er;-" orieflperson came to the coi:np1ai1i_ant_' ._and each of the said iiiiwitnesses, =._info1'--med them that they had"'vi'obta;inec1d''l.oan .' from the Bank, but ' * _ failed to "repay the same and therefore he . Zghad brought' with him notices to serve on them. Then only they came to know that _ '=.._'they"were cheated by the said Appaji, the ."'M_anager and other Officers of the said Bark, by obtaining their signatures on iseveral documents and creating other V "gdocuments showing that cows were distributed among them.
6. On the basis of the said complaint, the police of Siddapura P.S. registered a case in Crime No.10/2005 _r'-V '1 of said R8. for the offence under Section 420"IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC against A1 Appaji, A2 Mana_g.er.fof.._the said Bank and other Officers of the completion of the investigation,.. the _p'o'Ii'ce'_':V charge sheet against as accused' »f01f'the offence under Section including' ..p1;'esen't.f' petitioner who is accused----iV\llo--i_4"-»..there'inV.._ "The entire proceedings in the to be quashed as against pstit;is"a_sr;p:i:
of the above allegations in the cornplaint, co.uId"»fbe seen that as rightly submitted i§:3;":S1ji.:Baj.aj, 'theiearned Counsel for the petitioner (A4). V 'n0.a:allegation that this petitioner induced either or the said other 1 1 witnesses that he A would' get each of them subsidy as loan sanctioned 'atofwards purchase of the cows. However, the complainant and all the said 11 persons, who were the alleged beneficiaries, have stated in their statements .,.__<""""\.._ recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by investigation that after they came to_ Appaji and A2 Manager of the signatures on several do.eu_ments_ assuririg. therri; thatfi each of them would be given4l's.n't;sidyV'of ~» and loan of Rs.3,340/A of they did not disburse eitheriytwlre the cows, but they amount to the petitioner (A4) who waslthe Bank, but he threatened them saying' not again visit the Bank in vviltimthe said loan. They have further stated V inepthieirlé'statements that A2 Ganapathi, being the it the present petitioner Subbaiah (A4), beinguthe President of the said Bank did not give them loan amount or milk giving cows, despite the Manager obtaining several documents and also signatures on several papers from each of the said persons and thus the present petitioner, the said c_,_$'_"W"\»"'~----
'(O the said document, each of the beneficiaries has:'jaffixed his/her thumb impression/signature document for having received thecow. i
10. It is the specific case. the stated by the complainantand the saidypgberieficiaries in' V their respective staterpnents-"1'ec_orded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the 1.0. documents are prepared by (ifficers of the said Banrt Rs.10,000/~»~ each was obtajned"and was given to each of thesaid benVefici'a.ries tcernplainant and the said CWs 2 note'/pa cow was given to any of the said thus they all together cheated the co'mp1'ainaLt1t and the said witnesses.
'1. As to the admissibility of the said document, ""._V1eai'ned Counsel for the petitioner strongly contends "that the said document, being attested photostat copy. cannot be admitted in evidence and therefore the same
-
cannot be considered while disposing of thc'~.}§'res.ent petition. As against this, the learned that original of the said document before the Court during trial "case the genuiness of the V documeriti "e'a1'111ot be questioned by the petitioner stage. further contends that the to prove the said docurnent §'e'\:*id'ence as provided under therefore it cannot be held at this document has no evidentiary value ataall., isiubrnissions of the learned HCGP deserve acceptance, it the above material placed on record by lthe prosectition, it is clear that Al [Appaji) and A2 as Qanaoathi, the Manager of the Bank made false it 'g_Vr-egliresentations to the complainant and the said 1} Witnesses that they would be sanctioned subsidy of Rs.10,000/-- and loan of Rs.3,340/-- towards purchase (~ 6'}.
of one cow each, and obtained their signaturess-'horny. several documents and the present with the second accused, the others prepared the list thepbeneficiaries * showing that one cow wasiygiaren to~._each of the 20 V beneficiaries including and 11 Witnesses [i.e. CW5 1 not give any cow to any of tire said. beneficiaries.,___Thus it is clear that prima facie "Section 420 of IPC are made"--.out. V l 4;' " 1.3. present petitioner. being the ' thevmslaid Bank did not directly induce any of ._ and did not obtain their signatures on the ciocurnents. the fact remains that he had been a 'to the document which was created falsely llshsowing that 20 cows were distributed amongst 20 T beneficiaries by obtaining subsidy of Rs.10,000/-- and ,___S.'T'\...._ $3 by sanctioning loan of Rs.8,340/-- to the beneficiaries
14. As to the power of 4-82 of Cr.P.C. to quash the» learned Counsel for' the pettitionetfahastéfeiied upon as many as seven decisions decisions of Hon'b1e Supr'e'n§1e' Court;
Vs. State of Bihar [AIR 3091 5929693 Ajay .nziz::iaidus..t:g:s<:a'te ofM.P. and others [AIR 2003 so grease 1 State__cfKerala Vs. A.Pareed Pillar'. and 1' another [AIR 1973 SC 326] idijhiave gone through all the above said deeis-ioiist.' The law is settled that if the averments in the at .~:omp'iajnt/FIR and the statements of the witnesses 'feeorded by the 1.0. during investigation, the 'i documents produced by the LO. along with the chargesheet, do not prima facie make out the (_S""'\--~--~ '!'+ commission of any congnizable offence by the "ac'erj1sed, the High Court would be justified in criminal proceedings in exercise of"it«s_ inh.erent_ powers under Section 482 Cr.P_.C. averments in the cornpIaint')"i:4.f::fi2, the witnesses recorded diiririg thveildocuments produced by the 1.0. sheet, prima facie make out i_ngredientsl«ofi;he...cognizabIe offence. alleged cannot be quashed 'by "in exercise of its inherent powers ur1d_er.Section' of Cr.P.C. i6E';"l:'Sinc_e thementire material, as discussed by me record by the 1.0. along with the charge..__sl1ee'tAc1early establishes prima facie case against the present petitioner for the offence under Section 420 'rd/'w';Section 34 of IPC, I am of the considered opinion "that the proceedings against him in the said case cannot be quashed. Though Section 34 IPC is not c____.(W"---s.....--