Karnataka High Court
Rakesh Raj G @ Bheema vs Smt Uma N Bera on 7 March, 2017
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.737/2015
BETWEEN:
Rakesh Raj G. @ Bheema
Son of Dr. Govindaraju
Advocate
Aged about 29 years
No.85, 25th Cross,
Cubbonpet,
Bangalore - 560002
...Petitioner
(By Smt. Ranjana Iyer, Advocate, Absent)
AND:
1. Smt. Uma N. Bera
W/o. Late Nithesh N Bera
Major in age
R/at. No.312, 3rd Cross,
Lakshmi Road,
Shantinagar,
Bangalore - 560027
2. Sri. B. Venkata Rao
Advocate
Major in age,
No.6, 1st Cross, 2nd Main Road,
2
Shakthi ganapathi Nagar,
8th Main Road, 4th Block,
Basaveswaranagar,
Bangalore - 560079.
3. Sri. K. B. Thippeswamy
Advocate
Roll No. KAR 138/2006
4. Sri. Girisha K.M.
Advocate
Roll No. KAR 1693/2004
Respondents No.3 & 4 office
At No.220, Ground floor,
Opp. Karnataka Nursing Counsel
Ananda Rao Extention, Gandhinagar,
Bangalore - 560009
5. State Public Prosecutor,
Represented by
Government Pleader,
Sri. B.T. Venkatesh,
High Court of Karnataka,
Bangalore - 560001
...Respondents
(By Sri. Vijaya Kumar Majage, Addl. SPP for R-5;
Sri.B. Venkat Rao - party-in-person as R-2;
Sri. L.S. Chikkanna Gowdar Adv. For R-3 & R-4.)
This petition is filed under section 340 of Cr.P.C.
praying to direct the Registrar Judicial, High Court of
Karnataka to initiate judicial enquiry as prayed in the
petition, etc.
3
This petition coming on for admission this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed under section 340 of Cr.P.C., seeking to conduct a detailed enquiry and to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondents.
2. The brief facts essential for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner herein is facing trial for the offences under section 364, 302, 394 and 120(B) of IPC in S.C.No.1035/2012. The petitioner appears to have filed an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C seeking regular bail in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.1878/2012 before the sessions court. The said application having been rejected, the petitioner preferred criminal petition No.2731/2012. However, the said petition was withdrawn by the petitioner, whereafter the petitioner presented another criminal petition in No.2866/2012 seeking regular bail on the ground that he was pursuing L.L.M course and as he had to appear for 4 the examination. In this proceedings, the petitioner produced a Hall Ticket of the relevant year and considering the said Hall Ticket, this court admitted the petitioner to bail.
3. However, the complainant, namely respondent No.1 herein having come to know that the Hall Ticket produced by the petitioner was a fake one, moved an application before this court for cancellation of the bail in Criminal Petition No.3848/2012. In the said case, respondent No.1 was represented by respondent Nos.3 and 4 as her counsel. This Court having satisfied itself that the petitioner had produced a fake document and has obtained the bail, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner appears to have been admitted to bail by the trial court. Even the said order was challenged before this Court in Crl.Petn. No.5631/2013 wherein the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled.
5
4. The petitioner who is an accused in S.C.No.1035/2012, has now preferred this petition under Section 340 of Cr.P.C seeking action against the respondents. After narrating the sequence of events in this petition, at Page 26, the petitioner has culled out the averments which, according to the petitioner, are the instances which require this Court to initiate proceedings against the respondents under section 340 of Cr.P.C. They are as follows:
"1. Actually Lakshmi Narasamma is not the Mother of Accused No.1 i.e., Petitioner.
2. Actually Lakshmi Narasamma is mother of Accused No.2.
3. Actually no conversation made with the Lakshmi Narasamma which is alleged by the respondent in Criminal Petition 5631/2013, in para No.11 of the petition.
4. No alleged mobile phone was used by the petitioner/accused No.1 to the alleged conversation.
5. Further, Pankaja is not the mother of A2, she is the mother of A3.6
6. Accused No.1/Petitioner is not present in the scene of occurrence only intention to create a circumstantial evidence on the petitioner created by the investigation officer in this regard to only on intention, to show involvement of the petitioner in the above case.
