Karnataka High Court
Sumana Paruchuri vs Jakka Vinod Kumar Reddy on 21 October, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3575 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SUMANA PARUCHURI
D/O LATE NEKKANTI VENKAT RAO
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 512Z, ROAD,
NO.29, JUBILEE HILLS
HYDERABAD, TELANGANA - 500 033.
2. MR. NEKKANTI VENKAT RAO,
S/O SRI. LATE VENKATANARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 33-10-13
"SHARADA VILLA", SRINIVASA RAO
STREET, SITARAMAPURAM
VIJAYAWADA - 520 002.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI ROHAN VEERANNA TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
JAKKA VINOD KUMAR REDDY
S/O LATE J.NARASIMHA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
ZERENE VILLAGE,
HOUSE NO. 63/116
2
PHUTTAMONTHON
SAI -3 ROAD, BANGKOK
THAILAND - 10160.
REPRESENTED BY POWER OF
ATTORNEY HOLDER
MR. JAKKA KIRAN REDDY
S/O LATE JAKKA SRIDHAR REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDING AT
FORTUNE INDIRA VILLA
NO.24, SAROJINI NAGAR, GUTTALA
BEGUMPET, MADHAPUR
HYDERABAD - 500 081.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI DILJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI RAJENDRA S., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO a. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.03.2022
(ANNEXURE-A) AND ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF I
ADDL.C.J.M., BENGALURU RURAL IN C.C.NO.7805/2022
(PCR.NO.108/2020) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 208, 209, 210, 203,
120B, 420, 120A, 378 AND 425 OF IPC; b. QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 17.05.2021 (ANNEXURE-B) ORDER DATED 28.02.2022
(ANNEXURE-C) AND ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF I
ADDL.C.J.M., BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
P.C.R.NO.108/2020 (C.C.NO.7805/2022).
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in C.C.No.7805 of 2022 arising out of P.C.R.No.108 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Sections 208, 209, 210, 203, 120B, 420, 120A, 378 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code and have sought for other consequential benefits.
2. Heard Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Diljit Singh Ahluwalia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Brief facts that lead the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:-
Though the daughter and the father have preferred this criminal petition, it is virtually the grievance of the 1st petitioner and accordingly the 1st petitioner will be referred to as the petitioner in this order. The petitioner claims to have earlier married 4 one Paruchuri Srinivas and the couple were residing at United States of America and also claims to have two children from the said wedlock. It is the averment that subsequent to the birth of the son, the husband began addicted to alcohol and started abusing the petitioner and ultimately threw her out from the matrimonial home, as a result of which, the petitioner has come back to India along with her son. It is contended that from out of the savings she purchased two immovable properties at Bangalore - one at Kannamangala and the other at Whitefield and has also a property at Hyderabad. In the year 2003, it appears that the husband of the petitioner came down to India and started residing with the petitioner. Again it appears that the husband began to behave abusing her.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that being unable to bear the torture she filed a divorce petition against her husband in O.P.No.220 of 2006 before the Family Court at Hyderabad. The said petition was allowed and a decree of divorce came to be granted in favour of the petitioner. During all these proceedings the petitioner was a tenant in the premises belonging to the 5 respondent herein. During the period when the husband of the petitioner was trying to usurp the properties of the petitioner, it is contended that the respondent offered to help the petitioner if the properties are transferred to his name and the name of his brother and assured that he would ultimately re-convey the same in the name of the petitioner.
5. The averment is that she transferred the properties belonging to her at Kannamangala and Whitefield in favour of the brother of the respondent in terms of two sale deeds dated 17-01-2006 and 19-01-2006. The brother of the respondent gifted the Whitefield property to the respondent on 04-08-2008 and the respondent sells Kannamangala property for a sum of Rs.9.9 crores and shows a receipt of only Rs.2.9 crores and transfers Rs.2.9 crores to the name of the petitioner. On 14-08-2007 the marriage of the petitioner and her husband dissolved by a decree of divorce being executed before the Family Court at Hyderabad.
6. Long after the said divorce, the petitioner marries the respondent who according to the petitioner was himself a divorcee. 6 The petitioner contends that the respondent also began to torture her. In the year 2015 the respondent registers a civil suit in O.S.No.499 of 2015 for permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from interfering with his possession of the Whitefield property. The said suit comes to be dismissed on 25-02-2022 for want of maintainability. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondent appears to have left for Bangkok with his daughter from the first marriage and his mother. In the year 2019, the petitioner files a suit in O.S.No.1632 of 2019 before the competent civil Court for permanent injunction restraining the respondent from alienating the Whitefield property. The said suit was withdrawn with liberty and a new suit was filed in O.S.No.1648 of 2019 seeking to restrain the respondent from entering into the property. This suit also comes to be dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that the suit for bare injunction could not be maintained by the petitioner.
