Karnataka High Court
Mr.Jalalsabh vs The State By on 22 March, 2021
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7414/2020
BETWEEN:
1. MR.JALALSABH,
S/O SAIDANNA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BENGALURU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-560034.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
HABSHIHAL VILLAGE,
YADGIR TALUK & DISTICT-58355.
2. MR. CHIKKANARASAPPA,
S/O LATE PILAKENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SONNAPPANAHALLI,
SHIVAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.
3. MR. ARAVINDAN V.S.,
S/O V.R. SINGARACHARI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BENGALURU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-560034.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.49/1,
2ND CROSS, NANJAPPA GARDEN,
MANJUNATHA BADAVANE,
BENGALURU NORTH,
BENGALORE-560032.
4. MR. ABDUL MAJEED,
S/O CHAN PATEL (POLICE PATEL),
2
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BENGLURU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-560034.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.4-4/131,
NEAR GOVT. HOSTEL, AMBEDKAR COWK,9
YADGIR CITY-585201.
5. MR. M. CHANDRASHEKAR,
S/O P.S. MANI,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT BENGALURU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA-560034.
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.52, F-2,
SRI BALAJI SADANA APARTMENT,
2ND MAIN, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT,
ANANDA NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH,
R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI LOKESH C., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI KUMAR RAM C.M., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY
DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. J. THYAGARAJU,
S/O JAYARAMA NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
NO.1323, KAVERY BADAVANE,
KURUBARAHALLI 2ND STAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN
CR.NO.233/2020 REGISTERED BY THE DODDABALLAPURA RURAL
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC,
DODDABALLAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 120B, 468, 465 AND 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the FIR registered against the petitioners herein in Crime No.232/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 468, 465 and 420 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant, who is respondent No.2 herein had lodged the complaint before the police on 25.08.2020 making the allegation against the petitioners that the property to the extent of 7 acres 2 guntas was in his name and he was in possession of the said property. On verification of the documents at Taluk Office, he came to know that the property was transferred to the name of Jalalsabh S/o Saidanna, Attabasahal, Shahpur Taluk, Gulbarga District and the documents are changed to his name. On enquiry, he came to know that they have created the sale deed 4 dated 23.09.1996 and presented the same before the Sub- Registrar Office and the said document was subjected to under valuation and that on 26.11.1998 they have also forged the signature of the complainant and the documents are registered in the year 2003 and got changed the entire revenue records of the complainant in their name. Hence, requested the police to take action against the petitioners herein.
3. The petitioners who are before this Court in the petition would contend that the sale deed is of the year 1996 and the complaint was filed in 2020 after delay of 25 long years and the delay is unexplained in the complaint. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court that respondent No.2 was having the knowledge of the same in the year 2004 itself and an appeal is filed before the Sub- Divisional Assistant Commissioner. When he was having knowledge about the same, the complaint is filed belatedly and hence there cannot be any prosecution against the petitioners herein.
4. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that notice has been issued by respondent No.2 in terms 5 of Annexure-F stating that with regard to the execution of the sale deed and claiming the amount of Rs.24,70,000/-. When such being the facts and circumstances of the case, there cannot be any prosecution against the petitioners herein.
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - State would contend that in view of the interim order granted by this Court, the Investigating Officer was not able to investigate the matter. A serious allegation has been made against the petitioners that they indulged in creation of the documents by impersonation and committed the offence of forgery and got transferred the property to the extent of 7 acres 2 acres belonging to the complainant. This Court cannot exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the serious allegations of forgery, impersonation and fabrication of documents are made. It is the Investigating Officer who has to probe into the matter and unearth the crime.
6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would vehemently contend that these petitioners have indulged in knocking off the property of the complainant and the 6 complainant has not executed sale deeds. The petitioners herein have indulged in committing the offence of forgery and fabrication of the documents and the same has to be probed. The learned counsel would contend that the legal notice which has been brought to the notice of this Court vide Annexure-F has not been issued by respondent No.2 and disputes the very issuance of the legal notice.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, this Court has to examine whether it is a fit case to exercise the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. While exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court has to look into the contents of the complaint whether the complaint prima facie discloses committing of cognizable offence of not. On perusal of the complaint, in paragraph No.2, specific allegations are made that the complainant is the owner of the land to the extent of 7 acres 2 guntas and he was in possession of the same. Subsequently, these petitioners have indulged in creation of the documents and by impersonation got transferred the property by forging the signature of the complainant and 7 presenting the documents before the Sub-Registrar. When specific allegations are made in the complaint and the complaint discloses the cognizable offence, this Court should not venture to collect the material or appreciate the material as an Appellate Court. Once prima facie allegations are found in the complaint for having committed the cognizable offence, the Court has to allow the Investigating Officer to probe and unearth the crime. The Apex Court in the judgment in the case of DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104 held that that High Court should not act like an Investigating Officer and instead allow the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter.
8. In the case on hand, specific allegations are made against the petitioners that they have indulged in the transfer of the property to the extent of 7 acres 2 guntas which was standing in the name of the complainant and they indulged in forging the signature and got transferred the property in their name. The very contention of the petitioners is that the complainant was aware of the said fact 20 years ago and he has approached this Court belatedly. When cognizable offence has been invoked, that too an allegation of impersonation, forgery 8 and creation of documents and an attempt is made to knock off the property belonging to the complainant, the very contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted and the Investigating Officer has to probe the matter.
9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners would submit the original documents to the Investigating Officer and the matter has to be investigated and till then, the interim order has to be continued.
10. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 would contend that while granting the interim order, specific direction was given to the petitioners to produce all the documents before the Investigating Officer. Instead of complying with the order passed by the learned judge while exercising the discretion in granting bail, approached this Court and obtained the order of stay.
11. Having perused the conduct of the petitioners and also the order passed by the learned judge while exercising the 9 power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., specific direction was given to the petitioners to furnish the documents which are in dispute and instead of that the petitioners have approached this Court and suppressing the same, obtained the interim order. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
12. Having taken note of the gravity of the offence and also the nature of allegations made in the complaint and when the complaint prima facie discloses committing of cognizable offence, it is not a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and this Court by invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot interfere with the investigation as held by the Apex Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel (supra). It is a fit case to allow the Investigating Officer to probe into the matter and file the report. However, this Court can given liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court, if need arises, after filing of the final report by the Investigating Officer.
13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
10
ORDER
(i) The petition is rejected.
(ii) However, liberty is given to the petitioners to approach this Court after filing of the final report, if need arises.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD