Karnataka High Court
Manjunath Madiviallappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 January, 2022
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102507/2019
BETWEEN:
1. Manjunath Madivalappa Banappagoudar
@ Goudra, Age 30 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Mogaveera, Kalmathagalli,
Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum - 590001
2. Mahadevi Banappagoudara @ Goudara,
Age 55 years, Occ: Household,
R/o. Mogaveera, Kalmathagalli,
Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum - 590001.
3. Mahantesh Rachayya Karajagimath,
Age 57 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Mogaveera, Kalmathagalli,
Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum - 590001.
4. B.S.Navalagatti,
Age 47 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Mogaveera, Kalmathagalli,
Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum - 590001.
5. Vittal S. Belawadi,
Age 52 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum - 590001
6. Nirmal Mattikoppa,
Age 45 years, Occ: Business,
Crl.P.No.102507/2019
:2:
R/o. Mogaveera, Kalmathagalli,
Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum - 590001.
... Petitioners
(By Sri. S.H.Mittalkod, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Through PSI, Bailhongal P.S.,
Represented by SPP,
High Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 580001.
2. Rudrappa S/o. Ningappa Chikkannavar,
Age about 46 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o. Yattinakeri (Kittur),
Tq. Bailhongal, Dist. Belgaum-590001
...Respondents
(Sri. Praveen Uppar, HCGP for R1;
Sri. Sharad M. Patil, Advocate for R2)
---
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in
C.C.No.913/2016 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge &
JMFC Court, Bailhongal, for the offence punishable under
Sections 419, 420, 465, 471, 463 read with Section 149 of
IPC, as against the petitioners.
This petition coming on for Admission through physical
hearing/video conferencing hearing this day, the court made
the following:
Crl.P.No.102507/2019
:3:
ORDER
The present petitioners who are accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 & 7 have filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.913/2016 pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Bailhongal, for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 471, 417 and 463 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for brevity, 'IPC').
2. The respondents are being represented by their counsels.
3. Though this matter is listed for Admission, however, with the consent from both sides, the matter is taken up for its final disposal.
4. Heard both sides. Perused the memorandum of petition and the materials placed before this Court. Crl.P.No.102507/2019 :4:
5. From a perusal of the material placed before this Court and submissions made from both sides, the undisputed fact remains that the present respondent No.2 filed a complaint with the first respondent police on 15.03.2014 in their station Crime No.77/2014, alleging that, the present respondent creating forged documents including the sale deed, have shown that the present complainant had sold certain immoveable landed property to them under a registered sale deed. The complainant alleges that by impersonating him they projected a false person as the vendor and got the sale deed executed and based on which they have also got certain revenue entries made in their favour. Off late the same came to the notice of the complainant, as such, he has filed the complaint. The said complaint was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 471, 417 and 463 read with Section 149 of IPC. After completing the investigation, the first Crl.P.No.102507/2019 :5: respondent police initially had filed B-report on 19.11.2015. The complainant filed his objection to the said B-report. The learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement and accepted the Protest Application. Consequently, he rejected the B-report and took cognizance and issued summons to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the said order of taking cognizance against them before this Court in Criminal Petition No.100126/2017. The said petition came to be allowed by quashing the order of the Magistrate taking cognizance in the matter, however, the liberty was reserved to the complainant to file fresh Protest petition. As per the order of this Court dated 22.08.2017 passed in Criminal Petition No.100126/2017, the complainant filed Protest Petition, afresh. The trial Court recorded the statement of the complainant on 01.10.2018. The learned Magistrate of the trial Court by his order dated 16.09.2018 rejected the B-report and issued process to Crl.P.No.102507/2019 :6: the petitioners/accused. It is challenging the criminal case in which the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance and issued notice to them, the petitioners are before this Court through this petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his arguments submitted that, almost at the same time of filing the criminal complaint, the present respondent No.2 had also filed a civil suit in O.S.No.41/2014 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, at Bailhongal. A copy of the plaint has also been produced by the petitioners as document No.10. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, since the civil court is seized of the matter where the allegations are the same, the complainant need not proceed further in a criminal case. He further submits that, if the alleged fraud and forgery is established in the civil Court, then the complainant if he desires so may proceed in filing a criminal complaint, otherwise taking both the civil and criminal actions Crl.P.No.102507/2019 :7: simultaneously, would put both side to inconvenience and embracement.
7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that, the civil suit is filed only against the accused No.1, as such, the remaining accused are not parties in the civil suit. He further submits that, though prima-facie the allegations against the accused in both the civil and criminal cases are one and the same, but both are independent cases, as such, they can go simultaneously. Thus, the petitioner cannot seek the quashing of the criminal proceedings.
8. The allegations made against the present petitioners by the respondent No.2 are creation of forged documents, forgery, impersonation and allegation of executing a false sale deed with respect to an immoveable property which is said to be belonging to the complainant. As such, the offences for which the Crl.P.No.102507/2019 :8: complaint was registered with the first respondent in their station Crime No.77/2014 was for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 471, 463, 417 read with Section 149 of IPC. No doubt, the first respondent police after investigation have filed their B- final report, however, the complainant has filed his Protest Petition as could be seen at document No.7. In the Protest Petition also, the complainant appears to have given the details of the alleged forgery and the fraud said to have been committed by the accused. It is considering the Protest Petition and the sworn statement, the trial Court has proceeded to pass the order rejecting the B-final report and taking cognizance of the alleged offence against the present petitioner. In such a case, when the complainant has alleged certain criminal act, against the accused in the criminal case, attributing certain common object among them and also the mens rea for committing the alleged criminal act, it Crl.P.No.102507/2019 :9: cannot be said that merely because a civil suit for the same act is pending, the criminal case need not be proceeded further. The burden of proof, the extent of proof and the consequences of proving varies between a criminal case and a civil case. Admittedly, the criminal complaint is alleging certain offence which are penal in nature, whereas, the civil case is for certain civil remedy. As such, merely because a civil case is pending it cannot be said that, the criminal case is not justifiable in the circumstance of the case to proceed.
In addition to the above, undisputedly the civil case in O.S.No.41/2014 is filed only against one defendant who is the accused No.1 in the criminal case. The remaining accused Nos.2 to 7 are not the parties in the said civil suit. As such also, I do not find any ground in allowing the present petition.
Crl.P.No.102507/2019: 10 :
9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition stands dismissed as devoid of merit.
In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE *Svh/-