7. During the pendency of those suits, since the respondent failed to re-convey the properties at Whitefield and Kannamangala as was promised, the petitioner files a complaint before the Police at Hyderabad in Crime No.742 of 2019 and a petition filed by the 7 respondent seeking quashment of entire proceedings before the High Court at Telangana came to be dismissed against which, a Special Leave Petition was preferred and an interim order of stay of all further proceedings before the Court at Hyderabad was granted. The petitioner lodges another complaint in Crime No.488 of 2020 before the jurisdictional police at Hyderabad. This was also challenged by the respondent before the High Court of Telangana and was dismissed. In the SLP against the said order, the Apex Court has stayed all further proceedings in this case as well. Therefore, the proceedings instituted by the petitioner against the respondent before the Courts at Hyderabad have all been stayed by the Apex Court and the matters are pending consideration. The issue herein is not with regard to those cases and cannot be so.
8. The respondent registers a private complaint invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. in P.C.R.No.108 of 2020 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District against these petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 208, 209, 210, 203, 120B, 420, 120A, 378 and 425 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police after investigation file a 'B' report in the matter. The 8 respondent files a protest petition and the learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the petitioners after registering a case in C.C.No.7805 of 2022 for the aforesaid offences. It is the registration of the criminal case and issuance of summons that drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
9. Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that a perusal of the complaint would clearly indicate that it is suffering from such mala fides that would entail its obliteration as none of the offences can even be made out against the petitioners. The complaint narrates certain instances of 03-01-2015 upon which the respondent has filed O.S.No.499 of 2015 and would submit that once the civil proceedings are instituted by the respondent, it was not open for him to set the criminal law in motion against the petitioners. The learned senior counsel would contend with vehemence with regard to the nature in which the proceedings have gone on before the concerned Court which he would submit should be taken serious 9 note of and all further proceedings be quashed on this ground as well.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the respondent would contend that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent involved various cases pending against each other and, therefore, it would become a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean in the proceedings. Insofar as the way in which the orders have been passed by the concerned Court, the learned counsel though justifies the action, but would submit that these are matters of record and fairly submits that he would not submit anything contrary to record.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
12. The afore-narrated link in the chain of events is not in dispute. Several proceedings galore between the two are also not in dispute. One such proceeding was even considered by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3559 of 2022 which was on the same set of 10 facts. This Court has dismissed the said criminal petition in which the petitioner was a party in terms of its order dated 03-09-2022. Therefore, the issue on merits of the matter stands completely covered in an identical petition considered by this Court between the same parties and as such, would not merit any consideration. What merits consideration is the way the competent Court considered the matter.
13. The allegation against the learned Magistrate who had sought to take cognizance of the offence is that the learned Magistrate has deliberately acted in taking cognizance, erasing orders and directing the matter to be posted on certain dates which were not in the order sheet. It is on this allegation, an interim order was passed by this Court staying all further proceedings. The interim order that is granted by this Court reads as follows:
"Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa, appearing for the petitioners and Sri Diljit Singh Ahluwalia, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.
Apart from the merit of the matter which requires consideration at a later date, what needs to be noticed at this juncture is, certain orders passed in the case at hand by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.11
On 28.02.2022, a detailed order is passed issuing summons and directing registration of the crime against accused Nos.1 and 2, returnable by 16.05.2022. Therefore, the matter was to be listed on 16.05.2022. The order dated 28.02.2022 reads as follows:
"Office to register it as criminal case in register No.III and issue summons to the accused Nos.1 and 2, returnable by 16.05.2022.
Complainant is directed to pay the necessary process fee."
On 25.03.2022, though the matter was not listed, the order so passed on 28.02.2022 is modified and the modified order reads as follows:
"Perused the charge sheet material submitted by I.O. Prima facie case is made out. Hence, cognizance for the offences punishable U/Sec.208, 209, 210, 203, 120B, 420, 120A, 378, 425 of IPC is taken. Office to register Criminal Case in register No.III against accused No.1 and 2.
Issue summons to the accused No.1 and 2.
Call on 16/05/2022.
Sd/-25/3
ACIM, Bengaluru"
It is not in dispute that the matter was not listed before the Court on 25.03.2022 as both the learned counsel appearing for the parties would endorse such non-listing, but the order (supra) springs on the said date. On that date, the matter is again directed to be called on 16.05.2022.
