Karnataka High Court
Smt. Kempamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2019
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5730/2015
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3860/2015
IN CRL.P.NO.5730/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KEMPAMMA
W/O BETTAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
R/O KITTAGHATTA VILLAGE
TALUK: KUNIGAL
DISTRICT : TUMKUR - 572 130.
2. SRI. NAGARAJU
S/O BELLAIAH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR
D/NO.4081, 9TH CROSS
GAYATHRI NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 021.
3. SRI. SHIVAKUMAR P.C.
S/O LATE CHIDANANDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
D/NO.176
NEAR VIDYANIKETHAN SCHOOL
T.DASARAHALLI
BANGALORE - 560 057.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.P.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
2
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AMRUTHUR POLICE
KUNIGAL TALUK
DISTRICT:TUMKUR
NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SMT. HONNAMMA
W/O LATE LINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
D/NO.7/35, JAI MARUTHI NAGAR
3RD CROSS, NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 096.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. S.P.P., FOR R1;
SRI S.G.LOKESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.4/2014 (CRIME NO.217/2012) ON THE FILE OF JMFC,
KUNIGAL, DISTRICT TUMKUR, REGISTERED UNDER SECTIONS
465, 468, 471, 420 R/W 149 OF IPC.
IN CRL.P.NO.3860/2015
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. THOPANAIAH
S/O LATE MARIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
RETD. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
R/O BEGUR
TALUK: KUNIGAL
DISTRICT: TUMKUR - 572 101.
2. SRI. RAMESH T.L.
S/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
3
REVENUE INSPECTOR
TURUVEKERE TALUK OFFICE
DISTRICT: TUMKUR - 572 101.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SRIKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
AMRUTHUR POLICE
KUNIGAL TALUK
DISTRICT:TUMKUR
NOW REPRESENTED BY
STATE P.P.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SMT. HONNAMMA
W/O LATE NINGEGOUDA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
D/NO.7/35, JAI MARUTHI NAGAR
3RD CROSS, NANDINI LAYOUT
BANGALORE - 560 096.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. S.P.P. FOR R1;
SRI D.L.SOMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.4/2014 (CRIME NO.217/2012) ON THE FILE OF JMFC,
KUNIGAL, DISTRICT TUMKUR, REGISTERED UNDER SECTIONS
465, 468, 471, 420 R/W 149 OF IPC BEING ARBITRARY,
ERRONEOUS AND OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE
APART FROM BEING ABUSE OF PROCESS OF COURT, IN SO FAR
AS THE PETITIONERS HEREIN ARE CONCERNED.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
ORDER
1. These two petitions are filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for respondent no.2/complainant and learned Additional SPP for respondent no.1-State.
3. The case of the prosecution is that petitioner no.1 in Crl.P.No.5730/2015 and two revenue officials (petitioners in Crl.P.No.3860/2015) in collusion with each other forged signatures of respondent no.2/complainant on a registered sale deed dated 24.08.2012 and alienated the share belonging to the complainant making it to appear that the vendor of the property had no legal heirs. Further, it is alleged that petitioner no.1 filed forged applications before the revenue authorities and got the Khatha and the revenue documents mutated in her name. 5
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegations made in the complaint do not attract the ingredients of criminal offences alleged in the FIR. Much before lodging the complaint, a civil suit was filed by respondent no.2 for declaration and injunction that the sale deed dated 24.08.2012 is not binding on respondent no.2. Hence, the criminal action in respect of the very same subject matter which is seized by the civil court is legally untenable and an abuse of process of Court. Insofar as the prosecution of the revenue officials (petitioners in Crl.P. No.3860/2015) is concerned, learned counsel submits that the prosecution instituted against them is barred under Section 195 of Cr.P.C inasmuch as the complaint has been lodged against them by respondent no.2 and not by the Court or such officers of the Court as authorized in that behalf.
5. Refuting the above submissions, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that the provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would come into play 6 only if the offences are committed in respect of the document produced before the Court or the evidence given before the Court. In the instant case, specific allegation made against accused nos.4 & 5 (petitioners in Crl.P.No.3860/2015) is that they got up a false report to the effect that the deceased Jayamma had no legal heirs, even though the deceased Jayamma had legal heirs, and thus facilitated the commission of the criminal offence. Hence, the acts of accused nos.4 & 5 are not protected under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Further, he contends that pendency of the civil suit does not bar criminal action against the accused as the ingredients of criminal offences are made out and prima facie material is collected during investigation in proof of the offence and therefore there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned Additional SPP appearing for respondent no.1 contended that the material produced by the investigating agency prima facie discloses commission of 7 the offence, and hence, there is no ground to quash the proceedings.
7. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
8. Insofar as the contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the material on record does not disclose commission of criminal offence cannot be accepted. A reading of the charge sheet and the material produced therewith clearly make out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 r/w Section 49 of IPC. Therefore, this contention is rejected. Insofar as applicability of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, the said Section deals with prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. In the instant case, specific allegation is that accused nos.4 & 5 (public servants) facilitated the commission of the offence by 8 creating false report to the effect that the propositus had no legal heirs even though the material produced before the authorities clearly disclosed that the deceased had legal heirs. There are even allegations that some of the signatures were obtained in the presence of the revenue officials. Thus, Section 195 of Cr.P.C. does not come to the aid of the petitioners. Hence, this contention is also rejected. Insofar as pendency of the civil suit is concerned, the law is now settled that availability of civil remedy is not a ground to quash the proceedings. As long as the facts and circumstances of the case make out the ingredients of criminal offences mere pendency of the civil suit does not bar the prosecution of the petitioners for the criminal offences. As a result, I do not find any justifiable ground to quash the impugned proceedings. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek discharge before the trial court on such grounds available 9 in law. It is made clear that the trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE hkh.