Karnataka High Court
J. Rasaranjan And Anr. vs State By Ulsoorgate Police And Anr. on 26 August, 2002
Equivalent citations: ILR2002KAR4451, 2002(5)KARLJ419
Author: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
Bench: N.S. Veerabhadraiah
ORDER N.S. Veerabhadraiah, J.
1. The petition is under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. by the petitioners for quashing of the FIR registered in Crime No. 248 of 2002, on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City, for the offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC.
2. The brief facts are as follows.--The respondent 2-M. Narayan Das filed a complaint against the petitioners-J. Rasaranjan, Smt. J. Mahishree and Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan alleging that he is the owner of the land in Survey No. 66 of Sarakki Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, situated in Ward No. 57 of Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, totally measuring about 25,188 sq. ft. He learnt that some third parties are trying to get the khatha transferred in their names in the records of Mahanagara Palika. On enquiry, he learnt that his relatives by name J. Rasaranjan and Smt. J. Mahishree who have no manner of right, title and interest over the property filed application for transfer of khatha in their name. Immediately, he submitted his objections to the Assistant Revenue Officer, by letters dated 25-7-2001 and 28-7-2001 with a request not to change khatha in their name. He also learnt that J. Rasaranjan and Smt. J. Mahishree have produced a fabricated partition deed dated 4-5-2001 in respect of Survey No. 66 of Sarakki Village for getting the khatha changed in their name. The very same persons have filed O.S. No. 6083 of 2000 for partition in respect of Survey No. 66 and is pending before the City Civil Court. The accused have resorted to a fraudulent act to knock off the valuable property belonging to him. It further came to light that they fabricated two sale deeds in favour of J. Rasaranjan and Smt. J. Mahishree and tried to project it as if that he had executed the sale deeds through his G.P.A. holder Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan. The said sale deeds dated 9-10-2001 are wholly fabricated and concocted in order to cause wrongful gain for themselves. Immediately, he filed O.S. No. 11 of 2002 to restrain the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike from changing the khatha of the property in Survey No. 66 in favour of J. Rasaranjan and Smt. J. Mahishree. In the said suit, the petitioners have contended that they have become the owners of the property by virtue of the said two registered sale deeds dated 9-10-2001. The complainant has not executed any documents in favour of any person. The accused have concocted, fabricated and forged his signature and brought into existence the documents like:
(a) G.P.A. dated 21-10-1989 executed in favour of Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan;
(b) An absolute sale-cum-receipt-cum-possession certificate dated 21-10-1989;
(c) An affidavit bearing the date 21-10-1989 purported to have been sworn to by him, by forging the signature and have manipulated the documents and made interpolations and got up the agreement of sale bearing the date 18-2-1988, wherein there are several other interpolations and a sketch has also been fabricated and fraudulently annexed. The stamp paper used on the agreement does not appear to be genuine and the dates on which they have been issued seem to be tampered. They have also made it appear as if they had purchased the stamp paper, which is totally false. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police Inspector of Ulsoorgate Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 248 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC, forwarded the FIR to the Court of VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City. The accused persons were arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate on 31-5-2002 and released on bail. It is insofar as registering of FIR is concerned, is questioned in the present petition.
