Karnataka High Court
Mr. Puttaraju vs State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K. SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2872/2020
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2873/2020,
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2917/2020
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2872/2020:
BETWEEN:
MR.PUTTARAJU
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O: # 1, 2ND MAIN A MAIN ROAD
3RD CROSS, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGARA
BANGALORE-560 027
KARNATAKA ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.V.ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2
2. JAVAHARLAL
S/O RAJAPPA
NO.6, MOHARTHAPPA GARDEN
NO.26A, MAIN ROAD,
17TH CROSS, J.P.NAGARA
BENGALURU CITY -560 078 ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2971/2020 (CR.NO.200/2018) ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL,
BENGALURU RURAL FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 447, 427, 504, 506 OF IPC
(BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION).
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2873/2020:
BETWEEN:
MR.PUTTARAJU
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O: # 1, 2ND MAIN A MAIN ROAD
3RD CROSS, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGARA
BANGALORE-560 027
KARNATAKA ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.V.ANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
3
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. MR.A.FRANCIS
S/O AROGYASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT BEHIND CHURCH
BEGUR, BENGALURU SOUTH TQ.
PIN -560 068 ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2878/2020 (CR.NO.85/2019) ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL, BENGALURU
RURAL FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
341, 427, 504, 506 OF IPC (BANNERGHATTA POLICE
STATION).
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2917/2020:
BETWEEN:
MR.PUTTARAJU
S/O LATE MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/O: # 1, 2ND MAIN A MAIN ROAD
3RD CROSS, SAMPANGIRAMA NAGARA
BANGALORE-560 027
KARNATAKA ..PETITIONER
(BY SRI R.V.ANAND, ADVOCATE)
4
AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
REPTD. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SHAFEEQUE PARAKULATH
S/O HAJI MOHAMMED IBRAHIM
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
RESIDING AT PAROTH HOUSE
THANNADA, CHALA EAST POST,
KANNUR,
KERALA-670 621 ..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
C.C.NO.2877/2020 (CR.NO.124/2019) ON THE FILE OF
THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL,
BENGALURU RURAL FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 447, 427, 504, 506 OF IPC
(BANNERGHATTA POLICE STATION).
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR
ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO
CONFERENCE AT BENGALURU MADE THE FOLLOWING:
5
ORDER
These matters are taken up through Video Conference today.
2. Learned counsel Sri.R.V.Anand for petitioner and Sri.K.Nageshwarappa, learned HCGP for respondent- State are present.
3. These are the three petitions filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against him in all the three cases.
4. For the purpose of easy understanding the proceedings are represented in a tabular manner.
SL.NO. CRL.P.NO. COMPLAINANT CRIME NO./ OFFENCE
1. 2872/2020 Javahar Lal 200/2018 Punishable 6 under Sections 420, 379, 504, 506 of IPC Charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 447, 504, 506 of IPC
2. 2873/2020 Francis A. 85/2019 Punishable under Sections 341, 447, 504, 506 of IPC Charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 427, 504, 506 of IPC
3. 2917/2020 Shafeeque 124/2019 Punishable 7 under Sections 427, 447, 504, 506 of IPC Charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 447, 504, 506 of IPC
5. Copy of the petition is served on learned HCGP for respondent-State.
6. Heard.
7. The above cases mentioned in the table above came to be registered against the present petitioner- accused-Puttaraju for the offence punishable as stated above on the basis of the complaint filed by respective 8 complainants and also being charge sheeted for the respective offences.
8. The petitioner through above criminal petitions seeks for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that there are no grounds to proceed against the petitioner either for the offence stated above or for any other offence. Neither there is prima facie case nor there is case on merits.
9. The substance of the case in Crl.P.No.2872/2020 is as under:
Complaint is lodged on 04.11.2018 by M.R.Javahar Lal, S/o late Rajappa, aged 54 years, No.6, Mohuruthappa Garden, 26th A Main Road, 17th Cross, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru-78 in Crime No.200/2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 504, 420, 379 of IPC. It is stated that during 2006 the 9 complainant Javahar Lal purchased site measuring 120x90 ft in Sy.No.234, Khatha No.106 of Bingipura Village, Jigani Hobli, Begur, Koppa Road from Muralidhar and Girija through Gopal Reddy, Muniswamy and Advocate Nithin Kumar of N.S.Palya.
