Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunatha vs B K Somashekar on 4 July, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF JULY, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4225 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. Manjunatha,
@ B.E.Manjunatha Guptha,
S/o. Late Eshwaraiah
@ B.L.Eshwar Guptha,
Aged about 76 years.
2. Sri. B.M.Malathesha,
S/o. Sri. Manjunatha,
@ B.E.Manjunatha Guptha,
Aged about 76 years,
Both are residing at
Samruddhi,
Second Floor,
Near S.B.M., Paramanna Layout,
Nelamangala,
Bengaluru Rural-562123.
...Petitioners
(By Smt. Mamatha M.R., Adv.)
AND:
B.K.Somashekar,
S/o. Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 70 years,
Residing at H.I.G-47,
K.H.B. Colony,
Kallahalli,
Vinobanagara,
Shivamogga City-577201. ...Respondent
2
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C, praying to set aside the impugned order dated
03.02.2017 passed in PCR No.430/2014 on the file of the III
Additional Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., Shivamogga.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Complainant in PCR.No.430/2014 being aggrieved by order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, accepting the 'B' report has been called in question.
2. Petitioners claims to be grantee of agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.159 measuring 1 Acre 22 guntas, Sy.No.160 measuring 2 Acre 06 guntas, Sy.No.161 measuring 1 Acre 23 guntas, Sy.No.155(Sy.No.155/2) measuring 1 Acre 06 guntas, Sy.No.157/2 measuring 1 Acre 06 guntas and Sy.No.158/2 measuring 1 Acre 18 guntas of Tattikere Village, Shivamogga Taluk from Land Tribunal on 20.07.2981 and undisputedly accused 3 and one Smt. Adilakshmamma were the landlords. It is contended that Revenue records have been mutated to their names and they are in lawful possession and cultivation of the same. It is further contended that one Sri. B.C. Nagarjuna and Sri. B.C.Vijaya Shankar claiming to be the purchasers of the said lands had attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession and as such a private complaint was filed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. against them alleging that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 401, 463, 464, 468, 471 and 474 of IPC before the III Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga - Annexure 'B'. After conducting investigation, 'B' report came to be filed under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. along with the statement of the persons recorded during course of investigation - Annexure C1 to C4. The said report came to be accepted by the jurisdictional court, though protest petition was filed by the petitioners, by order 4 dated 03.02.2017 which is sought for being set aside in the present petition.
3. It is urged in the petition that trial Court has failed to look into the 'B' report in proper perspective and rejection of the protest memo is erroneous. It is urged, there being no evidence available on record to disbelieve the contents of protest memo, trial Court could not have rejected the protest memo. At the cost of repetition and cost of burdening this order, the finding recorded by the trial Court which requires to be noticed is that the sum and substance of the protest memo filed by the petitioners was to the effect that documents furnished by the petitioners before the I.O. was not considered by him, whereunder it is contended by complainants that General Power of Attorney dated 25.03.1998 relied upon by accused persons are forged and created which issue is not examined by the I.O. and it was not been sent for 5 Forensic Lab and I.O. has colluded with the accused persons. Further, while accepting the 'B' report and rejecting the protest memo, the jurisdictional Court has noticed that along with the 'B' report, the statements of Gopala Naik, who is the scribe and advocate and also statement of Sri. V. Sundar Shetty and Sri. Gangadhara, who have witnessed the execution of the GPA had been recorded and as such report indicating that statements of the witnesses have been recorded which was assailed by the petitioners was held to be baseless. Though in the protest memo it was further contended that I.O. had failed to collect the important information from the accused, it has been rightly noticed by trial Court as to what was that important or vital information which according to complainant had been suppressed by accused persons had not been disclosed either in the protest memo or elsewhere by the complainant. Hence, jurisdictional Court has rightly 6 accepted the 'B' report and rejected the protest memo. No affirmity can be found in the said order.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
(i) Criminal petition is hereby dismissed.
(ii) Order dated 03.02.2017 passed by the III Addl.
Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga in PCR 430/2014 dismissing the complaint is hereby affirmed.
SD/-
JUDGE sd