3. The learned Counsel Sri Anant Mandgi contended that the complainant Narayan Das and Smt. J. Nirmala are the brother and sister. The petitioner-Rasaranjan is the son of Smt. J. Nirmala whereas, Smt. J. Mahishree was the wife of Udayan, the second son of Smt. Nirmala and Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan is the daughter of Smt. Nirmala. The complainant being a younger brother of Smt. Nirmala entered into an agreement dated 18-2-1988 with Nirmala in respect of Survey No. 66 of Sarakki Village, measuring 30,000 sq. ft. The two sons of Nirmala are by name Rasaranjan and Udayan. During the lifetime of Nirmala and her second son Udayan, he executed an absolute sale-cum-receipt-cum-possession certificate dated 21-10-1989, put them in possession of the disputed property, in which it has been specifically stated that the complainant Narayan Das had received an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-under the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988 and also received the balance amount of Rs. 1,85,000/- under this document and on the same day, Narayan Das has also executed an affidavit duly sworn to before the Notary and the same is attested by the Advocate by name Shri Riyaz Ahmed Sharif. That apart, the complainant has also executed a G.P.A. dated 21-10-1989 in the presence of the Notary in favour of Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan who is none else than his sister's daughter. The learned Counsel contended that the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988 makes clear that he has received an amount of Rs. 1,00,0007- from his sister Smt. Nirmala describing the boundaries of the properties by annexing the sketch and thereafter an affidavit dated 21-10-1989, and an absolute sale-cum-receipt-cum-possession dated 21-10-1989 came to be executed. The G.P.A. dated 21-10-1989 came to be executed by Narayan Das in favour of the respective parties. The learned Counsel vehemently contended that in fact, the trouble started on the death of his sister Smt. Nirmala. Though the complainant has parted with the disputed property in favour of these petitioners, it is with an intention to harass, cheat and coerce them, the present complaint came to be filed after lapse of 14 years. Secondly, he contended that after the absolute sale-cum-receipt-cum-possession certificate dated 21-10-1989 was executed, they have applied for licence to Village Panchayat of Sarakki, wherein the Village Panchayat sanctioned licence to put up construction in the area of 50 sq. ft. The Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, has also permitted to take electric connection and the same is dated 30-3-1994, Accordingly, the petitioners have put up construction of a house in the area of 50 sq. ft. and that even the house-warming ceremony also took place on 30-10-1994, wherein the complainant Narayan Das also attended the house-warming ceremony. It is only after the death of Smt. Nirmata, in respect of their mother's share in the remaining property held by the complainant Narayan Das, the petitioners filed O.S. No. 6083 of 2000 for the partition and separate possession. The learned Counsel further contended that the petitioner 1-Rasaranjan has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,42,500/- towards betterment charges, whereas the petitioner 2-Smt. J. Mahishree has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,37,370/- in respect of her share for change of khatha from the Mahanagara Palike. The learned Counsel nextly contended that in pursuance of the G.P.A. executed in favour of Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan by the complainant Narayan Das that she executed two sale deeds in favour of the accused 1 and 2 which is in accordance with law. It is also contended that in the complaint no where it is stated anything about the contents of the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988 or regarding receiving an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from his sister Nirmala. It is only after the death of the complainant's sister, he filed O.S. No. 11 of 2001 for the relief of permanent injunction before the City Civil Court, Bangalore. But, after perusing the records as the complainant could not able to get an order of injunction in respect of the property, to take revenge and to harass the petitioners, filed a false complaint that too before the police who have no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint itself, though the property in question is situated at Jayanagar and the parties also reside at Jayanagar and as a personal vendetta, filed the said complaint. Lastly contended that it is very clear from the pleadings in O.S. No. 4833 of 2002 filed by the complainant Narayan Das against these two petitioners seeking for the relief of declaration and for possession of the suit property with consequential relief, which establishes the fact that the complaint filed is nothing but the abuse of the process of law. The police though did not have any authority whatsoever to apprehend the accused persons, at the instance of the complainant, arrested them, produced them before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and were released on bail.
The learned Counsel further contended that from the documents executed by Narayan Das and also from the civil suits pending, it reveals that the entire transaction is of civil in nature. From the very complaint it makes out that none of the ingredients of Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120B are made out and the complaint came to be filed with mala fide intention to harass the petitioners to knock off the property. The learned Counsel in support of his contention relied on the decisions in Kunstocom Electronics (India) Private Limited v. Gilt Pack Limited and Anr., , Dr. (Mrs.) Sandhya Jain v. Dr. Subhash Garg and Anr., , Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors. v. Shitul H. Chanchani and Anr., and Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Surendra Prasad Sinha, contending that judicial process should not be an instrument of suppression or the needless harassment, wherein the very registering of the case is nothing but abuse of process of Court and this complaint is initiated with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance. Therefore, prayed to quash the FIR and the complaint registered by the Police, Ulsoorgate, who have no jurisdiction.
4. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State contended that on the complaint of Narayan Das, the Ulsoorgate Police registered a case in Crime No. 248 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 468, 471 and 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC and arrested the accused persons on 31-5-2002 and produced them before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore City and also filed the affidavit of the Police Inspector namely, Shri Marigouda to that effect.
5. The learned Counsel Shri M.N. Nehru for respondent 2 contended that the complainant is the owner of the land in Survey No. 66 of Sarakki Village, measuring to the extent of 25,188 sq. ft. and that he was expecting change of khatha in his name and also filed the applications on 25-7-2001 and 28-7-2001 to that effect. It is in the meanwhile, that the accused persons have created a false partition deed dated 4-5-2001 between accused 1 and his family members including the property in Survey No. 66 even without showing as to how they derived title to the property and made an attempt to cause wrongful loss. In the partition deed they have not mentioned as to how they have acquired the property and in spite of it, on the basis of the partition deed, they have made an application to Mahanagara Palike. This shows that the accused persons have no right, title and interest over the property and they have forged and fabricated the documents as if it appears that Narayan Das executed the documents in favour of the accused persons. Nextly, contended that the accused 1 filed O.S. No. 6083 of 2000 in respect of Survey No. 66 of Sarakki Village, which is the family "property of the complainant Narayan Das. Even in the said suit, nothing is there to show what is the extent of land in Survey No. 66 and the extent of the area excluded. Further, contended that the accused persons have resorted to another act of fraud to knock off the valuable properties by fabricating two sale deeds in favour of Rasaranjan and Smt. J. Mahishree, alleged to have been executed by Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan in the capacity of G.P.A. holder of the complainant Narayan Das though he has not executed any document as such dated 21-10-1989. The signature in the affidavit dated 21-10-1989 and the signature in the absolute sale-cum-receipt-cum-possession certificate dated 21-10-1989 as well as the signature in the G.P.A. dated 21-10-1989 are all forged. However, the learned Counsel Shri M.N. Nehru admitted the execution of the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988 and receiving an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-from his sister Smt. Nirmala in respect of the property in Survey No. 66 of Sarakki Village as stated in paragraph 1 of the agreement of sale.
Insofar as paragraph 2 of the agreement of sale is concerned, it is contended that the last four lines in the agreement of sale are interpolated by adding it subsequently and the sketch is also not correct, whereas, one of the witnesses namely, Shri Gurudas, the complainant's brother has stated that it is a forged document. On a perusal of the possession certificate, the affidavit and G.P.A., it shows that it is nothing but concoction and are all forged documents. Thereby it is clear that the complainant has made out a prima facie case and filed a complaint before the Ulsoorgate Police who took cognizance. Therefore, when the matter is under investigation, the Court should not interfere to quash the proceedings. In support of his contention, relied on the decision in the case of Satvinder Kaur v. State (Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) and Anr., and contended that though the Ulsoorgate Police Station have no jurisdiction, nothing prevents the complainant to file a complaint and the police cannot refuse to record the FIR for want of territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, justified the registration of the complaint by the Ulsoorgate Police Station. Also relied on the decision in M. Krishnan v. Vijay Singh, contending that it is only in case if the FIR does not disclose the commission of offence then the Court can exercise its jurisdiction to quash the proceeding's, but in this case, there are prima facie materials against the petitioners. Further, relies on the judgment in Trisuns Chemical Industry v. Rajesh Agarwal and Ors., wherein it is held that the FIR cannot be quashed on the ground that the authority has no territorial jurisdiction. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the criminal petition.
6. In the light of the submissions, the point for consideration that arises:
"1. Whether the complaint of Narayan Das is frivolous, vexatious and false thereby registering of the case by the Ulsoorgate Police Station in Crime No. 248 of 2002 amounts to abuse of process of law and liable to be quashed?
'2. Whether the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for quashing of the proceedings of registering a case in Crime No. 248 of 2002? What orders?"
7. It is time and again, the Apex Court has held that the criminal proceedings should not be quashed at a preliminary stage, while the investigation is in progress or on the ground that the parties have a civil remedy. Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. reads thus:
''Section 482.--Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice".
Where the Court comes to the conclusion from the materials placed that, that the initiation of the very criminal proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law, then to prevent such abuse, it is open for the High Court to interfere with such proceedings and quash it. With this background, the materials placed in the present case have to be looked into and the submissions of the learned Counsels have to be carefully analysed. Before considering the complaint filed by Narayan Das and also the alleged documents that have been made available on which the petitioners-accused are relying, it is necessary for this Court to bear in mind the principles laid down from time to time.
8. In the case of Sunil Kumar v. M/s. Escorts Yamaha Motors Limited and Ors., it is held as follows:
"Bearing in mind the law laid down by this Court in the cases referred to earlier and the contentions raised by the learned Counsels appearing for the parties and on examining the allegations made in the FIR, we are persuaded to accept the submission of Mr. H.N. Salve and Mr. Arun Jaitley, appearing for the respon-dents that the necessary ingredients of the offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust have not been made out and on the other hand, the attendant circumstances indicate that the FIR was lodged to pre-empt the filing of the criminal complaint against the informant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The High Court, therefore, was well-within its power in quashing the FIR as otherwise it would tantamount to an abuse of the process of Court. We, therefore, see no justification for our interference with the impugned decision of the High Court in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution".