7. Everyone is aware that same person cannot phone/make a call to same person. Which is alleged in the petition all are worn one statement made by the defecto complaint and his counsel, in the petition 5631/2013. Only intention to spoil name and fame of the Petitioner.
8. Further, these facts will effect in future of the case and spoil the life of the petitioner/accused person. If the court if not initiated judicial proceedings against the respondents, injustice will be caused to the petitioner, which cannot be compensated by way of any manner. Hence, this petition seeking initiate action against the respondents, mislead the court and played the fraud and derived the order in his favor to mislead the court, suppressing the true facts and it is nothing but its amount attract perjury, mislead one, and committed offences described under Section 191 of IPC and 193 of IPC, that the offence is committed in judicial proceedings being held before this Hon'ble Court, which is covered under Section 195 of IPC because they have played fraud and cheated the court and obtained the order in his favour, 7 suppressing the real facts and circumstances. Hence, petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court, considering this is the serious matter I prejudice and damage caused to the petitioner in the society his reputation he spoiled, he cannot surveyed in case is admitted facts narrated in the criminal petition 5631/2013, exercising the power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and initiate which is alleged sections in this regard and to direct the judicial authority to enquire the matter and initiate criminal proceedings against the respondents punish accordance with law."
5. The petitioner counsel has not appeared to submit his arguments.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the learned Public Prosecutor namely respondent No.2 and have perused the averments made in the petition.
7. The petitioner has sought to initiate action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C on the purported contention that false statements have been made by the respondents 8 in the course of the hearing of the bail petition filed by him as well as in the petitions filed by respondent No.1 for cancellation of the said bail. But the statements extracted by the petitioner which are reproduced above, in my view, do not fall within the perview of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Section 340 of Cr.P.C reads as under:
340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section
195. (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court 9 has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court.
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Section 195.
8. The statements culled out above, do not make out the offences under Section 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 of I.P.C, on the other hand, the observations made by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3848/2012 goes to show that the petitioner himself resorted to production of false document to obtain the bail. To be precise, it may be apt to reproduce paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the order passed in Criminal Petition No.3848/2012, which reads as under: 10
"8. In Crl.P.No.2866/2012, the first respondent has specifically pleaded in para-6 as under:
The Petitioner is an advocate practicing at Bangalore and his father is also an advocate practicing at Bangalore and they are having good reputation in the bar. He never involved in the alleged offence. The Petitioner is also studying L.L.M and his examination of L.L.M starts from 15 June 2012. If this Hon'ble court will not release him on bail, he may not appear before the examination and he will be put to great loss and injury.
9. Petitioner has produced material on record to show that Annamalai University conducted L.L.M examination between 19.05.2012 and 21.05.2012. The contention of the first respondent that he wanted to write L.L.M. examination on 15.06.2012 is factually incorrect, misleading and based on fabricated documents. The first respondent in his statement of objections admitted that by mistake his Lawyer produced the admission ticket of L.L.M course instead of producing the admission ticket issued for the examination for Lecturer post. Thus the first respondent admits the mistake committed by him in 11 Crl.P.No.2866/2012. On the basis of this admission of first respondent the impugned order of granting bail is liable to be cancelled.
10. The explanation of the first respondent that by mistake his Lawyer produced the admission ticket relating to L.L.M examination instead of admission ticket for lecturer post. This Court vide order dated 12.12.2012 directed the advocate Sri Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy to file an affidavit in this regard. Accordingly, learned counsel filed an affidavit stating that the first respondent's father who is an advocate gave instructions and accordingly he drafted and presented the petition in Cr.P.No.2866/2012. From this material on record it is clear that the lawyer Sri.Y.R. Sadashiva Reddy has not committed any mistake. Again the petitioner made false allegation against his advocate. By furnishing false information the first respondent secured an order of bail and it is not open for him to offer explanation for the mistake that he has committed. The explanation offered by the first respondent in his objection statement 12 cannot be taken as substitute for the false information given in the criminal petition for grant of bail. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be cancelled.
9. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to initiate the proceedings against the respondents on the allegations made in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
10. At this stage, Sri. Freud Richardson, learned counsel submits that Smt. Ranjana Iyer who is on record is since hospitalized.
Sd/-
JUDGE mds