Karnataka High Court
Sri Muniswamappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 2021
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5458/2017
BETWEEN
1. SRI. MUNISWAMAPPA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS,
2. SRI. VENKATESH,
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
THE PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
K.CHANNASANDRA,
K R PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 043.
... PETITIONERS
[BY SRI.D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR ADV. FOR
SRI.ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, ADV.
(VIDEO CONFERENCING)]
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE,
RAMAMURTHY NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 016.
2
2. SRI. K. LAKAPPA,
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
3. SRI. K. KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
4. SRI. K. LOKESH,
S/O KEMPAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ALL ARE
RESIDING AT K.CHANNASANDRA,
K R PURAM HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 043.
... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI.A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.PRAKASH T. HEBBAR, ADV. FOR R2 TO 4
(VIDEO CONFERENCING))
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a)QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN
PCR NO.54/2010 TO BE FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
TO 4 AS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE - A SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED PENDING ON THE FILE
OF X ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 4 are before this Court calling in question an order dated 04.04.2017 passed in Crl.R.P.No.25110/2015 and have also inter-alia sought quashing of the complaint in P.C.R.No.54/2010 and all further proceedings taken thereto.
2. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:
The father of the first petitioner one late Siddappa is said to be the absolute owner in respect to the land bearing Sy.No.54, measuring 3 acres and 16 guntas situated at Maragondanahalli village, Bidharahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. It is the claim of the petitioners that the same was acquired by the registered sale deed on 14.08.1961. The first petitioner's father had acquired the land from his vendor one Patel R.H. Narayanaswamy and the same was a Jodi 4 Inam Land and the first petitioner's father acquired the aforesaid land from Patel R.H. Narayanaswamy, who had applied for a re-grant of the land after the Inam Abolition Act coming into force.
3. It is the further claim of the petitioners that the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District in terms of its order dated 24.06.1962 re-granted the aforesaid land in favour of the first petitioner's father. The father of the first petitioner appears to have died intestate leaving behind the first petitioner and other legal heirs as representatives who claim to had succeeded to the estate of deceased Siddappa. A dispute with regard to title between the petitioners and the complainants was generated by the petitioners by filing a suit in O.S.No.879/2002 seeking relief of declaration, possession and mandatory injunction against the complainants who also claimed title over the said land. The said suit came to be decreed holding that the 5 defendants therein, the complainants, had manipulated the revenue records in their name and took forcible possession of the suit schedule property.
4. The said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was challenged by the complainants before the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.63/2009, which came to be dismissed. Against the said order, the complainants filed R.S.A. No.368/2010, which came to be allowed by an order of this Court dated 21.08.2012 remitting the matter back to the hands of the First Appellate Court. It is thereafter the First Appellate Court again took up the issue and affirmed the findings of the trial Court by its order dated 10.04.2013. It is submitted at the Bar that the said order passed on 10.04.2013 in R.A.No.63/2009 is pending consideration in a regular second appeal before this Court.
5. During the pendency of these proceedings, the complainants register a private complaint in P.C.R. 6 No.54/2010 alleging that the documents on the strength of which the complainants claimed title and entered possession were forged documents in collusion with the Revenue Authorities and sought investigation for offences punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. First Information Report having been registered on the basis of the said complaint, after the investigation, the Police have also filed a final report/charge sheet against the accused. The petitioners along with others for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 418, 465, 468, 471, 474, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
6. It is at that juncture the petitioners had knocked the doors of this Court by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This Court by an order dated 02.07.2015 disposed the criminal petition with a direction to the petitioners to 7 avail of the remedy of filing a revision under Section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure. It is thereafter the petitioners availed of the said remedy in Crl.R.P.No.25110/2015. The order passed in the said revision petition is what is called in question in the subject criminal petition.
7. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri.D.N.Nanjunda Reddy appearing for the petitioners and the learned Senior Counsel Sri. A.S.Ponnanna appearing for the respondents.
8. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the matter is entirely civil in nature and is given a colour of crime notwithstanding the fact that there is a finding by the trial Court that the defendants/complainants have manipulated the records and not the petitioners. The said finding has been affirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.63/2009 and certain documents would clearly drive home the 8 fact that the petitioners cannot be subjected to a trial in the light of the said facts as obtaining in the orders passed in the civil proceedings. Therefore, the main contention of the learned Senior counsel is, the matter being civil in nature, cannot be adjudicated or a trial cannot continue in a matter where it is purely civil in nature and he placed reliance upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of Paramjeet Batra vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others1 and Sardar Ali Khan vs. State of Uttarpradesh and another2.
9. On the other hand, the learned Senior counsel representing the respondents would vehemently refute the said submissions and contend that the complaint clearly narrates the instances of forgery that the petitioners have indulged in documentation of the property that belongs to the complainants. Insofar as it concerns the civil suit, the learned senior counsel would 1 (2013) 11 SCC 673 2 (2020) 12 SCC 51 9 submit that the matter is pending adjudication before this Court in a regular second appeal and therefore, the support drawn from the order of the trial Court is unavailable to the petitioners as on date.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record.
11. The afore-narrated facts not being in dispute need not be reiterated, since the entire issue brought before this Court springs from the complaint. The complaint insofar as it is germane for consideration of the lis is extracted for the purpose of quick reference:
"COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 200 OF THE CODE OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE The Complainants above named begs to submits as follows:
1. That address of the complainants for the purpose of issue of court notice and process etc., from the hands of this Hon'ble court is as stated 10 in the cause title above and may be served by their council K. Shiva Shankar, No.18, 2nd Floor, 11th Cross, Cubbonpet, Bangalore - 2.
2. That the address of the accused for the similar purpose is as shown in the cause title above.
3. It is submitted that, the complainants are the owners in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing sy No.54 measuring to an extent of 3 acres 16 guntas situated at, Maragondanahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.
4. The said property had been purchased by the complaints father late Kempaiah through a registered sale deed dated 23-12-1969 from his vendor one Vasudeva Bhoopal, and he had purchased the property through the registered sale deed dated 30.01.1964 from one Patel Nanajappa Reddy. He was the patel and the said property was Re-granted to him by the then Special Deputy Commissioner Inam abolition Kolar in case No.2335/1961-62. The said order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner 11 Inam Abolition Kolar order has been turned in the original file. With reference to the above copies of the sale deeds are produced herewith and marked as Document No.1 and 2.
5. It is submitted that, in order to show that, the land was granted in favour of Patel Nanjappa Reddy, in the said case there is a reference in the 8th register and other revenue documents. In the said 8th register the said P.Nanjappa Reddy name has been erased in the holder column and as well as in the serial number regarding the extent. The said defect had been notified by the revenue officials. Again in the 8th register the father of the Accused No.1 namely Siddappa name has been inserted in the 8th register and written the extents 3 acres 5 guntas in respect of Sy .No.54.
6. It is submitted that, the P.Nanjappa Reddy was the originally owner and kathedar of the said property and all the documents shows he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. In the year 1964-65 Form No.3 maintained by the revenue officials regarding the Hinduvalidars of respective survey numbers 12 of Maragondanahalli Village. In the said Form No.3 register of the year 1964-65, 67-68 and 70- 71 the name of the said Siddappa S/o Muniyappa name has been inserted in the said Register in the place of Patel Nnajappa Reddy and the extent and ink they have used has been notified by the revenue officials. The accused are all colluded and in order to knock of the property exclusively belongs to the complaints the name of the said Siddappa had been inserted in the revenue documents. The copy of the Form No.3 register is produced herewith and marked as Document No.3.
7. After the property had been purchased by the father of the complainant said Kempaiah on 23.12.1969 he has approached the revenue officials for change of katha in respect of the said property. This MR. No. had been mentioned in the year 1975-76 RTC. Again in the mutation extract the name of said Siddappa i.e., father of the Accused No.1 had been written in the mutation. With regard to the insertion of the said name of the Siddappa and the erase made in the register extract and the change of ink are all 13 notified and marked by the revenue officials.
The copy of the Mutation extract is produced herewith and marked as Document No.4.
8. It is submitted that, at any point of time either the Siddappa nor the accused they have never in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy No.54 of Maragondanahalli Village. Each and every documents maintained by the revenue officials the accused have colluded with the revenue officials and created the documents and inserted the name of Siddappa and they are all over written his name. This documents shows the accused have committed an offence punishable under section 417, 420, 465, 468, 471 and 474 and R/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
9. It is submitted that, the accused are knowing fully well that, on forged and created documents and claiming that, the father of the accused No.1 Siddappa was purchased the property through a Registered sale deed dated 14.08.1986 from one Patel R.H.Narayanaswamy and thereafter the said Siddappa had filed an application for the re-grant of the said property 14 before the special Deputy Commissioner Inam abolition, Bangalore Circle, Bangalore. The said order has been forged, created and inserted in the file. The complainants have enquired regarding the order of the special Deputy Commissioner Inam abolition, Bangalore Circle, Bangalore, there is no such order passed by the said competent authority. The Maragondanahalli Village is a Jodi village and the entire land comes under the jurisdiction of special Deputy Commissioner Kolar Circle.