It is with this reasoning the Apex Court came to the conclusion that the FIR was lodged to pre-empt the filing of criminal complaints.
9. In the case of Kunstocom Electronics (India) Private Limited, supra, at the end of paragraph 8 thus observed:
"But allowing the criminal proceeding to continue even where the allegations in the complaint petition do not make out any offence would be tantamount to an abuse of the process of Court, and therefore, there cannot be any dispute that in such case power under Section 482 of the Code can be exercised".
10. It is also held that even in the case of M. Krishnan, supra, at paragraph 5 thus observed:
"Accepting such a general proposition would be against the provisions of law inasmuch as in all cases of cheating and fraud, in the whole transaction, there is generally some element of civil nature. However, in this case, the allegations were regarding the forging of the documents and acquiring gains on the basis of such forged documents. The proceedings could not be quashed only because the respondents had filed a civil suit with respect to the aforesaid documents. In a Criminal Court the allegations made in the complaint have to be established independently, notwithstanding the adjudication by a Civil Court. Had the complainant failed to prove the allegations made by him in the complaint, the respondents were entitled to discharge or acquittal but not otherwise. If mere pendency of a suit is made a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings, the unscrupulous litigants, apprehending criminal action against them, would be encouraged to frustrate the course of justice and law by filing suits with respect to the documents intended to be used against them after the initiation of criminal proceedings or in anticipation of such proceedings. Such a course cannot be the mandate of law. Civil proceedings, as distinguished from the criminal action, have to be adjudicated and concluded by adopting separate yardsticks. The onus of proving the allegations beyond reasonable doubt, in a criminal case, is not applicable in the civil proceedings which can be decided merely on the basis of the probabilities with respect to the acts complained of. The High Court was not, in any way, justified to observe:
"In my view, unless and until the Civil Court decides the question whether the documents are genuine or forged, no criminal action can be initiated against the petitioners and in view of the same, the present criminal proceedings and taking cognizance and issue of process are clearly erroneous" ".
In the case supra, it is pleaded that the documents are forged. In the present case also, it is the allegation that the accused persons have forged his signature. It has to be examined whether the signature of the complainant has been forged or not by reading of the documents. Therefore, each case has to be examined on its own facts and circumstances of the case. With this background, now I proceed to examine the materials on record.
11. It is an admitted fact that the complainant Narayan Das and Smt. Nirmala are the brother and sister. The petitioner 1-Rasaranjan is the son, whereas, the petitioner 2-Smt. J. Mahishree is the daughter-in-law of the complainant's sister Smt. Nirmala. Another accused namely, Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan is the sister's daughter of the complainant. In the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel Shri M.N. Nehru fairly admitted as far as execution of the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988. But his contention is that the last four lines in 2nd paragraph were interpolated to reveal as if the possession has been handed over in favour of Rasaranjan and Udayan, the sons of Smt. Nirmala. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel Shri M.N. Nehru, it is necessary to incorporate the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988:
"This agreement of sale of property made by and between Shri M. Narayana Das, S/o late Shri M. Kadarappa aged about 65 years, Proprietor of Poorna Horticulture, residing at his farmhouse on the 47th Cross, VIII Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, hereinafter called the vendor and Smt. J. Nirmala, d/o late Shri J.S. Rouses-sau aged about 69 years, residing at No. 199, Gandhi Bazaar, Basavanagudi, Bangalore - 560004, hereinafter called the 'vendee'. That the vendor is the absolute owner of a major portion of property in Sy. No. 66 of Sarakki Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The vendor to attend to his personal commitment and to improve his business in horticulture has, from time to time, raised an amount of Rs. 1 lakh from the vendee, on condition that the vendor shall sell the schedule property morefully described in the annexed sketch marked as A.B.C.D.E.F., bearing Survey No. 66 of Sarakki Village of Uttarahalli Hobli, leaving the area marked as E.F.G.E. to be donated to a registered Trust of the members of Obalappa family for running a Public Hospital.
This agreement of sale is entered on the 18th of February, 1988 and possession of the schedule property is handed over to Smt. J. Nirmala and her two sons Shri J. Rasaranjan and Shri J. Udayan".