10. After the registered sale deed he has remitted taxes and also obtained permission to construct shed and stocked the necessary materials and left interval of 2 to 3 weeks and thereafter when he went to the spot one Puttaraju (accused-petitioner) was present and he stated that he has purchased the property and asked the complainant to get the title documents. Accordingly he obtained documents and gave it to Puttaraju the accused. After 2 or 3 days the accused telephoned the complainant and told that he would pay the cost of the said property to the complainant and asked him to come to the house of accused. The 10 complainant went to the house of the accused and told that he has invested Rs.22,00,000/-. Accused stated that he would be giving Rs.22,00,000/- then itself and gave 20 bundles neatly packed and face value was hidden and handed over the said bundle to the complainant who thought there would be Rs.22,00,000/-. When he went home and opened it they were 20 bundles of Rs.100/- and total was Rs.2,00,000/-. Complainant got frightened and telephoned the accused and went for the fourth time to the house of the accused for which accused told if the complainant were to come near the site he would see his end. He also stated he was acquainted with one rowdy JCB Narayan and consequences will not be right if the complainant goes near the site and abused and threatened the complainant. 11
11. The substance of complaint in Crl.P.No.2873/2020 is that case came to be registered in Crime No.85/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504 and 447. The complaint is lodged on 07.06.2019. Complainant is one Francis A. He states that on 13.11.2006 he purchased site No.51 measuring 30x40 ft, Khatha No.156, Bingipura Village from V.K.Nagaraju S/o Venkataraju, Ganapathipura, Bengaluru. On the same day he and M.Mallesh purchased site Nos.21, 22, 23 measuring 60x120 ft in Sy.No.237 and site Nos.10 and 11 measuring 30x40 ft in Sy.No.236 of Bingipura village and another site No.52 measuring 30x40 was purchased jointly from Krishnaveni. Complainant has left the sites open. On 20.05.2019 when the complainant and Mallesh went to clean the property accused Puttaraju @ Biryani Puttaraju abused them to his discretion and threatened them of life if they went near the site. 12 Hemanth Kumar and Venkatesh Babu subsided the quarrel.
12. Insofar as Crl.P.No.2917/2020 is concerned the substance of the complaint is that it is lodged by one Shafeeque, S/o Haji Mohammed Ibrahim in Crime No.124/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 506, 504 and 447of IPC. It is stated that the complainant in this case purchased site Nos.30 and 31, Khatha No.258 of Bingipura Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, together with the residential shed constructed thereon from B.Ramesh by virtue of the sale deed dated 10.10.2011.
13. In this case also on the date of incident i.e., on 07.03.2018 when he visited the site accused came near the site and threatened him and tried to dispossess the complainant and at 5.30 p.m. accused along with rowdies came near schedule property along 13 with crowbars, pick-axe, earth-mover machine(JCB) and picked up quarrel and when the relatives of the complainant stood in front of JCB Puttaraju without even hearing tried to run JCB over the complainant and his relatives and escaped. Puttaraju and associates taking advantage of the complainant working at Qatar and an NRI smashed the structure. Complainant lodged complaint against Puttaraju on 12.03.2018 requesting the jurisdictional police to provide protection. Though they acknowledged the complaint they have not taken any action.
14. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the complainants colluded and conspired against the petitioner and have filed false complaints. Petitioner never cheated or forged in any manner whether the complainants or anybody.
14
15. Learned counsel would further submit that the police though have filed FIR for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 379, 504, 506 of IPC have deleted Sections 420 and 379 of IPC in the charge sheet.
16. The civil dispute has been unnecessarily drawn into criminal side only to harass and blackmail the petitioner.
17. Learned HCGP submitted that the petitioner has no ground or reason to seek for quashing of the proceedings. They may be civil case but act committed by petitioner is criminal in nature against each of the complainants.
18. Learned HCGP further submits that facts in all the three cases are one and the same and even after 15 asking him to submit again he submitted facts in all the three cases are one and the same regard being had to the fact in Crl.P.No.2872/2020 it is totally different wherein commission of offence of cheating is reflected in the complaint.
19. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit the police themselves have left out Sections 420 and 379 of IPC that shows the groundlessness in the complaint.
20. It is necessary to mention at the first instance it may result in criminal case and events or incidents may also take place which may par take the acts of criminal case. However criminal case will be having feature of civil nature to some extent. 16
21. Nodoubt when full fledged facts of civil nature of cases cannot be used as eye opener through a criminal case but to the satisfaction of the court when it is made out about the existence of criminal case the existence of civil case is not a bar.
22. When the set of facts are revealed in all the complaints. Incidentally the accused claims the schedule property in all the cases, particularly against the persons stated to be the purchasers in each of the case. In one case a serious allegation of cheating through currency notes of lesser value. The facts, allegations, incidents and the documents are to be adjudicated through a trial. Cases cannot be adjudicated on submissions.
23. It is for the court to take cognizance of the offence which is made out in the final report, 17 recommendations or conclusion or the opinion of the investigating officer mentioning commission of particular offence cannot veto the power of the court to take cognizance.
24. It is necessary to note that court takes cognizance of the offence and not the offender. A bear reading of Section 319 of Cr.P.C would make it clear.
25. In the circumstances when the investigating officer has deleted two sections his discretion cannot be eye opener to the case. FIR is registered under Section 154, final report under Section 173, cognizance is taken under Section 190 of Cr.P.C. It is for the court to apply its mind and to adjudicate. 18
26. In the circumstances of the case I do not find that the petitioner has made out grounds to quash the proceedings.
All the three petitions are devoid of merits and they are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE SBN