Karnataka High Court
Yalappa And Ors vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 25 June, 2021
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200399/2021
BETWEEN:
1. Yalappa S/o Rajappa Surapur,
Aged about 67 years,
Occ : Retd. Govt. Employee,
R/o Ashwath Narayan Temple,
Uppar Wadi, Sindhanoor,
Tq : Sindhanoor, Dist : Raichur.
2. Venkatesh Gasti S/o Narasappa Gasti,
Aged about 53 years, Occ : Barber,
R/o 1st Main Road, Indra Nagar,
Sindhanoor, Tq : Sindhanoor,
Dist : Raichur.
3. N.Ramesh S/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 40 years, Occ : Advocate,
R/o Ward No.6, Katibase,
Near V.V.Temple, Sindhanoor,
Tq : Sindhanoor, Dist : Raichur.
4. Suresh S/o Yankanna Adoni,
Aged about 40 years,
Occ : Grinding Works,
R/o 1st Main Road,
Sri Laxmi Venkatesh Nilaya,
Indra Nagar, Sindhanoor,
Tq : Sindhanoor, Dist : Raichur.
2
5. Venkanna S/o Vekataramappa,
Aged about 63 years, Occ : Barber,
R/o 1st Main Road,
Sri Laxmi Venkatesh Nilaya,
Indra Nagar, Sindhanoor,
Tq : Sindhanoor, Dist : Raichur.
6. Vijaya Surya S/o Satyanarayana,
Age : 43 years, Occ : Barber,
R/o Adarsha Colony,
Near Sai Baba Temple,
Sindhanoor, Tq : Sindhanoor,
Dist : Raichur.
7. Balu S/o Anjanayalu,
Age : 38 years, Occ : Barber,
R/o Laxmi Camp, Maski Road,
Sindhanoor, Tq : Sindhanoor,
Dist : Raichur.
8. Jayaram S/o Narayanappa,
Age : 43 years, Occ : Barber,
R/o 1st Main Road, Indra Nagar,
Sindhanoor, Tq : Sindhanoor,
Dist : Raichur.
9. Raghavendra S/o Shivappa Bagalkot,
Age : 40 years, Occ : Barber,
R/o Near K.E.B. PWD Camp,
Sindhanoor, Tq: Sindhanoor,
Dist : Racihur.
10. Ambaresh S/o Mudakappa Alabanur,
Age: 55 years, Occ : Gun Man,
S.B.I.Sindhanoor,
R/o Adarsha Colony,
Near Sai Baba Temple,
Sindhanoor, Tq : Sindhanoor,
Dist : Raichur.
3
11. Ramakrishna S/o Narasappa Gasti,
Age : 50 years, Occ : Barber,
R/o K.H.B Colony, Hutti Road,
Near H.Pampapathi Advocate House,
Sindhanoor, Tq : Sindhanoor,
Dist : Raichur.
... Petitioners
(By Sri Vedavyas Ashrit, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Through Raichur West Police Station,
Raichur
Represented by Addl. SPP,
Kalaburagi.
2. Hadapad Samaj, Sindhanoor,
By its President
Shankarappa S/o Basappa Karadoni,
Age : 61 years, Occ : Barber,
R/ Mahaboob Colony,
Ward No.22, Sindhanoor,
Tq : Sindhanoor, Dist : Raichur.
... Respondents
(By Sri Gururaj V.Hasilkar, HCGP for R1;
Sri Mahantesh Patil, Advocate for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C praying to quash the impugned passed by the
Principal JMFC, Raichur dated 07.04.2018 at Annexure-H,
directing registration of criminal case and issuance of
process against the petitioners in respect of Crime
No.91/2015 of Raichur West Police Station registered for
the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468, 471
read with Section 34 of IPC in C.C.No.502/2018.
4
This petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, 'Cr.P.C') for quashing the impugned order passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Raichur dated 07.04.2018 in P.C.No.90/2015 (C.C.No.502/2018) whereby he has taken the cognizance of the matter as per private complaint lodged by respondent No.2-complainant under Section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C against the present petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC').
2. The facts leading to the case are that the respondent No.2-complainant has filed a private complaint against the present petitioners alleging that initially they had formed a Savitha Samaj Kshaurika 5 Sangh and it was renamed as Hadpad Samaj in the year 2007. It is further alleged that the present petitioners showing the dead person Gavi Siddappa as the President, got documents created and filed an application for renewal of the Sangh from time to time with an intention to usurp the assets of Hadapad Samaj. The learned Magistrate has recorded the sworn statement of complainant and also marked as many as 132 documents as Ex.C1 to Ex.C132. The sworn statement was also recorded from time to time and sworn statement of two witnesses also came to be recorded. Initially, the matter was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation but, the Investigating Officer has submitted a 'B' final report. The same was challenged by the respondent No.2- compaliannt by filing a protest petition and he has led the sworn statement of himself and two witnesses. Then the learned Magistrate after hearing the 6 complainant, by his elaborate order dated 07.04.2018 issued process against the present petitioners with a direction to register criminal case against them in Register-III against accused Nos.1 to 11. This order is being challenged in this petition.
