Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Amith Chand vs State Of Karnataka on 2 January, 2017

Author: S.N.Satyanarayana

Bench: S.N. Satyanarayana

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2017

                          BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA

                   Crl.P.No.100574/2016

BETWEEN:

AMITH CHAND S/O THARA CHAND RATHOD,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS,
R/A RAVIVARPET, GOKAK.
                                             .. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.VINAY S.KOUJALAGI, ADV.)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       THROUGH GOKAK TOWN POLICE,
       REP.BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.

2.     SHIVAPUTRAPPA MUDAKAPPA GHAMANI,
       AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PENSIONER,
       R/O HOSPETH GALLI, GOKAK.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R1)

       THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER TAKING COGNIZANCE OF
THEOFFENCES AND ISSUING PROCESS DATED 22.12.2010 AND
TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING IN C.C.NO.1961/2010
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. JMFC, GOKAK FOR THE
O/P/U/S. 420, 465, 468 AND 471 OF IPC.
                               2




      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                          ORDER

Accused No.1 in C.C.No.1961/2010 on the file of the JMFC, Gokak has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid complaint.

2. The brief facts leading to this petition are as under:

The proceedings in C.C.No.1961/2010 is initiated at the instance of respondent No.2, who has filed a complaint alleging the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 of IPC against 9 persons, as could be seen in the complaint in crime No.226/2009 registered with Gokak Town Police. The sum and substance of the complaint in the aforesaid crime number is that the complainant is the owner of the property bearing CTS No.3259(B), which according to him was purchased by his sister from one Narayan Rajaram Shah and Ramachandra Rajaram Shah under registered sale deed, which she is 3 said to have given by way of gift to him. According to him, a portion of the property, which was on the western side of the property being damaged and vacant space was available with him for more than 33 years as on the date of complaint. With reference to the said land, certain documents are created to deny his title and possession and to create such documents, the petitioner herein is said to have taken the assistance of other accused in crime No.226/2009.

3. It is seen that the police after investigation filed charge sheet, which is registered in C.C. No.1961/2010 and pending consideration on the file of the JMFC, Gokak. At this juncture, accused No.1 in the said proceedings has come up in this petition seeking quashing of the aforesaid complaint on the premise that the FSL report with reference to the handwriting on the disputed document not being forming part of the charge sheet, the proceeding initiated against them in C.C.No.1961/2010 is erroneous and the same is required to be quashed. 4

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1, this Court is of the considered opinion that, it is premature to quash the proceedings based on the aforesaid ground inasmuch as the accusation made against the petitioner and other accused are quite serious being punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and other provisions indicating forgery with an intention to cheat the complainant. The correctness or otherwise of the said accusations is required to be decided in the prosecution launched by the police, which is pending in C.C.No.1961/2010. The petitioner herein and other accused are at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate for seeking their discharge, if they can demonstrate that no case is made out against them or in the alternative they have to participate in the proceedings and establish their innocence. Therefore, there cannot be a shorter procedure or method of seeking quashing of the same on technical ground that the FSL report is not accompanying the charge 5 sheet, which cannot be a basis for quashing of the proceedings.

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE MBS/-