Karnataka High Court
Mr Mahesh vs State Of Karnataka on 23 October, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:42528
CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12661 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MR. MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
S/O KUMAR
R/AT BEHIND MILAGHATTA
BUDDHA NAGARA, FIRST CROSS
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. P.P.HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BY JAYANAGARA POLICE STATION
SHIVAMOGGA
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MR. RAVI N. S.,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
POLICE OFFICER
VINOBHA NAGARA CIRCLE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:42528
CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023
SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. HARISH GANAPATHY, HCGP)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.167/2023 ON
THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS
JUDGE SHIVAMOGGA (ARISING OUT OF C.C.NO.1760/2021 ON
THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
SHIVAMOGGA AND OUT OF CR.NO.21/2021 OF JAYANAGARA
POLICE STATION) REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.255,
256, 258, 420, 467, 468 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is accused No.4. He is knocking at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in S.C. No.167 of 2023, pending before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 258, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC.
-3-NC: 2024:KHC:42528 CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023
2. Heard Sri P.P. Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
The petitioner gets embroiled in Crime No.21 of 2021 initially registered for the offences punishable under Sections 255, 256, 258, 420, 465, 467 and 468 of the IPC. The petitioner is taken into custody. The police after investigation filed a charge sheet in C.C.No.1760 of 2021. Since the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case is committed to the Court of Sessions, Shivamogga and is now registered as S.C.No.167 of 2023. The registration of S.C.No.167 of 2023 in which the petitioner is accused No.4 is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Sri P.P.Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would take this Court through the summary of the charge sheet to contend that all the allegations are against accused No.1. What is said against the petitioner is omnibus statement of overt acts together stating that these acts are -4- NC: 2024:KHC:42528 CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023 committed by accused Nos.1 to 4. There is no involvement of the petitioner in the alleged acts of accused Nos.1 to 3.
Therefore, he submits that why should an innocent man face trial for the acts he has never committed.
5. Per contra, Sri Harish Ganapathy, learned High Court Government Pleader would vehemently refute the submissions contending that all the accused including the petitioner are involved in the manufacture of fake stamp papers by forging the seal of the Government. The petitioner runs a photo shop and all the seals are photo-copied in the shop of the petitioner.
Therefore, all of them are cohorts in the crime. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.21 of 2021 against four persons. The petitioner is accused No.4. The allegation in the complaint is accused No.1 is running a shop in the name of Image Technology and the shop was involved in creating -5- NC: 2024:KHC:42528 CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023 duplicate documents of originals and after the documents are created, accused No.2 was assigned with a task to take E-
stamp from a co-operative society and take the crime further.
Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the final report filed by the Police pins him down to be involved along with others in the preparation of counterfeit seal and consequent printing them on fake stamp paper. Since the entire issue triggered from the complaint dated 15-03-2021, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:
" ಾ ಾ ಾ ಗಳ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 15-03-2021
ಜಯನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆ
ವ UÀÎ
ಷಯ : ವ ಗ ನಗರದ ಎ.ಎ . ೆ ರ ೆಯ ರುವ ಇ#ೕ$ %ೆ ಾ&ಲ(ೕ
)ಾ ೕಕ+ಾದ ಷು,ಭಕ .ೆ/.0 ಈತನ #ೕ3ೆ ಾನೂನು ಕ5ಮ
ಜರು7ಸುವ ಬ:ೆ.
*****
ಈ ;ವಸ ;+ಾಂಕ : 15-03-2021 ರಂದು +ಾನು ಮ=ಾ>ಹ& 2:30 ಗಂ%ೆ:ೆ ಜಯನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ @ಾAಗ ವ ಗ ನಗರದ ಎ.ಎ . ೆ ರ ೆಯ ರುವ ಇ#ೕ$ %ೆ ಾ&ಲ(ೕ BಾC ನ )ಾ ೕಕ+ಾದ ಷು,ಭಕ .ೆ/ 0 ಎಂಬುವವನು ೕಸ;ಂದ ಹಣಗEಸುವ ಉ@ೆAೕಶ;ಂದ ಾವHಜIಕ :ೆ ನಕ @ಾಖ3ಾKಗಳನು& ಅಸಲು @ಾಖ3ಾKಗಳಂMೆ ತನ& BಾC ನ ನ ಕಂಪO>ಟQ Iಂದ ಸೃST0 ೊಡುK@ಾA+ೆಂದು VಾKW@ಾರ ಂದ )ಾXK ಬಂದ #ೕYೆ:ೆ +ಾನು ಜಯನಗರ ೕ ಾ ೆಯ ಗುಪ )ಾXK 0ಬZಂ;[ಾದ ಪ5 ಾ\ .ಾಗೂ +ೋಬನಗರ ಾ ೆಯ ಗುಪ )ಾXK 0ಬZಂ; ವಪ] ರವ :ೆ )ಾXK ಬಂದ ಬ:ೆ ^ಾರ KE0 ಅವರನು& ಕತHವ> ೆ_ +ೇ`0 ಈ ಬ:ೆ )ಾXK ಸಂಗ5XಸುವಂMೆ ಸೂa0 ಕಳ X0 ೊಟT #ೕYೆ:ೆ ಸದ 0ಬZಂ;ಯವರು ವ ಗ ನಗರದ ದು7Hಗುbಯ ರುವ ಸಮೃc ೌ.ಾದH .ಸ.I :ೆ .ೋ7 ;+ಾಂಕ : 15-03- 2021 ರ ;+ಾಂಕ ೆ_ 20/- ರೂ ಮುಖeೆ3ೆಯ (fಎ ಉ@ೆAೕಶ ೆ_ಂದು ದಲ+ೇ gಾhH ರ -6- NC: 2024:KHC:42528 CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023 ಎಂದು 2 +ೇ gಾhH ಪ5 ಾ\ ಎಂಬು@ಾ7 ಅವರ .ೆಸ :ೆ IN-KA75790662400386T +ೇ ನಂಬ ನ ಒಂದು ಇ- ಾTಂC gೇಪರನು& ಖ ೕ;0 ಸದ ಇ- ಾTಂC gೇಪರನು& )ಾXK ಇದA #ೕಲ_ಂಡ ಇ#ೕ$ %ೆ ಾ&ಲ(ೕ BಾC :ೆ Mೆ:ೆದು ೊಂಡು .ೋ7 ಅ@ೇ ೕK ಇ+ೊ&ಂದು ನಕ ಇ- ಾTಂC gೇಪರನು& ಹjೇಯ ;+ಾಂಕ ೆ_ 20/- ಮುಖeೆ3ೆಯ gೇಪರನು& 100/- ರೂ .ೆak0 ಅಸ ಯಂMೆ ಸೃST0 ೊಡುವಂMೆ ಇ#ೕ$ %ೆ ಾ&ಲ(ೕ BಾC )ಾ ೕಕYಾದ ಷು,ಭಕ .ೆ/.0 ರವ :ೆ ೇE ೊಂlಾಗ BಾC )ಾ ೕಕ ಷು,ಭಕ ರವರು ಪ5 ಾ\ ರವ ಂದ 1000 /- ರೂ ಹಣ ೊಟTYೆ Cಸ ಇ- ಾTಂC gೇಪQ ನಂMೆ ಾಣುವ gೇಪರನು& ಸೃST0 ೊಡುವm@ಾ7 .ೇE 1000/- ರೂ ಹಣ ಪlೆದು ಪ5 ಾ\ ರವರು .ೇEದಂMೆ IN- KA75790662400386T +ೇ ನಂಬ ನ ಹjೇಯ ;+ಾಂಕnಾದ ;+ಾಂಕ : 17-08-2019 ೆ_ ಬದ3ಾo0 100/- ರೂ ಮುಖeೆ3ೆಯ ನಕ (fಎ ಇ- ಾTಂC gೇಪರನು& ಅಸ ಯಂMೆ ಸೃST0 ೊhT@ಾA7 ಸದ ಇ- ಾTಂC gೇಪರನು& ಪ5 ಾ\ ರವರು ತಂದು ನನ& ಮುಂ@ೆ .ಾಜgÀàb0 ಇ#ೕ$ %ೆ ಾ&ಲ(ೕ )ಾ ೕಕ ನಕ @ಾಖ3ಾKಗಳನು& ಅಸ @ಾಖ3ಾKಗಳಂMೆ ಸೃST0 ಾವHಜIಕ :ೆ ೊಟುT ೕಸ;ಂದ ಹಣಗEಸುKರುವ ಬ:ೆ )ಾXKಯನು& ನನ:ೆ KE0ರುMಾYೆ.