10. It is submitted that, the accused knowing fully well that, originally the lands belongs to the Patel Nanjappa Reddy and he has sold the property in favour of complainant father vendor and subsequently complainant father had purchased the same till the filing of the dispute before the Tasildar Bangalore South Taluk, now Bangalore East Taluk in RRT CR(Dis) 4/1998-99 the said dispute has been filed by the mother of the Accused No.2 had given application for change of katha in respect of the said property, on the basis of the created and forged documents the dispute has been registered and 15 the complainants have produced the documents, the Thasildar without verified the documents and these accused have managed to get the order from the Thasildar. Against the said order the complainants have preferred the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner Bangalore North Taluk in RA No.127/2000-01. When the dispute was pending the mother of the accused No.2 namely Muniyamma was expired and thereafter her daughter her daughter the accused No.2 continued the proceedings. The other accused are behind her back and in one or the other way the are doing illegal acts. The assistant Commissioner after the records has been received, in the said appeal and he has verified and seen the records and comes to the conclusion that the accused forged the documents. With regard to the said forged and cheating the Assistant Commissioner has given direction to the Thasildar to take action against the employee and sent the report to the higher officers regarding the illegal entries stood in the revenue records. After the order has been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and directions issued to the Thasildar on several 16 occasions the complainants have appeared the Thasildar regarding the action taken on the employees. Recently on fifteen days back the complaints have give an application regarding the action taken against the employees and others. The copy of the order of the Assistant Commissioner and Thasildar are produced herewith and marked as Documents No.5 and 6.
11. It is submitted that, after the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner the 2nd Accused has not continued the proceedings. Immediately the Accused No.1 had filed a suit in O.S.No.879/2002 before the Civil Judge (Sr. Div) Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore, against the complainant and others. When the said suit was pending the Thasildar has not takened any action with regard to the forgery committed by the revenue officers and inserting the name of the accused No.1 father. The accused are all colluded and managed the revenue officers and inserted the name of Siddappa in the RTC extracts and other revenue documents. In view of the forged documents the suit came to be decreed, against the said order appeal has been 17 preferred in R.A.No.63/2009 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge Bangalore Rural District at Bangalore. The said appeal came to be allowed and set aside the judgment and decree dated 08.12.2009. Still so far as no action has been taken against the employees and the accused regarding the manipulation, forgery committed by them. And thereby the forgery and cheating committed by the accused. Hence this court has got jurisdiction to take cognizance of the alleged offences committed by the accused.
WHEREFORE, the complainant prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to take cognizance of the offence committed by the accused under Section 417, 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 474 and 34 of the Code of Indian Penal Code and to punish the accused in the interest of justice." The allegations in the complaint are with regard to documents being forged in collusion with the Revenue Authorities. The other allegation is, when the petitioners claimed that they had purchased the land from one Patel R.H. Narayanaswamy who was the 18 beneficiary of re-grant order on 24.06.1962 at the hands of a particular Special Deputy Commissioner, the said Special Deputy Commissioner was not even holding the said post on that date. It is therefore, the offence of forgery is sought to be made out. The civil proceedings are not concluded as they are pending before this Court in a regular second appeal. The complaint also narrates circumstances as to how the claim of the title between the parties has come out of.
12. The issue framed by the Civil Court, in issue No.2 is whether the plaintiffs i.e., the petitioners herein prove that defendant Nos.3 to 5 i.e., the complainants herein have manipulated the revenue documents and took forcible possession of the suit schedule property. Though the issue is held to be in the affirmative and that the First Appellate Court has affirmed, the said affirmation by the trial Court with regard to the said issue, is pending at the hands of this Court. Therefore, 19 it will not inure to the benefit of the petitioners to contend that since the trial Court is already decided the issue with regard to manipulation of the records, the very substratum of the offence alleged in the complaint would be obliterated. In the light of the pendency of regular second appeal before this Court, it cannot be concluded that issue No.2 is already concluded.
13. It is also germane to notice that pursuant to the investigation, the Police have filed their final report for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 201, 418, 465, 468, 471, 474, 420 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The charge sheet is filed after recording the statements of several witnesses. The afore-quoted facts, undoubtedly require a trial and a evidence to be let in before the criminal Court for the petitioners to come out clean as forgery is pitted against forgery in the case at hand. The said forgery is confirmed by the forensic science laboratory. Therefore, 20 the proving of forgery by either of the parties will definitely require a trial to be conducted and the evidence to be let in.
14. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure though is unlimited, except in exceptional cases, a case of the nature of what is brought before this Court in these proceedings would undoubtedly require a trial, as if the proceedings have to be quashed on the plea of the petitioners, all the evidence that is collected, which is to be put forth by the parties by the trial Court would get obliterated.
15. In my considered view, it is a matter of trial that the petitioners have to come out clean on the allegations that are made against them in the charge sheet. This view of mine, in this regard, is fortified by the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Yogendra Singh Jadon and 21 another3 at paragraph Nos.5 and 6, wherein it has held as follows:
"5. We find that the High Court has examined the entire issue as to whether the offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC is made out or not at pre-trial stage. The respondents are beneficiary of the grant of cash credit limit when their father was the President of the Bank. The power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised where the allegations are required to be proved in court of law. The manner in which loan was advanced without any proper documents and the fact that the respondents are beneficiary of benevolence of their father prima facie disclose an offence under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. It may be stated that other officials of the Bank have been charge- sheeted for an offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act. The charge under Section 420 IPC is not an isolated offence but it has to be read along with the offences under the Act 3 (2020) 12 SCC 588 22 to which the respondents may be liable with the aid of Section 120-B IPC.
6. Consequently, we find that the order [Yogendra Singh Jadon v. State of M.P., CRR No. 260 of 2014, order dated 2-5-2016 (MP)] of the High Court quashing the charges against the respondents is not sustainable in law and the same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. It shall be open to the respondents to take such other action as may be available to them in accordance with law."
In the light of the law laid down in the afore- extracted judgment of the Apex Court, wherein it clearly holds that the High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, would not quash the proceedings entering upon the merit or demerit of the evidence. If it is a matter of evidence that the High Court would enter into, then it would become a matter of trial.
23
16. It is apposite to further refer the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAJEEV KOURAV VS. BAISAHAB AND OTHERS4 at paragraphs 5 to 8, wherein it has held as follows:
"5. A final report was filed on 19-7-2014 on completion of investigation. A petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed for quashing the criminal proceedings. It was contended on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 before the High Court that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have not been made out and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. According to Respondents 1 to 3, the FIR and the charge-sheet would only disclose that the entire family of the appellant was being harassed. The respondents cannot be held guilty of offence under Section 306 as there is nothing on record to show that they have incited the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide.
6. The High Court summoned the record of investigation and perused the statements recorded by the appellant and his family members under Section 161 CrPC. The High Court held that statements recorded under Section 161 4 (20020) 3 SCC 317 24 CrPC would show that Respondent 1 is a quarrelsome lady who has threatened the appellant's family of false implication in a criminal case. The High Court observed that none of the persons whose statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded have mentioned about the complaint of the deceased and that she was thinking of committing suicide due to the harassment of Respondents 1 to 3. The High Court recorded a finding that Ramsharan Kourav, the uncle of the deceased, has stated in his statement under Section 161 that the deceased informed him that she is unable to bear the torture of Respondents 1 to 3 and was thinking of putting an end to her life.
7. The High Court observed that the allegations made against Respondents 1 to 3 at the most constitute an offence under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation. Read as a whole, the allegations made against Respondents 1 to 3 did not make out an offence under Sections 306/34 IPC. The High Court further held that ingredients of Section 107 IPC are also not satisfied. In that view, the petition filed by Respondents 1 to 3 for quashing the criminal proceeding was allowed.25
8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding."
17. Therefore, in my considered view and in the light of the judgments of the Apex Court (supra) the matter requires a trial to be conducted. Insofar as the 26 judgments relied on by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners there can be no qualm about the principle that is laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases with regard to when the matter is purely Civil in nature, this Court would exercise its jurisdiction and quash the proceedings.
18. The Apex Court holds that on the very perusal of the documents, if no offences can be made out, then the party should not be led to face their rigmarole of the procedure of facing a trial, which would result in miscarriage of justice.
19. The cases referred to are distinguishable without much adobe in the light of the afore-narrated facts which requires evidence and trail. It is no law that merely because the proceedings are civil in nature the proceedings brought before the criminal Court ought to be quashed. It depends on facts and circumstances of each case and the judgments rendered on the facts and 27 circumstances of those cases. In the facts of the case at hand, I do not find any merit to entertain this petition or would warrant interference with the order passed by the Revisional Court impugned therein.
20. Therefore, the Criminal Petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
The observation made in the course of this order is only for the purpose of consideration of the case under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the same shall not bind or influence any other proceedings that the petitioners would avail of, in law.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG