Karnataka High Court
Sri N E Swamy vs State Of Karnataka By on 14 October, 2020
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
Crl.P.No.5290 of 2020
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5290 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI N.E.SWAMY
DEED WRITER
SON OF LATE ERA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/A VASUVE GANGANAKOPPA
VILLAGE, HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.KALYAN KUMAR.H.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
HOSANAGARA POLICE
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI SHASHIKUMAR
S/O RAJENDRAPPA GOWDA
46 YEARS
SARALI, NAGAR HOBLI
HOSANAGARA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R-1)
-----
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.12/2020 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S.419, 420, 463 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE
Crl.P.No.5290 of 2020
2
PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC COURT, HOSANAGARA,
SHIMOGA DISTRICT AND REGISTERED BY HOSANAGARA POLICE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. Seeking two weeks' time to comply with office objections, Sri.Kalyan Kumar.H.S., learned Counsel for the petitioner requests this court to take up this matter pending such compliance due to the urgency. Accepting the said request, the matter is taken up.
2. Petitioner is before this court seeking for quashing of the FIR in Crime No.12/2020 registered by the Hosanagara Police for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420 and 463 of the IPC, now pending on the file of Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and J.M.F.C.Court, Hosanagara, Shimoga District.
3. The said FIR was registered pursuant to the complaint in P.C.R.No.19/2020 filed by respondent No.2 for the aforesaid offences. In the compliant it is alleged that the petitioner, who claims to be a Crl.P.No.5290 of 2020 3 Deed Writer, having a Deed Writing Licence has drafted a document. A suit was filed challenging the same. In the said suit, the petitioner admitted that as on the date of drafting of the document, he did not have a licence. In view thereof, the proceedings are initiated against the petitioner as aforesaid.
4. Sri.Kalyan Kumar.H.S., learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had a Deed Writing Licence until 31.03.2010 and subsequently he had applied for renewal thereof. During the pendency of the said application, the drafting had been done. Subsequent to the said date, there was a bar as regards issuance of Deed Writing Licence and as such, the licence was not renewed and in pursuance of the orders of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.1778-1800/2010 & connected appeals dated 3rd March 2011, the licence came to be renewed from 31.03.2013 onwards. Relying on the said decision Crl.P.No.5290 of 2020 4 of this court, he submits that that the orders of not granting Deed Writing Licence having been questioned, it is deemed that the petitioner has a licence during the period when he drafted the document and on this ground he submits that the entire P.C.R., which is a motivated private complaint on which basis FIR has been registered, is required to be quashed.
5. Per contra, Smt.Rashmi Jadhav, learned HCGP would submit that as on the date of drafting of the document, there was no licence in favour of the petitioner; the licence expired on 31.03.2010 and it came to be renewed only on 31.03.2013 i.e., from 31.03.2010 to 31.03.2013, there was no licence.
6. The document admittedly was drafted on 31.01.2011. The contentions of the petitioner as regards deemed renewal, etc., are not the matters, which could be adjudicated by this court in a proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. The same are more in the nature of defence, which are Crl.P.No.5290 of 2020 5 required to be established by the petitioner during the course of trial. Hence, taking into consideration the above submission made by the learned HCGP, I am of the considered view that the contentions taken up by the petitioner are in the nature of defence and the documents at present produced indicate that he had no licence as on the date of drafting of the document. As such, it is not a fit case to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
7. The petition is dismissed before issuance of notice to respondent No.2. So also I.A.No.1/2020 is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KNM/-