3. The learned counsel has argued that the learned Magistrate without appreciating the contents of the complaint and without applying the mind has issued the process. He would further submit that the complaint allegation does not make out any ingredients of the case as alleged in the complaint and as such, the learned Magistrate ought to have rejected the complaint. He further asserted that the application submitted for renewal and one Gavi Siddappa was shown to be dead only and there is no misrepresentation on behalf of the petitioners. He further asserted that he had already filed a suit for declaration and matter is already seized in Civil Court 7 and is of civil nature. He further asserted that the ingredients of offence under Section 415 of IPC so as to attract the offence under Section 419 of Cr.P.C is not at all made out and as such, he sought for quashing the proceedings on the ground that it is a abuse of process of law.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant resisted the petition on the ground that the petitioners Savita Samaj was registered in 1984 and from 1994-1995 onwards it was in dormant state though it was registered and all the accounts were manipulated at a time and audit report is of the year 2001. He would further submit that the audit reports itself are forged documents, created for the purpose of registration of the society and thereby the petitioners have played fraud in order to engulf the property of the society- Hadapad Samaj, Sindhanoor. He would also submit that he has already 8 filed a detail written statement in the civil suit and prima facie there is material evidence and hence, he has sought for rejection of the petition.
5. Per contra, the High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that the Investigating Officer has already submitted a 'B' final report and the State has nothing to do.
6. Having gone through the arguments advanced by both the parties and material produced before the Court, it is evident that the Savitha Samaj Kshaurika Sangh was registered in 1984. It is also evident that till 1994-95, it was active and thereafter it was dormant. Further the documents disclose that out of 9 Executive Members, 7 Members have already died and no steps were taken to incorporate the other Members. Even the President was reported to be dead but, there was no resolution as to who was adopted as a President and why the other Members were not 9 incorporated after the death of 7 Executive Members of the Society.
7. It is also an undisputed fact that a property was gifted by Kaveri Finance to Savitha Samaj Kshaurika Sangh. Certain donations were also given to the society for construction of Samudaya Bhavan.
8. In the meanwhile, in 2007 the Hadpad Samaj came to be registered. It is also evident from the records that it was registered independently. Now the respondent No.2-complainant asserts that the Savitha Samaj Kshaurika Sangh was merged and renamed as Hadpad Sangh. But the records does not substantiate this contention.
9. It is also now evident that the gifted property and other properties owned by Savitha Samaj Kshaurika Sangh were transferred in the name of Hadapad Samaj Society. The mode of transfer is also unknown and any how the civil suit is pending 10 before the Civil Court in this regard and rights of the parties are required to be decided by Civil Court in the pending civil matter.
10. In the instant case the allegations are regarding manipulation of the documents, forgery of the accounts etc., Whether Savitha Samaj Kshaurika Sangh was converted into Hadapad Samaj Society and whether the documents have been forged or manipulated including the accounts is a issue for consideration but, a mini trial cannot be held under Section 482 of Cr.P.C in the proceedings before this court. The order copies produced before this court does establish that as many as 132 documents have been produced before the Trial Court including the accounts statement and audit reports pertaining to Savitha Samaj Kshaurika Sangh. The genuineness of the documents is required to be tested and sworn statement is also recorded. The learned Magistrate 11 has prima facie appreciated the documents vide his order dated 07.04.2008 and issued the process. He has also observed that all the resolutions and audit reports are said to have been created, in the year 2001 pertaining to period from 1995 to 2001 and it was only referred in the audit report dated 20.06.2001. All these aspects are required to be appreciated after verification of the records in detail and that exercise cannot be done in an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C by this Court. Hence, question of interference at this juncture does not warrant. However, the parties are at liberty to seek appropriate order before appropriate Court during the course of the evidence, if any new material is placed before the Court. Hence, at this juncture petition is devoid of any merits and interference at this stage is unwarranted.
12
11. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the petitioners have never appeared before the Trial Court and summons is being un- served. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are prepared to appear and request that time frame can be fixed for recording the evidence. The submissions in this regard appears to be fair and hence, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
However, the petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Magistrate in the pending criminal case and learned Magistrate after appearance of the petitioners, shall take up the matter at the earliest and he shall dispose off the matter within an outer limit of one year from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order/appearance of petitioners. 13
In view of dismissal of the petition, the application-I.A.No.1/2021 filed for stay, does not survive for consideration. Hence, the said application also stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sn