12. By reading of paragraph 1 it reveals that the complainant Narayan Das received an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- and the documents were executed by this Narayan Das in favour of his sister Smt. Nirmala in respect of the property morefully described in the sketch shown as A.B.C.D.E.F. in Survey No. 66 of Sarakki Village, excluding other portions marked in E.F.G. From this paragraph the date cannot be made out as to when it is executed but the same is found in the second paragraph and in this paragraph it is made clear that the possession of the property has been handed over to Smt. Nirmala and her two sons namely, Rasaranjan and Udayan. Therefore, the contentions that this paragraph is interpolated cannot be accepted at all. When once the complainant admits the agreement is dated 18-2-1988 and the same is being found in the second paragraph, it is rather difficult to accept that this is an interpolation. It is also pertinent to note that one of the witnesses namely, R. Devarshitha, the complainant's brother's son has sworn to an affidavit admitting the execution of the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988. If really the paragraph 2 in the said agreement of sale were to be an interpolation, the Schedule shown in the second page ought to have been found immediately after first paragraph itself. Therefore, the contention that paragraph 2 is an interpolation cannot be accepted. That apart, the signatures found in the 1st page and also in the second page of the agreement fully tallies with the signature found in the vakalath and also in other documents. By these documents itself it can be said that this is only "an act of the complainant to force, compel and as a measure of vindictiveness to coerce the petitioners, the present complaint came to be filed to knock off the property, having received a considerable amount".
That apart, the complaint came to be filed after lapse of 14 years from the date of execution of the agreement of sale. The complainant having very well aware of the fact of the construction of the house by his sister in the very same property and he having attended the house-warming ceremony which is evidenced from the photographs, having kept quiet all along suddenly rushed with a complaint after the death of his sister Smt. Nirmala denying the very execution of the documents contending that the documents are all forged by the present accused persons. It is only a false theory to pre-empt with an ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance.
13. It is the contention of the learned Counsel Shri M.N. Nehru that the complainant has not executed any affidavit dated 21-10-1989, so also the absolute sale-cum-receipt-cum-possession certificate dated 21-10-1989 as well as that he has not executed any G.P.A. dated 21-10-1989 in favour of Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan who happens to be his sister's daughter in respect of the suit schedule property. That on a perusal of the Schedule described in the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988 and the Schedule found in the absolute sale-cum-receipt-cum-possession certificate so also in the G.P.A. is one and the same. It is the contention of the learned Counsel Shri M.N. Nehru that the sketch annexed to agreement of sale is fabricated. But, the complainant having admitted the recitals of paragraph 1 in the agreement of sale and the description of the property that is found in the sketch annexed to fully tallies with the agreement of sale, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel Shri M.N. Nehru that the documents are fabricated are without any force. It is pertinent to note that the affidavit on a stamp paper of Rs. 5/- is purchased in the name of Narayan Das on 20-10-1989 and the same is executed before the Notary namely, B. Vishweshwar Rao, Bangalore, on 21-10-1989. So also the G.P.A. dated 21-10-1989 on the stamp paper of Rs. 23/- is also executed before the Notary on the same day, i.e., on 21-10-1989. In this regard, the learned Counsel Shri Anant Mandgi has produced a certificate issued by the Notary Shri B. Vishweshwar Rao which reads as follows:
"This is to inform that the below mentioned documents dated 21-10-1989 were notarised by me in my office at Bangalore, on the same day in the presence of Shri M. Narayan Das and I am here- . with endorsing my signature:
(1) Affidavit given by Shri M. Narayan Das. (2) G.P.A. given by Shri M. Narayan Das in favour of Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan".
14. Thus, it makes clear that the complainant Narayan Das has executed an agreement in favour of his sister Smt. Nirmala as well as her sons namely, Rasaranjan and Udayan and received an amount of Rs. 2,85,000/- in respect of the disputed property. So also, it is clear from the G.P.A. that he has authorised his sister's daughter Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan to deal with the property. When the complainant Narayan Das having sworn to an affidavit before the Notary that too the said documents are all dated 21-10-1989, that it is not open for him to give a go-by to the said documents after lapse of fourteen years. It is only in pursuance of G.P.A. that Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan executed the sale deeds in favour of Rasaranjan and Smt. J. Mahishree dated 9-10-2001 evidences the fact that the accused persons are in possession of the property. On a perusal of the signature found in the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988, affidavit dated 21-10-1989, absolute sale-cum-receipt-cum-possession certificate dated 21-10-1989 as well as the G.P.A. executed in favour of Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan dated 21-10-1989, the signatures found in the above documents fully tallies with the admitted signatures found in the vakalath and other documents. On a comparison of the signature found on the admitted documents with that of disputed documents, it is impossible to say that the documents are forged. In view of the fact that the documents have been executed, Shri Devarshitha, the brother's son of the complainant has sworn to an affidavit before the Notary stating that the complainant has executed the said agreement, so also the Notary has issued a certificate regarding the execution of the affidavit dated 21-10-1989 and G.P.A. dated 21-10-1989 in favour of Smt. Niranjini Srinivasan, that apart, the Advocate Shri Riyaz Ahmed Shariff has also given a certificate stating that Narayan Das has executed the affidavit and G.P.A. dated 21-10-1989 and that he identified his signature on both the documents. Therefore, it has to be held that lodging of the complaint is only an afterthought and is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court.
15. In the light of the circumstances of the case, it is relevant to mention that after the death of Smt. J. Nirmala, the petitioners have filed the suit for partition against the complainant on 7-9-2000 and the same is numbered as O.S. No. 6083 of 2000, which fact is not in dispute. Thereafter, the complainant filed O.S. No. 11 of 2002 during the month of January 2002 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of the portion of the property in Survey No. 66 in Items 1 and 2 measuring 12,825 sq. ft. and another item measuring 12,363 sq. ft., wherein the Civil Court, even refused to grant temporary injunction. It is immediately thereafter, the complainant Narayan Das approached the Station House Officer, Ulsoorgate Police Station, Bangalore City, and lodged a complaint on 27-5-2002. It is also pertinent to note that even after filing of such complaint, Narayan Das filed O.S. No. 4833 of 2002 for declaration of his title, possession and for consequential relief in respect of the property measuring 12,825 sq. ft. and another property measuring 12,363 sq. ft., the area which is shown in the agreement of sale dated 18-2-1988 and as marked in the sketch at AB.C.D.E.F. in Survey No. 66, this being a portion of the land covered under the above documents. When once it is found that the complainant is not in possession, it is not open for him to contend that the documents are forged. Therefore, the very registration of the case and forwarding the FIR and arresting the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of Court which this Court is entitled to invoke Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. for quashing the proceedings.
16. It is relevant to mention that the Police Inspector of Ulsoorgate Police Station filed the counter-affidavit as follows:
I, Marigowda M.G., S/o Goligowda, aged 52 years, Police Inspector, Ulsoorgate Police Station, Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
1. I am the 1st respondent in the above petition and I am authorised to swear this affidavit by way of counter-affidavit since I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The above petition is filed against the respondents for quashing the FIR No. 248 of 2002, on the file of the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. I submit that one Mr. M. Narayan Das has filed a complaint before me on 27-5-2002 at 1730 hours and I have registered a case in Crime No. 248 of 2002 punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the IPC against the petitioners and another.
3. I submit that after investigation, I have arrested the accused persons on 31-5-2002 at 1255 hours and on the same day itself I have produced the accused persons before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. If I committed any error kindly excuse and hereinafter 1 will be careful as I did not transfer the complaint to the jurisdiction of the J.P. Nagar Police Station.
Whatever contentions stated above is true and correct".
From this also it is clear that he ought to have transferred the file to the jurisdictional police, whereas, the complainant has managed to get the accused persons arrested through Ulsoorgate Police Station to victimise wreaking vengeance which is nothing but the abuse of process of the Court.
17. It is no doubt true that the Court should not meticulously examine the records when the matter is yet to be investigated but it is one of the unfortunate cases wherein, on going through the records, it reveals that the Narayan Das managed to file a false complaint when all the matters are pending before the Civil Court that too after lapse of fourteen years by suppressing the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of his sister Smt. Nirmala by receiving an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which fact is not in dispute. For the foregoing reasons, the act of the Police Officer in registering the case and apprehending the accused persons is only a wreaking vengeance and to help the complainant. On a careful examination of the materials placed on record, it prima facie shows that the complaint of Narayan Das is nothing but vexatious, frivolous and false, thereby liable to be quashed.
18. Therefore, the criminal petition is allowed by quashing the very registration of the complaint and FIR in Crime No. 248 of 2002 by the Ulsoorgate Police Station. On going through the materials on records, I feel that it is a fit case to levy cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the complainant Narayan Das for having managed to get the accused persons arrested by foisting a false and vexatious complaint, which shall be paid to the petitioners.