On 16.05.2022, the Presiding Officer, a signatory to the earlier orders was not sitting. The counsel on record has filed an affidavit enclosing documents to demonstrate the fact that the Presiding Officer was not sitting on 16.05.2022.
The respondents have filed the statement of objections which appends to it an order dated 16.05.2022 by the very learned Judge who was not sitting on that date, as the signatures even to the bare eyes breed similarity. On 16.05.2022, a judicial order dated 12 25.03.2022 is struck off by scratch marks on the order and a further order is passed which reads as follows:
"Sri.S.R.Advocate files vakalath for complainant along with no objection from earlier counsel for complainant. S/S issued to A-1 is duly served and postal cover of A-2 has been returned unclaimed which is deemed service. A-1 and A-2 are called out. Absent. Hence, issue NBW to A-1 and A-2.
Call on 11.07.2022.
Sd/- 15.06.2022"
What would emerge from the order that is passed is, a judicial order is struck off by scratch marks on the order recklessly and a further order is passed issuing NBW to accused Nos.1 and 2 and the date on which it is supposed to have been signed is 15.06.2022 which date we are yet to arrive at and the matter is adjourned to 11.07.2022.
What would unmistakably emerge from the perusal of the records as quoted hereinabove is, there is something more than what meets the eye, which requires appropriate explanation by the said learned Judge.
The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would at this juncture submit that the register maintained before the Court would demonstrate certain tampering and later writing issue NBW just below the said tampering.
Therefore, further proceedings in C.C.No.7805/2022 pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru qua the petitioners shall remain stayed, till the next date of hearing.
In the light of the afore-quoted stubborn facts as obtaining in the order sheet maintained by the Court, I deem it appropriate to direct the Registry to secure the entire records concerning the case pending on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru forthwith, on telephonic instructions.
13
The learned Judge who has transgressed his jurisdiction in the light of the events quoted hereinabove is required to explain as to how such orders have emerged despite him not sitting on a particular date and the allegation of tampering of judicial records.
The Registrar-Judicial, is therefore, directed to call for explanation from Sri. B.Chennappa, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru with regard to the observations made in the course of his order, in the next three days and the learned Judge shall reply to the same within one week thereafter. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the Registry for action to be taken forthwith.
Heard in part.
List the matter on 27.06.2022."
In terms of the aforesaid order, this Court has called for explanation from the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate has also offered his explanation. The explanation and its aftermath have been dealt with separately. But, the issue remains that on 28-02- 2022 a detailed order is passed issuing summons and directing registration of crime against the petitioners 1 and 2 which were directed to be returned by 16-05-2022. Therefore, the matter was listed on 16-05-2022. Though the date 16-05-2022 was yet to approach, the order dated 28-02-2022 is modified by taking up on 25-03-2022 when the matter got listed. On 16-05-2022 when the matter was listed before the Presiding Officer who was signatory to the earlier orders both 28-02-2022 and 25-03-2022, there was no 14 sitting. Documents are placed to demonstrate that there was no sitting. On 16-05-2022 strangely a judicial order passed on 25-03- 2022 is struck off drawing lines by pen and a further order is passed. What further shocking is that the judicial order is struck off and a further order is made issuing NBW to accused 1 and 2 by signing the order dated 15-06-2022 and the matter is adjourned to 11-07-2022. As on the date the order was signed it was still 01-06-2022 and the date 15-06-2022 was yet to arrive. Therefore, there has been blatant mischief and non-application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate/Presiding Officer who is considering the subject case.
14. In the light of the afore-quoted interim order and the narration, the unmistakable inference would be that the learned Magistrate will have to now consider the entire material post the filing of 'B' report, the protest petition and then pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, failing which, all the actions of the learned Magistrate would become validated by an order of the Court when those acts cannot be countenanced. Therefore, without going into the merits of the matter as to whether the offence against the 15 petitioners is made out or not or the complaint suffers from the vice of any improbability or otherwise, the learned Magistrate shall now apply his mind to the case at hand, consider the 'B' report filed by the Police, protest petition filed by the respondent and pass appropriate orders, which would demonstrate action of judicious mind and not take recourse to such reckless orders earlier passed. While doing so, the age of the 2nd petitioner who is now said to be 80 years old shall be borne in mind qua the offences alleged against him.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed in part.
(ii) Orders dated 28-02-2022, 25-03-2022 and 15-06-2022 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore Rural District in PCR No.108 of 2020 are quashed.16
(iii) The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law and regulating its further proceedings.
(iv) The concerned Court shall bear in mind the observations made in the course of this order while implementing what is observed supra.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