Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shricharan vs State Of Karnataka on 21 September, 2022
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018
CRL.P No. 672 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1557 OF 2018
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 671 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 672 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1558 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1559 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1560 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1561 OF 2018
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1562 OF 2018
IN CRL.P.No.1557/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. ANITHA
W/O LATE VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
R/AT HESARUGHATTA RAJANGUNTE
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by POORNIMA
AND:
SHIVANNA
Location: HIGH 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
-2-
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018
CRL.P No. 672 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI. MANJUNATH
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED MAJOR
TAHASILDAR
TALUKA OFFICE YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)
IN CRL.P.No.671/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. ARAVIND T.M.,
S/O. T. MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
R/AT: DODDA TUMAKURA
BENGALURU DISTRICT
NOW AT: NO. 1004
A-BLOCK, GAURI APARTMENT,
NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
-3-
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018
CRL.P No. 672 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018
2. SRI. MANJUNATH
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN FOR THE PETITIONER
AGED MAJOR
TAHASILDAR
TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)
IN CRL.P.No.672/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHRICHARAN
S/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT SINGANAYAKANAHALLI, YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI. MANJUNATH
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED MAJOR
TAHASILDAR
TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA
-4-
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018
CRL.P No. 672 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018
BENGALURU-560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)
IN CRL.P.No.1558/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. LAKSHMI
W/O NARASIMHAMURTHY
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT HESARUGHATTA, RAJANGUNTE
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI. MANJUNATH
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED MAJOR
TAHASILDAR
TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)
-5-
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018
CRL.P No. 672 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018
IN CRL.P.No.1559/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SAVITHA
W/O SANTOSH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
R/AT: HESARUGHATTA, RAJANGUNTE
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI. MANJUNATH
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED MAJOR
TAHASILDAR
TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)
-6-
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018
CRL.P No. 672 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018
IN CRL.P.No.1560/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. KAVITHA
W/O MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
R/AT HESARUGHATTA, RAJANGUNTE
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI. MANJUNATH
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED MAJOR
TAHASILDAR
TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)
IN CRL.P.No.1561/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY
S/O. NARASIMHAIAH
-7-
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018
CRL.P No. 672 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT HESARUGHATTA, RAJANGUNTE
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YELAHANKA POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI. MANJUNATH
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED MAJOR
TAHASILDAR
TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)
IN CRL.P.No.1562/2018
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. RADAMMA
W/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT HESARUGHATTA, RAJANGUNTE
BENGALURU DISTRICT-560064
-8-
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018
CRL.P No. 672 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018
ASLO AT NO.4/1, LAKSHMAIAH BLOCK,
11TH CROSS, GANGANAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560032.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY 1562 POLICE STATION,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU-560 001
2. SRI. MANJUNATH
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN
AGED MAJOR
TAHASILDAR
TALUKA OFFICE, YELAHANKA
BENGALURU-560 064
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHESH SHEETY, HCGP)
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS ARE FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE
COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR DATED 05.1.2018 IN
CRIME NO.2/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 44TH A.C.M.M.,
BANGALORE IN ANNEXURE-A. .
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-9-
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018
C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018
CRL.P No. 672 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018
CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018
ORDER
1. Learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP) accepts notice for respondents in all the matters. Registry is directed to print the name of the learned HCGP, as that appearing for respondents.
2. In all the above matters, petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs (COMMON):
a. Quash the First Information Report dated 05.1.2018 in Crime No.02/2018 pending on the file of the 44th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru vide Annexure-A. b. Grant such other relief/s, pass such other Order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.
3. The allegation is that the petitioners in all the above matters and certain others have created certain documents, obtained a false death certificate from Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018 have grabbed the valuable Government land, as such, committing offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 470, 471 and 474 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Section 192-A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KLR Act' for short).
4. The submission of Sri. A.V.Nishanth, learned counsel for the petitioners is that in a proceeding in W.P.No.50129/2012, the said Narasimhaiah, whose death certificate is alleged to have been forged, had approached this Court challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner and this Court, considering that the Deputy Commissioner did not have power to review his own order, had quashed the said order, allowed the petition and directed the name of Narasimhaiah to be restored in the revenue records.
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018
5. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.178/2016 had dismissed the Writ Appeal on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have exercised his power on the facts and circumstances of the case without giving any opinion on whether the Deputy Commissioner had power to review his own order or not.
6. The matter being taken up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil Appeal) Nos.2847-2489/2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court was of the opinion that there was a lack of proper assistance on the part of the Government authorities in canvassing the case, resulting in neither a Single Judge nor the Division Bench giving its opinion on the power of a Deputy
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018 Commissioner to review his own order and as such, remitted the matter to the Single Judge to do so.
7. Upon such remittal, this court in W.P.No.50129/2012 has allowed the writ petition by quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 06.10.2022 by holding that the Deputy Commissioner would not have the power to review by relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of N. Raghavendra Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka in W.P.No.22658- 22662/2015 and connected matters.
8. In that background, Sri. A.V.Nishanth, learned counsel submits that the orders of review of the Deputy Commissioner having been quashed, the criminal proceedings cannot survive and on that basis, he submits that the above petitions are
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018 required to be allowed and the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed.
9. Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP would however contend that the subject matters of the Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and Civil Appeal are different from that of the criminal complaint. In those matters what was in question was the power of the Deputy Commissioner to review his own order. Whereas in the present complaint, what is in question are the serious offences alleged under Sections 465, 466, 468, 470, 471, 474 read with Section 34 of the IPC as regards the creation of false documents as also an offence under Section 192-A of the KLR Act, 1964 for grabbing the land of the government. The aspect of whether there is any forgery, fabrication of documents is required to be investigated and as
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018 such, he submits that the above petitions are required to be dismissed.
10. Heard Sri. A.V.Nishantha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Mahesh Shetty, learned HCGP for the respondents and perused papers.
11. The conspectus of the proceedings in the Writ Petition, Writ Appeal and Civil Appeal have been stated herein above.
12. A perusal of all the orders would indicate that there is no reference made or discussion as regards any fabrication or forgery of documents. The only question which was involved in those matters was whether the power of review under Section 25 of the KLR Act said to have been vested in the Deputy Commissioner. The power to review or not would
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018 stand on a different footing that the allegations in the compliant as regards the offences of forgery and fabrication of documents. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the said orders would not come to the rescue of the petitioners in the present matters.
13. There being serious offences which have been alleged to have been committed by the petitioners, I am of the considered opinion that unless an investigation is conducted, this Court cannot opine ex-facie as to whether any offences are committed or not, as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 31, this Court ought not to intercede and/or interrupt any ongoing investigation
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 1557 of 2018 C/W CRL.P No. 671 of 2018 CRL.P No. 672 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1558 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1559 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1560 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1561 of 2018 CRL.P No. 1562 of 2018 when this Court is of the opinion that such an investigation is required. Hence, I pass the following:
::ORDER::
1. The Writ Petitions stand dismissed.
2. Liberty is however reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court on a charge sheet being filed.
Sd/-
JUDGE GJM