Karnataka High Court
S Meghana @ S Megha vs State Of Karnataka on 13 October, 2020
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRL.P. NO. 5331/2019
BETWEEN
S. MEGHANA @ S MEGHA,
D/O. S. SURENDRA,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
OCC: EMPLOYEE,
NO.218, 3RD MAIN,
P.J. EXTENSION,
DAVANGERE DIST.-577 002. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.G. RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPT. BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
BENGALURUR,
REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. MANIKANTA SARKAR,
S/O. KARUNAKARAN,
AGED 33 YEARS,
OCC: BUSINESS SOCIAL WORKER,
PRESIDENT, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
SHREERAMASENA DIVISION,
DAVANGERE DISTRICT - 577 002.
R/AT. 4TH MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
2
VINOBHANAGAR, NEAR ST. MARY'S
CONVENT, DAVANAGERE.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, SPL.PP FOR R1,
R2 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED )
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
CR.NO.87/2013 AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C.
NO.807/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXXXI
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-
82, BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 198 OF IPC
AND U/Ss. 8, 13(1)(C) R/W. 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION
OF CORRUPTION ACT AND RULE 13 OF KARNATAKA
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY RULES.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO
CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.1- Lokayuktha Police. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.
2. The charge sheet is laid against the petitioner and other accused persons alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 198 of IPC and Sections 8, 13(1)(C) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of 3 Corruption Act (for short, 'P.C. Act") and Rule 13 of Karnataka Urban Development Authority Rules 1991 (for short, 'KUDA Rules 1991').
3. The petitioner is arraigned as Accused No.21 in the charge sheet. The allegation against the petitioner is that, by submitting a false declaration before the Davangere-Harihara Nagarabhivruddi Pradhikara, she managed to obtain allotment of a site in her favour.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of Court in as much as the allegation made against the petitioner do not prima facie make-out the ingredients of the offence under Section 198 of IPC. By referring to Section 191 of IPC, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, the petitioner has not given any false evidence before any authority or in any judicial proceedings, therefore, the provision of Section 198 of IPC is not attracted to the allegation made in the charge sheet, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. Secondly, the order passed by 4 the learned Magistrate referring the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. suffers from non-application of mind. The said order on the face of it indicates that, without considering the allegations made in the complaint, the learned Magistrate has mechanically referred the complaint to the concerned police, which is in violation of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Priyanka Srivastava & Another Vs. Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [AIR 2015 SC 1758]. Further, he submitted that, no averment has been made in the private complaint that the petitioner has taken recourse to the Section 156(3) before initiating action under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order of reference made under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is vitiated and on this ground also the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.
5. Further, referring to the order of allotment dated 28.10.2020, the learned counsel pointed-out that, as per condition No.6 of allotment order any false statement made in the affidavit would entail cancellation 5 would allotment made in her favour, but the same does not lead to any criminal prosecution of the petitioner. There is nothing in the allotment order to show that the allottee/grantee would be liable for criminal prosecution in the event of any false declaration made in the affidavit or in the application submitted to the authorities. On these grounds, learned counsel has sought for quashing of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner.
6. In reply to the above submissions, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2 at the outset has pointed-out that the petitioner has made a false statement in her application and affidavit to the effect that, she did not own any property within the urban limits of Davanagere-Harihara Town or in the entire State of Karnataka. The said statement being false, prima facie the offence under Section 198 of IPC has been made-out. Further, with regard to the requirement of submitting affidavit, the learned Standing Counsel referring to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava's 6 case, would submit that in the instant case, the private complaint was filed in the year 2013 and the order of reference was also made in 2013, ie., much earlier to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Therefore, this ground is not available to the petitioner to assail the order passed by the learned Magistrate. Further, he would submit that elaborate investigation having been conducted and the charge sheet having been laid against the petitioner, this objection challenging the reference order does not survive for consideration at this stage and thus he prayed for dismissal of the petition.
7. Having heard the rival submissions and on scrutinizing the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner by submitting a false affidavit and by making a false declaration in the application, obtained a grant order in her favour. This material, in my view, clearly attracts the ingredients of the offence under Section 198 of IPC. The Section reads as under:
"198. Using as true a certificate known to be false,- Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate, 7 knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence."
8. It is an independent offence which is made punishable in the same manner as if he/she gives false evidence. Section 191 of IPC deals with the false evidence and Section 192 of IPC deals with fabrication of false evidence. Both these provisions deal with giving evidence or fabrication of documents with the intention that it may appear the evidence is a judicial proceedings. But, Section 198 IPC does not contemplate such requirement. This section is connected with Section 197 IPC. As per Section 197, certificate contemplated therein is a certificate, which is required not to be given or signed for the use in the courts administration of justice. That means, certificate issued as required by some law or has reference to some statutory requirements. Since the petitioner has obtained the grant by submitting false application and making a false declaration as required under the Karnataka Urban Development Authority Rules, 1991, the office under Section 198 of IPC is clearly made out. 8
9. Coming to the requirement of affidavit in support of the allegation made in the private complaint is concerned, as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava's case, the requirement of filing affidavit would arise only when a prayer is made for reference of the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. On going through the complaint filed in the instant case, I find that no such prayer was made by the petitioner. In such circumstances, if the Magistrate in exercise of the power under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. chooses to adopt any of the courses open to him and refers the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the requirement of filing affidavit does not arise at all. Therefore the alleged infirmity projected by the petitioner, in my view, does not vitiate either the order of reference made by the learned Magistrate or the investigation conducted by the Investigating Agency.
10. In so far as the last submission made by the petitioner based on the condition of the allotment letter is concerned, no doubt, the condition imposed therein 9 clearly invest power with the authorities to cancel the allotment for making wrong declaration in the affidavit or in the application, but the same does not preclude criminal action against the petitioner for committing offences as provided under Section 198 of IPC. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contentions urged by the petitioner. Consequently, I do not find any justifiable ground to admit the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to canvass any other legal or factual contentions before the trial Court at appropriate stage.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*