Karnataka High Court
Sri J Praveen Kumar Singh vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 July, 2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. N. KESHAVANARAYANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4015/2013
BETWEEN:
Sri.J.Praveen Kumar Singh,
Aged about 41 years,
S/o. Jaipal Singh,
Residing at No.11/4,
1st A Main, 1st Cross,
Vivekananda Nagar,
Bangalore-560 085,
Previously Residing at
No.20, 2nd Cross, 2nd Main,
Vivekanandanagar,
Bangalore-560 085. ... Petitioner
(By Sri.Satyanarayan.S.Chalke, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
Station House Officer,
Cubbon Park Police Station,
Cubbon Park Sub-Division,
Bangalore City-560 001.
2. Sri.Tharesh Kumar Savandhi,
S/o. Shivarudrappa S.R.,
Aged about 39 years,
Residing at No.539-A, Phase II,
Ideal Homes Township,
2
Rajarajeshwarinagar,
Bangalore-560 097. ... Respondents
(By Sri.B.Raja Subramanya Bhat, Government Pleader for R-1)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Cr.P.C praying to quash the order dated 24.06.2013 pending
on the file of the VIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bangalore in PCR No.14945/2013 referring the matter for
investigation to the 1st respondent police and the proceedings
subsequent to the said order on such terms and conditions as
this Hon'ble Court deems fit to impose under the
circumstances of the case.
This Criminal Petition coming for admission on this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner arraigned as Accused No.6 in PCR No.14945/2013 on the file of the VIII-Additional C.M.M., Bangalore, lodged by the 2nd respondent herein, which has been referred to the police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation pursuant to which the case in Crime No.142/2013 of Cubbon Park Police Station has been registered, has sought for quashing the complaint and the FIR inter alia contending that even if the entire allegations made in the complaint are accepted as true and correct, no case is made-out against this petitioner for any of the offences alleged and therefore, the order of reference made 3 by the learned Magistrate is bad in law and is without application of mind.
2) Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the contents of the complaint, a copy of which is produced along with this petition, I find no force in the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. The offences alleged in the complaint are punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 422, 463, 464, 467, 468, 471, 506 r/w. 34 & 120(B) of IPC.
3) According to the complaint allegations, this petitioner arraigned as Accused No.6, was one of the attestors to the sale deed dated 19.04.2006. According to the complaint allegations, the person shown as seller on the said sale deed has been impersonated and that the said document being a second sale deed in respect of the very same property, was fabricated and created for the purpose of raising loan from the bank, though on the basis of the earlier sale deed, in respect of the very same 4 property, loan had been raised from one of the financial institutions.
4) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sole allegation made against this petitioner that he was one of the attestors to the sale deed, by itself does not constitute an offence in the absence of any other averments in the complaint about the active role played by this petitioner or connivance on his part. At this stage, the allegation made in the complaint regarding the petitioner having attested the sale deed is not in serious dispute, however, the question as to whether he was a party to the conspiracy alleged, is required to be found-out after a thorough investigation. The conspiracy, as generally said, is always being hatched in secrecy and the same could be unearthed only after a thorough investigation. The learned Magistrate on receipt of the complaint and after applying his mind to the contents of the complaint, has referred the complaint for investigation to the police in exercise of power under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, at this stage, I am of the considered opinion that 5 the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing investigation into the allegations made in the complaint, does not warrant interference by this court. Therefore, I find no merit in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*