Karnataka High Court
Sri.Mallayya Shivamurthayya Hiremath vs State Of Karnataka on 6 June, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101315 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MALLAYYA SHIVAMURTHAYYA HIREMATH
S/O. SRI SHIVAMURTHAIAH HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION
RESIDENT OF SIGIKERI VILLAGE
BAGALKOT TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.
2. SMT. NEELAWWA SANGAYYA HIREMATH
W/O. SRI SANGAYYA HIREMATH
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
AGRICULTURIST BY PROFESSION
RESIDENT OF SIGIKERI VILLAGE
BAGALKOT TALUK, BAGALKOT DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI C.V. NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI MRUTYUNJAYA S. HALLIKERI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
NAVANAGARA POLICE STATION
BAGALKOT TOWN CIRCLE, BAGALKOT
DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD.
2. KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION
CORPORATION LTD., (KPTCL)
BY ITS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
T.L AND S.S.M DIVISION
REGIONAL OFFICE COMPLEX
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT
BAGALKOT TALUK AND DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI GURUDEV GACHICHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., 1973 SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
No.39/2019 REGISTERED AT NAVANAGARA POLICE STATION,
BAGALKOT TOWN CIRCLE, BAGALKOT DIST., FOR OFFEENCES
WHICH ARE MADE PENAL U/S 420, 465, 468 & 471 OF IPC
REGISTERED ON THE STRENGTH OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE
SECOND RESPONDENT - KPTCL., AS AGAINST THE ACUSED
No.1 & 2 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) & CJM
COURT, BAGALKOT.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
04.04.2022 FOR ORDER AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
FIR is lodged by the 2nd respondent alleging that the land belonging to the petitioners herein was acquired by issuing a notification under Section 4(1) of the land acquisition act by the Assistant Commissioner, Bagalkot and an award was passed fixing the market value of the land in question at Rs.2,83,187/-. The petitioners with an intention to seek enhanced compensation, obtained a certificate to the effect that the land in question falls within the city limits of Bagalkot and produced the same before the Reference Court. Based on the said document, the petitioners got the compensation enhanced and being satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the petitioners filed an appeal before this Court, Dharwad Bench and in terms of the award passed by the Reference Court and this Court, the petitioners received a sum of Rs.9,37,56,858/- towards compensation.
2. After due deliberations as to how the Courts have awarded exorbitant compensation though the land is situated within village limits and after verifying the documents which 4 were the basis for determining the compensation, it was found that the certificate was issued by the then Commissioner of Bagalkot City Municipal Council, certifying that the land falls within the city limits. The petitioners - accused in connivance with the then Commissioner have created the document so as to defraud the Corporation. The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468 and 471 of IPC against the petitioners and the Commissioner, City Municipal Council, Bagalkot. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
3. Sri C V Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the learned petitioner's counsel would make the following submissions:
a) The document which is alleged to have been created by these petitioners in connivance with the other accused was produced and marked as Ex.P4 before the Reference Court and the challenge to the award made by the Corporation was negatived by this Court in MFA No.101345/2016 and the appeal filed by the petitioners -
accused in MFA No.100574/2014 was allowed and the compensation awarded by the Reference Court was 5 enhanced and the same has attained finality since the Special Leave Petition filed by the Corporation came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hence, he submits that the Corporation having not disputed the genuineness of the document marked as Ex.P4, the FIR lodged by the Corporation is without any substance and the competent Court having held that the land was situated within the city limits by relying upon the document at Ex.P4 among other oral and documentary evidence, it would virtually amount to investigating officer sitting in judgment against the judgments of the Civil Court, Hon'ble High Court and Supreme Court if the investigation is allowed to be continued. He further submits that the remedy available to the Corporation is to approach the Reference Court or this Court to record a finding as to whether the document relied upon by the petitioners - accused at Ex.P4 is a created document or not and only if a finding is recorded that the document is a created one, the Corporation could proceed against the petitioners - accused for such offence as it said to have been committed by them. In support, he relies on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohini Hemanth Jadia -vs- Hemanth Ghanshyam Lal Jadia reported in (2002) 9 SCC 767.
b) He further submits that the issue whether the land falls within the city limits was agitated from 2009 till 6 the year 2019 before various Courts and the same attained finality by virtue of the judgment dated 30.1.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is only after more than 2½ years later, the Corporation lodged the impugned FIR. Hence, it is implied that FIR is maliciously lodged with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on the petitioners. In support, a reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Babu Venkatesh and others -vs- State of Karnataka and another in Criminal Appeal No.252/2022.
