Bangalore District Court
Sri. M.R. Swaminathan vs Smt. Veena S.P on 29 April, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE LXII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-63), BENGALURU.
DATED: THIS THE 29th DAY OF APRIL, 2015
PRESENT
SRI. S. SHANTHAVEER B.A., LL.B. (Spl.)
LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.222 OF 2015
APPELLANT SRI. M.R. SWAMINATHAN
S/O LATE M.C. RUDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO. 38,
1ST CROSS, 'B' STREET,
EAST LINK ROAD,
MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
(By Sri Bhaskar Babu H.J.
Advocate)
Versus
RESPONDENT SMT. VEENA S.P.
D/O SRI. S.M. PARAMESHWAR
W/O M.S. RAVISHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO. 2B,
2ND FLOOR, H.V.S. HOMES-5,
15TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM,
BANGALORE - 560 003.
(By Sri. J.K.N. Advocate)
2 Crl.A.222 / 2015
JUDGMENT
The appellant has preferred this appeal seeking direction to the trial court to dispose off the application filed by the appellant under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. as early as possible in accordance with law and then proceed with the regular case.
2. The appellant is the father of Sri. M.S. Ravishankar, who is respondent in C.Misc. No. 174/2011 filed by the respondent in this case. The marriage of the respondent with M.S. Ravishankar was solemnized as per the Hindu norms and rites on 25.03.1994. Upto 20.12.2001 the respondent and son of the appellant Sri. M.S. Ravishankar lead married life. As a result of such marriage life, daughter by name M.R. Raveena is born on 05.09.1996.
3. The respondent was having illicit relationship with her employer, her thirst for money and her rude and cruel behaviour towards her husband, her daughter, appellant and his wife Smt. Manjula led to the brake 3 Crl.A.222 / 2015 down of relationship between respondent and her husband Sri. M.S. Ravishankar. They were separated on 20.12.2001. Son of the appellant M.S. Ravishankar filed divorce petition in M.C. No. 3776 /2010 before the Family Court, at Bangalore. The respondent appeared before the family Court through her counsel and contested the same by filing objections.
4. The appellant further contended that he came to know from his son that the respondent has filed personal affidavit purported to be sworn by the appellant in support of the respondent before the Court. But the appellant has never sworn any such affidavit. Then he obtained certified copy of the same and came to know that it is a forged document. The appellant sent the document for comparison of signature to Truth Foundation at Hyderabad and got the report that the signature on the personal affidavit dated 28.1.2011 is not the signature of the appellant.
4 Crl.A.222 / 2015
5. The respondent in collusion with the respondents No.2 and 3 have forged the signature of the appellant on the alleged personal affidavit and produced the same in the proceedings between Ravishankar and respondent before the various courts. She is falsely alleging that it is sworn by the appellant. But the appellant has never sworn any such document before any Notary. The respondent with malafide intention to get favourabe order from the court has prepared and concocted such personal affidavit. Based on such forged document the respondent obtained interim order of maintenance from the lower court. The said personal affidavit is also marked in the evidence before the lower court on 11.01.2013 as Ex.P1.
6. The appellant after coming to know about the fabrication of false document, by respondent and her advocate and Oath Commissioner has filed criminal case against the respondent before the VIII ACMM, Bangalore in PCR No. 1838 / 2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 466, 470, 471 r/w 5 Crl.A.222 / 2015 Section 34 and 120B of IPC. The complaint came to be referred for investigation to the jurisdictional Police Station.
7. On 24.02.2014 the appellant filed an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. against the respondent before the trial court to take appropriate legal action against the respondent. But till today the trial court has not taken any action on the said application. The appellant further contended that he has adopted his grand daughter as his daughter by way of registered Adoption Deed dated 01.04.2002 as the respondent was not taking care of the child. The respondent suppressing the adoption had field application seeking maintenance for herself and grand daughter Raveena, which is nothing but misleading the court. Presently, respondent is having illegal custody of the child. The wife of the appellant also filed an application under Section 12 and 18 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, for short 'PWDV Act'.
6 Crl.A.222 / 2015
8. The appellant further contended that till today the trial court has not passed suitable orders on the application filed by the appellant under Section - 340 of Cr.P.C. for forging and concocting the document i.e. personal affidavit. Hence, the appellant is before this court seeking direction to the trial court to dispose of the application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. at the earliest.
