Karnataka High Court
Smt. Hanumamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 February, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.210/2018
BETWEEN
1 . SMT. HANUMAMMA
W/O BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT KALIKAMBA BEEDI,
SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE,
CHENNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE-577 002
2 . SMT GOWRAMMA
W/O KEMPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
R/AT KALIKAMBA BEEDI,
SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE,
CHENNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE-577 002
3 . THIPPESWAMY T
S/O KAMPALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT KALIKAMBA BEEDI,
SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE,
CHENNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE-577 002
4 . RAMESHA R
S/O RAJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT KALIKAMBA BEEDI,
SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE,
2
CHENNAGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE-577 002
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRASAD B S, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
SANTHEBENNUR POLICE STATION
CHANNAGIRI
DAVANAGERE-577 002
REP. BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560 001
2. T O MANJUNATH
S/O LATE BALALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT SHIVAGANGA COLONY,
SANTHEBENNURU,
CHANNGIRI TALUK,
DAVANAGERE-577 002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SANTHOSH S NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.56/2017
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
J.M.F.C., CHENNAGIRI, DAVANAGERE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The second respondent lodged the first information report against the petitioners on the basis of an endorsement given by the Deputy Tahsildar alleging that though there was no mutation proceedings conducted during the period 2003 to 2005, the petitioners by creating mutation entry have got entered their names in the record of rights as legal representatives of his deceased grand father.
2. The police registered the case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police after investigation, filed the charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 420 and 167 read with Section 34 of IPC. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would make the following submissions:
The second respondent after instituting a suit in O.S.No.9/2013 to declare that he is the owner of the 4 properties in question, lodged the FIR and the allegations made in the first information report are purely civil in nature and does not disclose the commission of offences as alleged against the petitioners. The mutation entry was effected in favour of the petitioners in the year 2003-2004. The documents annexed to this petition clearly disclose that the mutation proceedings were conducted during the period 2003-04 and 2004-05, which falsify the allegation of the second respondent that no mutation proceedings were conducted during the period 2003-04 and 2004-05. The alleged incident has taken place in the year 2003. However, the first information report was lodged by the second respondent after a lapse of more than 12 years, without offering any plausible explanation for the delay in lodging the first information report.
4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that the mutation entry effected in favour of the petitioner was created and the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar clearly discloses that no mutation proceedings were conducted for the period 2003-2004 and 2004- 2005 and as such, the police have registered the FIR for having 5 created the mutation entry alleged to have been effected during 2003-2004. Hence, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. On the basis of the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar stating that no mutation proceedings were conducted for the period 2003-2004, the 2nd respondent lodged the FIR against the petitioners alleging that the petitioners have created the mutation entry though no such mutation proceedings were conducted during the said period. The police on the basis of the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar filed the charge sheet against the petitioners for the offences alleged against them.
6. The petitioners have produced a copy of the order dated 22.12.2003 passed by the Tahsildar and also the mutation extract relating to other transactions, which pertain to the period 2003-2004, which clearly falsifies the allegation that no mutation proceedings were conducted during the period 2003-04. Hence, the filing of charge sheet on the premise that no mutation proceedings conducted for the period 2003-04 is contrary to the documents annexed to this petition, which clearly establish that 6 the mutation proceedings were conducted during the said period. The 2nd respondent has filed a suit in O.S.No.9/2013 for declaring that he is the owner of the properties in question, which implies that the FIR was lodged as an afterthought so as to pressurize the petitioners. Even otherwise, the entries were effected in favour of the petitioners since 2003-2004 till today. The FIR was lodged after about 12 years without offering any explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. Hence, the allegations made in the FIR is unfounded and the charge sheet filed against the petitioners is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) Criminal petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in CC No.56/2017 pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Chennagiri, Davanagere is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KG/BKM