c) Hence, he submits that the registration of the FIR against the petitioners - accused is an abuse of process of law and the same deserves to be quashed.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Corporation submits that the document which was procured as Ex.P4 was obtained by the petitioners in active collusion with the officials of the CMC, Bagalkot, which is a forged and fabricated document with an intention to get higher compensation so as to defraud the Corporation which is the beneficiary of the acquisition. He further submits that immediately after it came to the knowledge of the Corporation that the certificate at Ex.P4 is a forged and fabricated document, steps were taken to lodge the FIR and there is no delay or lapses 7 on the part of the Corporation in lodging the FIR as contended by the petitioners. He submits that the allegation made in the FIR prima facie discloses the commission of offences alleged against the petitioners and at this stage, the registration of FIR cannot be interfered by this Court and the allegations require to be investigated. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. The learned High Court Government Pleader would reiterate the submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. Ex.P4 among other documents were placed before the Reference Court to substantiate the claim that the land in question falls within the city limits. The Corporation filed a statement of objections on 10.3.2014 before the Reference Court inter-alia contending that the compensation amount claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant and also the documents produced in support of reference petition are false and created for the purpose of case.
8
8. Ex.P4 dated 5.10.2012 was issued by the Commissioner, CMC Bagalkot stating that the land falls within the city limits. Ex.P35 is the certified copy of Karnataka Gazette Notification dated 16.6.1975 declaring that a portion of Shigikeri village falls within the limits of Municipality of Bagalkot and Ex.D36 is the Karnataka Government Gazette notification dated 28.6.1976 declaring that the entire Shigikeri village falls within the local planning area of Bagalkot. In the cross-examination of the petitioners - accused before the Reference Court by the Corporation, a suggestion was made that Exs.P1 to P12 were created and produced so as to claim higher compensation to which the petitioners - accused specifically denied. It was also denied that the land is not situated within the city limits.
9. In the examination-in-chief of witnesses examined by the Corporation as RW4, he has not denied the genuineness of Ex.P4 and also admitted the genuineness of Exs.P35 and 36 and also not disputed that the land is situated within the city limits.
9
10. The Reference Court after appreciating the evidence on record, recorded a categorical finding that the land belonging to the petitioners situated in Shigikeri village falls within the city limits of Bagalkot. The said finding has been confirmed by this Court and also the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
11. The documents which were produced by the petitioners - accused as Exs.P4, 35 and 36 before the Reference Court and also the judgments rendered by the Reference Court as well as this Court can be looked into so as to prevent abuse of process of law. The Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar & ors. -vs- Madan Lal Kopoor reported in 2013(1) Crimes 169 (SC) held that the High Court under Section 482 of Cr.PC was free to consider even material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether the charge as framed could be maintained.
12. In the present case, the documents which are annexed to the petition clearly indicate that the genuineness of the document at Ex.P4 was not disputed by the Corporation before the Reference Court as well as before this Court and the 10 Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Corporation has also admitted that a portion of Shigikeri village falls within the Municipal limits of Bagalkot and the entire Shigikeri village falls within the local planning area of Bagalkot. The Corporation having suffered a finding that the land in question falls within the city limits of Bagalkot cannot lodge the FIR alleging that the petitioners in collusion with the officials of City Municipal Council have fabricated the document so as to get higher compensation, which otherwise will result in officer in-charge of the police station virtually sitting in judgment against the judgments passed by the competent Courts of law. It is open for respondent No.2 to move the Reference Court to substantiate the allegation that the petitioners in collusion with the officials of CMC, Bagalkot fabricated the document with an intention to get higher compensation.
13. The document at Ex.P4 is alleged to have been issued on 5.10.2012 and the same was produced and marked at the time of examination-in-chief of the petitioners - accused before the Reference Court on 17.10.2012. The FIR was lodged 11 after nearly seven years from the date of production of Ex.P4 before the Reference Court and after more than three years from the date on which the award was passed by the Reference Court. The Apex Court in the case of Babu Venkatesh and others (supra) held that though the civil disputes have been filed with regard to the same transactions and though they are contested by the complainant by filing written statement, he has chosen to file the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC after a period of one and half year from the date of filing of the written statement with an ulterior motive of harassing the plaintiff therein and the case fits in the category of No.7 as enumerated in the case of State of Haryana -vs- Bajan Lal and others (supra). Category No.7 as enumerated in the case of State of Haryana and others (supra) is as follows:
"7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."12
14. The Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR after an abnormal delay without offering a plausible explanation which clearly implies that the FIR lodged against the Petitioners is with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance on the Petitioners and with a view to harass them.
15. In view of the preceding analysis, it would be an abuse of process of law if the investigation is allowed to continue against the Petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal Petition is allowed;
ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.39/2019 registered at Navanagara Police Station, Bagalkot Town Circle, Bagalkot District, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KMS