Karnataka High Court
Mahaboobsab S/O Khaseemsab Challal vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P.NO.102246/2017
BETWEEN:
1. MAHABOOBSAB
S/O KHASEEMSAB CHALLAL,
AGE : 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRI.
2. KUMARUNNISA @ MUNNI
W/O MAHABOOBSAB CHALLAL
AGE : 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD.
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF
SHIVALINGA NAGAR,
HAVERI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI HARSHAWARDHAN M.PATIL, ADV. FOR
SRI M.H.PATIL, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ADDL. SPP.
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH,
DHARWAD.
2. SHAINAZA BEGAM
W/O DADAPEER,
DAVANAGERE, AGE 43 YEARS,
2
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O SANGAMESHWAR NAGAR,
BYADAGI,
DIST: HAVERI.
3. PARAVEENBANU
W/O WAJEERSAB POKAKI,
AGE : 47 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O MUNDAGOD,
TQ: MUNDAGOD,
DIST: UTTARAKANNADA.
4. RESHMABANU
W/O MOHAMMADALI RAJAVI,
AGE : 49 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O AZAD NAGAR,
DAVANAGERE.
5. RAHEENABANU
W/O MOHAMMADALI MEDLERI,
AGE : 37 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O BYADAGI,
DIST: HAVERI.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R.1
SRI H.M.DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR R.2 TO 5)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDURE PRAYING THIS
COURT TO QUASH THE PRIVATE COMPLAINT AND CHARGE
SHEET FILED THEREUPON FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 420, 465 AND 201 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF
IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM,
HAVERI IN C.C.NO.40/2017 (PC.NO.22/2015) IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
: ORDER :
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in P.C.No.22/2015 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM Court, Haveri (for short "the Trail Court") are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them and now pending in C.C.No.40/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 420, 465 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have filed private complaint in P.C.R.No.22/2015 before the Trial Court against the petitioners herein, alleging commission of the offence as stated above. The said private complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short). Haver Town Police registered Crime No.106/2016 on 27.02.2016 against the accused and after investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed on 10.02.2017. It is stated that the Trial Court took cognizance of the offence against the 4 petitioners and registered C.C.No.40/2017. Now the criminal case is pending for framing of charge. In the meantime, the petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
3. Heard Sri Harshawardhan M.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Praveen K.Uppar learned High Court Government Pleader and Sri H.M.Dharigond, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, it is purely a civil dispute between the parties regarding the entitlement of properties left behind by Smt.Khairumbi Challal. The false allegations were made against these accused that they concocted the document styled as gift deed which have been executed by the said Smt.Khairumbi Challal, forged her signature and applied for mutation of the names of the accused in the revenue records. In this regard, the complainants have already filed O.S.No.159/2015, seeking partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. The said suit is 5 still pending. In the meantime, the private complaint was came to be filed by giving the criminal touch to the civil dispute between the parties. Therefore the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners is to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel also submitted that, even as per the charge sheet, the disputed gift deed is not at all produced before the Investigating Officer. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the accused have committed any of the offences as stated above. Hence, he prays for allowing the petition.
6. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that, the complainants made the specific allegations against both the accused for having concocted a fake gift deed, alleging that the same was executed by the testator, by forging her signatures and sought for mutation of their names in the revenue records. When the same was objected by the complainants and the suit in O.S.No.159/2015 was filed, the accused have withheld 6 the original gift deed only to screen the commission of the offence. Even when the investigation was undertaken by the Investigating Officer, the accused were called upon to produce the original document. But they failed to produce it with ulterior motive. Therefore section 420, 465 and 201 of IPC are squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed on 10.02.2017. The criminal case is pending in C.C.No.40/2017. The stage is still for framing of charges. Therefore it is prayed that the criminal petition to be dismissed as devoid of merits
7. Perused the materials on record.
8. The point that would arise for consideration of this Court is as follows:
"Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.40/2017 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Haveri (Crime No.106/2016 of Haveri Town Police Station arising out of PC.No.22/22/2015) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 7 465 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?"
9. My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' for the following:
: REASONS :
10. The specific contention of the complainants/ respondent Nos.2 to 5 that accused No.1 being the son and accused No.2 being his wife, concocted a document styled as gift deed, forged the signature of deceased Smt.Khairumbi Challal and produced the same before the revenue authorities seeking mutation of their names on the basis of the concocted gift deed.
11. Further, when the mutation of the names of the accused was disputed by the complainants, suit in O.S.No.159/2015 was filed before the competent Civil Court at Haveri seeking partition and separate possession of the properties left behind by Smt.Khairumbi Challal and a criminal complaint was filed, the accused have destroyed the gift deed which 8 they had concocted by forging the signature and producing the same before the revenue authorities as if it is the genuine document. The investigation was conducted by the Investigating Officer and the detailed charge sheet is already filed. As per charge sheet, it is stated that in spite of issuance of notice, the accused have never produced the original gift deed to refer the same to compare the signatures and to find out as to whether the signatures are genuine or not.
12. When such specific allegations are made in the private complaint regarding concoction of the document, forging of the signatures and producing the concocted document before the revenue authorities seeking mutation of the names of the accused, and also that suppressing/destroying the original deed of gift, which is said to be the concocted document when called for investigation, prima-facie attract Sections 420, 465 and 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is purely a civil dispute cannot be accepted in view of the specific 9 allegations made in the private complaint. Concoction of the document, forging the signatures of the testator and presenting the fake the document before the revenue authorities claiming benefit out of the same, would definitely constitute the criminal offence. Therefore, I do find considerable force in the contention taken by the respondents. Since, there are prima facie materials to invoke the penal provisions, I am not inclined to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against accused Nos.1 and 2.
13. In view of the above, I answer the above point in the negative and accordingly the petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM