Karnataka High Court
Puttaraju vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 801, 2018 (3) AKR 569, 2018 (4) KCCR SN 395 (KAR)
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8686/2015
BETWEEN:
PUTTARAJU
S/O LATE JAYARAJU
AGE 46 YEARS
RESIDING AT MANGALA VILLAGE
HANUR HOBLI, KOLLEGAL TALUK
CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT
PIN CODE-571 443 ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI ASHOK N. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPTD., BY HANUR POLICE
NOW REPTD., BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
2. RAYAPPA
S/O CHIKKAHONGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
RESIDENT OF HARIJANABEEDI
MANGALA VILLAGE, HANURU HOBLI
KOLLEGAL TALUK
2
CHAMARAJANAGARA
DISTRICT-571 443 ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANDESH J. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R1;
SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE/QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
24.07.2014 AND FIR IN CR.NO.92/2014 DATED
24.07.2014 UNDER SECTIONS 181, 419, 420, 468 R/W 34
OF IPC IN CR.NO.92/2014 REGISTERED BY THE HANUR
POLICE, IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Though the case is posted for admission, the respondent No.2 has filed an IA.No.1/2018 for vacating stay. In view of the above such circumstances, both the Counsel have submitted the arguments on merits of the case. Therefore, the matter is heard on merits and disposed of.
2. The petitioner has challenged an initiation of criminal proceedings by registering an FIR in Crime No.92/2014 dated 24.7.2014 against him on the basis of the information given by respondent No.2 herein for the 3 offences punishable under Sections 181, 419, 420, 468 read with Section 34 IPC. At the threshold, an FIR was called in question and this Court has granted an order of stay.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contends before this Court that, the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser having purchased the property from one Ramaswamy under a registered Sale Deed dated 17.11.2009. Respondent No.2, in fact being aggrieved by the said transaction, has already filed a suit in O.S.No.235/2009 on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn), Kollegal against the petitioner and as well as the said Ramaswamy. The petitioner has entered appearance in the said suit and filed his written statement and the matter is pending for consideration. In fact, this respondent No.2 has filed a complaint before the police earlier on 26.12.2013 and the police have issued an endorsement and the matter is of civil nature and therefore they have to take appropriate measures before 4 the Civil Court. The said order appears to have been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.30003/2014 and the said writ petition was dismissed as it does not survive for consideration in view of the police subsequently registered the present FIR in Crime No.92/2014. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, when the civil matter is pending between the parties all the disputes can be thrashed out in the said case itself. Moreover, there is no dispute between Ramaswamy, the person, who executed the Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner as the true owner of the said property.
4. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that, merely a suit is pending, a person committed any offence under criminal law is not completely absolved, criminality has to be tested on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case; if criminality is established on the allegations and acts having any bearing with regard to the criminality of the petitioner herein, then there is no bar to investigate and 5 file proper report to the Court. In the above said background, the Court has to see whether, there is any bar for the purpose of investigating the matter when criminal offences are specifically alleged and particularly when the allegations constitute the offences alleged against a particular person.
5. In this regard, it is worth to refer a decision of the Apex Court reported in (2015)9 SCC 647 in the case of Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam and others, wherein, the Apex Court has observed that:
"Quashing of criminal proceedings, when not warranted, Civil and criminal liability principles summarized. It was held by the Apex Court that, if the allegations in the FIR are not found to be frivolous, mala fide or vexatious, then, it cannot be simply quashed for the reason that civil suit is also pending in respect of the same matter. No doubt, where the criminal complaints are filed in respect of property disputes civil in nature only to harass the accused, and to pressurize him in civil litigation pending, and there is prima facie abuse of process of law, it is well within the jurisdiction of the High Court to exercise its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash such proceedings. On facts, it is held that:
FIR was lodged under the provisions of Sections 419, 468, 420, 471 read with 34 IPC against the appellant 6 and others for fraudulently executing a power of attorney by forging signatures of complainant's minor son and other pattedars of land in dispute, and selling it to others. Appellant sought cancellation of FIR contending that there were civil cases pending between the parties and as such criminal proceedings were nothing but abuse of process. High Court dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Appellant suppressed the fact that title suit of appellant was dismissed. Respondents No.3 and 4 had sought cancellation of general power of attorney. Allegations made in FIR disclose that there are serious allegations against appellant and he fraudulently got executed power of attorney - K was minor on the date when power of attorney deed was said to have been signed by him. Respondent No.5, another person, who executed power of attorney, was away from India on the date of alleged execution of the deed. Therefore, the allegations made against the accused are serious. The High Court has rightly dismissed the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C."
6. What emerges from the above decision is that, it is not a Strait Jacket Formula or rule that the Court cannot quash the FIR in respect of civil dispute pending between the parties. What the Court has to see that whether, there is any pinch of criminality is alleged and those allegations attract any serious offences against the person against whom a criminal case has been registered. In such an event, the truth or falsity have to be tested 7 only on the basis of the investigation, that has to be properly done by the police. Therefore, the Court has to examine in each and every case, whether the allegations made in the complaint attract any provisions of law, which are sufficiently serious in nature, which require investigation. In this background, now let me consider the factual aspects of the case.
7. The report lodged by respondent No.2 is produced before this Court registered in Crime No.92/2014 discloses that, respondent No.2 has specifically stated that, the land bearing Sy.No.355/2 measuring 5 acres 10 cents, property of the second respondent, which originally belonged to his grand father by name Chikkamada of Hullepura Village in Hanuru Hobli. The said property was succeeded by the Legal Representatives of late Chikkamada and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property. They were illiterate and they have not made any attempt to change the Khatha in respect of the property. But in the year 2009, when they 8 ascertained from the RTC extract, which being transferred in the name of some other person, then, they inquired into the matter and came to know that one Mr.Ramaswamy s/o. Late Mutta, who is no where connected with the family of the petitioner, has executed a Sale Deed in favour of the petitioner on 17.11.2009. It is contended that the said document is a forged document executed by Ramaswamy, who has no right, title and interest over the property and further it is specifically stated that by means of creating false documents in collusion with the revenue officials, the said Ramaswamy and petitioner have colluding with each other have created such a document i.e., Sale Deed, much against the interest of respondent No.2. It is also stated that the said Ramaswamy does not even belonging to the family of respondent No.2. Therefore, specifically stating that they have hatched conspiracy and in order to harass the respondent No.2, they have created the document by means of forging the documents. Therefore, a criminal complaint came to be lodged. Though, the police have not registered the case earlier, perhaps they have come to 9 know that, the writ petition has been filed for not registering the case, then, they directly registered the case even much before disposal of the writ petition. Perhaps that may be the reason; the writ petition has been dismissed, as has become infructuous.
8. In the light of the above said facts and circumstances, though the Civil case is pending between the parties, criminality of the petitioner has been specifically alleged, serious allegations are made with regard to forgery and cheating. In my opinion, in view of the above said decision of the Apex Court, the investigation cannot be stalled. Ultimately, the truth has to come out whether the said document has been forged, if so, who actually forged the document. If forgery is established, culprit must be punished. If the petitioner has not done any illegal activity, not colluded with anybody, then, the investigation will reveal the same and police would file proper report to the Court. Therefore, no harm or inconvenience or prejudice would be caused to the 10 petitioner, even if the investigation is ordered to be continued.
9. In the above said facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any strong reasons to entertain the petition. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Consequently, IA.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE cp*