ಆದA ಂದ ಇ#ೕ$ %ೆ ಾ&ಲ(ೕ )ಾ ೕಕ+ಾದ ಷು,ಭಕ ರವರು ನಕ @ಾಖ3ೆಗಳನು& ಇ#ೕ$ %ೆ ಾ&ಲ(ೕ BಾC ನ ರುವ ಉಪಕರಣಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಅಸ @ಾಖ3ೆಗಳಂMೆ ಸೃST0 ಸ ಾHರ ೆ_ ೕಸ )ಾb ಸ ಾHರ ೆ_ .ಾಗೂ ಸ ಾH ಾqಮ>ದ eಾ>ಂr ಗE:ೆ ನಷTವನು&ಂಟ )ಾಡುKದುAದAಲ@ೇ ನಕ @ಾಖ3ೆ ಸೃSs0 ೕಸ )ಾb ಹಣ ಗEಸುKರುವmದು ಕಂಡು ಬಂ;ದA Aದ ಈ ಬ:ೆ ಸದ ಷು,ಭಕ ರವರ #ೕ3ೆ ಪ5ಕರಣ @ಾಖ 0 ಾನೂನು ಕ5ಮ ಜರು7ಸಲು ಸೂa0@ೆ ಇದYೊಂ;:ೆ ಪ5 ಾ\ ರವರು .ಾಜgÀàb0ದ ;+ಾಂಕ : 15-03-2021 ರ ಅಸ ಇ- ಾTಂC gೇಪQ @ಾಖ3ಾK .ಾಗೂ ಆYೋfಯು ಸೃST0 ೊಟTಂತಹ ;+ಾಂಕ : 17-08-2019 ರ ನಕ ಇ- ಾTಂC gೇಪQ @ಾಖ3ಾKಯನು& ಲಗK0ರುತ@ೆ."
The police after investigation filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 reads as follows:
-7-NC: 2024:KHC:42528 CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023 "17. ೇ0ನ ಸಂtಪ ಾYಾಂಶ PÀ®A: 255, 256, 258, 420, 465, 467, 468 L¦¹ ಕೃತ>ವm ವ ಗ Mಾಲೂಕು ವ ಗ ನಗರದ ಜಯನಗರ ೕ ಾ ಾ nಾ>fಯ ಎ.ಎ . ೆ.ರ ೆಯ :ೋ ಂದಪ] ಾಂgೆru ನ ರುವ ಪ5ಕರಣದ ಆYೋf ಷು,ಭಕ.
.ೆ/.0.v ಚಂದ5@ೇx ರವರ )ಾ ಕತqದ ಇ#ೕ$ %ೆ ಾ&ಲ(ೕ ಎಂಬ .ೆಸ ನ ಕಂಪO>ಟQ BಾC ನ ಜರು7ರುತ@ೆ.
@ೋyಾYೋಪಣ ಪತ5 ಾಲಂ ನಂ.12
ನಂ ರ ಕಂಡ ಪ5ಕರಣದ 1 ಂದ 4 ರ ವYೆ7ನ
ಆYೋfತರು ೕಸ;ಂದ ನಕ @ಾಖ3ೆಗಳನು& .ಾಗೂ ಸ ಾH ಾTಂC ಗಳನು& ಮತು
ಸ ಾHರದ ಧ ಕ{ೇ ಗಳ ಹರುಗಳನು& ಅಕ5ಮnಾ7 ಸೃST0 ಸ ಾHರದ ಧ
ಕ{ೇ ಗE:ೆ .ಾಗೂ eಾ>ಂr ಗE:ೆ ಅಕ5ಮnಾ7 ಸೃST0ದ @ಾಖ3ಾKಗಳನು& ಸ ಸುವmದರ ಮೂಲಕ ಸ ಾHರ ೆ_ .ಾಗೂ eಾ>ಂr ಗE:ೆ ವಂa0 ಅಕ5ಮ 3ಾಭಗEಸುವ ಉ@ೆAೕಶ .ೊಂ;, .ೊಂ;
ಆYೋfಗಳ ಇ#ೕ$ %ೆ ಾ&ಲ(ೕ ಕಂಪO>ಟQ BಾC ನ ಸ ಾH ಾT|ಂC ಗಳನು&
}ೋ%ಾ ತ[ಾರು )ಾb ಾt-2
ಾt ಮತು 3 ರವ :ೆ )ಾYಾಟ )ಾbದುA ಅಲ@ೆ ಧ
ಸ ಾH ಕ{ೇ ಗಳ ನಕ 0ೕಲುಗಳನು& ತ[ಾರು )ಾb ಅಕ5ಮnಾ7 ಸ ಾH ಾ>ಂC
ಗಳನು& .ಾಗೂ @ಾಖ3ಾKಗಳನು& ಸುಳ ~ ಸೃಷT+ೆ )ಾb .ೆakನ 3ಾಭ ೆ_ )ಾYಾಟ )ಾb ಸ ಾHರ ೆ_ ಅಕ5ಮ ನµÀÖ ಮತು ವಂಚ+ೆ )ಾbರುವmದು ತI}ಾ ಾಲದ ಸಂಗ5X0ದ ಾtಗEಂದ .ಾಗೂ @ಾಖ3ಾKಗEಂದ ದೃಢಪಟT #ೕYೆ:ೆ ಸ 0ದ @ೋyಾYೋಪಣ ಪತ5, ಪತ5 µÀgÁ:-
1) ಸದ ಆYೋfಗಳ Mಾವm ¸ÀÈಷT+ೆ )ಾbರುವ @ಾಖ3ಾKಗಳನು& [ಾವ [ಾವ ಸ ಾH ಕ{ೇ ಗE:ೆ .ಾಗೂ eಾ>ಂಕುಗE:ೆ ಸ 0 ವಂಚ+ೆ )ಾbರುMಾYೆ ಎಂಬ ಬ:ೆ .ೆakನ ತI}ೆ )ಾಡeೇ ಾ7ರುತ@ೆ.
2) ಸದ ಪ5ಕರಣದ ತI}ೆಯು eಾ€ ಇದುA, ಇತYೆ ಾt@ಾರರು. ಆYೋfತರು, @ಾಖ3ೆಗಳ ಮತು ಾtಗಳ ಲಭ>nಾದ ಕಲಂ173(8) 0.ಆQ.f.0.ಯಂMೆ .ೆಚುkವ @ೋyಾYೋಪಣ ಪತ5ವನು& ಸ ಸ3ಾಗುವmದು, ಆದA ಂದ ಪ5ಕರಣದ ತI}ೆಯನು& ಮುಂದುವYೆಸಲು ಅನುಮK Iೕಡಲು )ಾನ> +ಾ>[ಾಲಯ ೆ_ Inೇ;0 ೊಂbರುತ@ೆ."
(Emphasis added) What is depicted in the charge sheet is that the petitioner along with accused Nos.1 to 3 have indulged in duplication of -8- NC: 2024:KHC:42528 CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023 Government seals, stamp paper and are alleged to have caused huge loss to the exchequer of the State and, therefore, are alleged of offences under Sections 255, 256, 258, 420, 467 and 468 of the IPC. The offences alleged against all the accused are undoubtedly against the State. The role of the petitioner is vividly stated. It is not that he is not involved in the crime. He is prima facie involved with accused Nos.1 to 3, in the offences so alleged. The petitioner, therefore, is required to face a full-
blown trial and come out clean in the same, as there is ample evidence and documents that would pin the petitioner down along with others. Interference at this stage despite the issue, shrouded with seriously disputed questions of fact and the offences being grave, would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - (2021) 9 SCC 35, wherein it has held as follows:
"9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the -9- NC: 2024:KHC:42528 CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023 independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [RadheyShyam Guptav. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation. Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in DineshbhaiChandubhai Patel [DineshbhaiChandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104: (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42528 CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023 9.2. In DhruvaramMurlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191:
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: 1992 SCC (Cri) 426], it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686: (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94], Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87: (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337: (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173], referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 MsMamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27-10- 2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to MsMunni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42528 CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023 has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation.
11. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42528 CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023 quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [RadheyShyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."
(Emphasis supplied) In the light of the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitioner and prima facie finding the role of the petitioner being present, there is no warrant of interference with the proceedings. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-
blown trial.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:42528 CRL.P No. 12661 of 2023
8. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no merit in the petition, the petition is rejected.
All pending I.As'. are disposed, as a consequence.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4 CT:SS