9. On service of notice the respondent has appeared through her counsel and filed objection to the appeal contending that the appeal is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to say that only to harass the appellant, his son and others the respondent is resorting to file the petition before the court. The respondents admits filing of this application in M.C. No. 3776 / 2010, but she contended that appellant himself has sworn the affidavit in support of the respondent. Now in order to help his son i.e. husband of the respondent, the appellant has come up with this appeal by filing an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. before the trial 7 Crl.A.222 / 2015 court. The appellant till today has no interest in looking after the minor grand daughter. The respondent has not sought for maintenance with regard to her daughter. This appeal is filed only to avoid payment of maintenance to the respondent by the son of the appellant. This application is filed to harass the respondent. Hence, the same is liable to be rejected.
10. Along with the objection the respondent has also filed documents with list. With the consent of both the sides LCR was dispensed with.
11. Heard both the sides. Perused the records.
12. The following points arise for the consideration of the court :-
1) Whether this court needs to issue direction to the trial court to dispose off the application under section 340 of Cr.P.C. at the earliest?
2) What order?
13. The findings of the court on the aforesaid points are as under :
Point No.1:- In the Negative, 8 Crl.A.222 / 2015 Point No.4:- As per final order for the following:
REASONS POINT NO.1:
14. The learned Advocates for the appellant and respondent have argued as per their appeal and objection respectively.
15. The court is of the opinion that a perusal of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. clearly goes to show that if during the course of enquiry or trial the court comes to the conclusion that witnesses or parties to the proceedings have committed an offence under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. in relation to the proceedings before the court, the court has to make record of the same and finding to that effect and make complaint thereof in writing and send to the Magistrate of the First Class. The trial court has to take sufficient security for appearance of the accused before such Magistrate. And if the alleged offence is non- bailable the said accused may be taken into custody by such magistrate or he can bound over to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. It also provides for 9 Crl.A.222 / 2015 course of action to be taken by the trial court, if such complaint is not filed.
16. This provision makes it clear that the trial court on the application made by the party or suo-moto can initiate action for offence under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. But the trial court has to satisfy itself regarding genuineness of forgery of the document. In this case no doubt, the appellant has produced copy of the report given by the Truth Foundation, Hyderabad stating that the signature found on the alleged personal affidavit is not the signature of the appellant. But the respondent has also produced report from the very same Truth Foundation of Hyderabad stating that the signatures on personal affidavit are the signatures of the appellant himself. Considering this divergent report of the same Laboratory with regard to the signatures, the trial court has to consider the same on merits by recording the evidence. And after hearing both sides the trial court can pass any orders on the application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C filed by the appellant.
10 Crl.A.222 / 2015
17. No doubt, the appellate court can issue direction to the trial court to dispose off the application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. at the earliest. But this court is of the opinion that it is nothing but multiplicity of proceedings and the trial court can very well dispose off the main matter along with application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. during the final judgment. The trial court can dispose of the same expeditiously by giving priority to this case. Further this court is of the opinion that the appellant in collusion with his son to avoid payment of interim maintenance the appellant might have filed this appeal. Hence there is no necessity to issue direction to the trial court to dispose the application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. However, considering the pendency of Crl. Misc. Petition No.174 of 2011 filed under Section 12 of the PWDV Act this court can give direction to the trial court to dispose of the matter within six months from the date of receipt of this order. Hence point No.1 is answered in NEGATIVE.
POINT NO.2:
11 Crl.A.222 / 2015
18. For the aforesaid reasons the following.
ORDER The Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant U/Sec.341 of Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the Crl.Misc.Petition No.174/2011 within six months from the date of this order.
Send a copy of this judgment to the trial court, forthwith.
(Dictated to the Judgment, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015) (S.Shantaveer) LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru 12 Crl.A.222 / 2015 29.04.2015 Appellant by BBHJ Respondent by JKN For Orders Judgment pronounced in the open court. (Vide separate Judgment) ORDER The Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellant U/Sec.341 of Cr.P.C is hereby dismissed.
However, the trial court is directed to dispose of the Crl.Misc.Petition No.174/2011 within six months from the date of this order.
Send a copy of this judgment to the trial court, forthwith.
(S.Shantaveer) LXII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-63), Bengaluru 13 Crl.A.222 / 2015