Karnataka High Court
Gangasingh vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 9 September, 2020
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200051/2018
Between:
Gangasingh S/o Jayasingh Rajput
Age: 33 years, Occ: Business
R/o Nagur Road, Basavana-Bagewadi
Dist. Vijayapura - 586 203
... Petitioner
(By Sri R.S. Laglai, Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka
Through the PSI, Adarsh Nagar PS, Vijayapura
Rep. by the Addl. State Public Prosecutor
High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench
2. Anjana D/o Hirachand Porwal
Age: 56 years, Occ: Household work
R/o Sankeshwar Residency, Plot No.22
3rd Floor, Mahaveer Colony
Vijayapura - 586 103
Currently R/o Oswal Tower
Building No.4, B Wing, Plot No.207
Karigaon BP Road, Baidur East
Thane Rural, Maharashtra - 400 601
... Respondents
(Sri Sharanabasappa M. Patil, HCGP for R1;
Sri Ameet Kumar Deshpande, Adv. for R2)
2
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to allow the petition and thereby quash the
order of taking cognizance and issue of process dated
06.07.2015 by the IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Court,
Vijayapura in C.C.No.2254/2015 (arising out of Adarsh
Nagar PS, Crime No.64/2014) for the offences punishable
under Sections 419 & 420 of IPC and also quash all further
proceedings thereto against the petitioner.
This petition coming on for further arguments this
day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.4 has filed the present petition invoking the inherent powers of this court vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the order of taking cognizance and issuance of process dated 06.07.2015 by the IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC Court, Vijayapura in C.C.No.2254/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 is the owner of land bearing RS No.539/2A-1B 3 measuring 5 Guntas & 8 Anas situated in Mahalbhagayat near Town Place Hotel, Athani Road, Vijayapura and she had purchased the said piece of land on 20.10.2008 from one Hasan S/o Abudl Kadar Kaladagi of Vijayapur for a valuable consideration of Rs.3,00,000/- through registered sale deed and then got the said land converted for commercial and non- agricultural purpose. When this being the fact, on 02.06.2014, when respondent No.2 intended to take loan from the bank on the said land, applied for Encumbrance Certificate at Sub-Registrar Office, Vijayapura and much to her surprise and shock found that that the said land was purchased by accused No.1 Surayya W/o Mohd. Iqbal Gudnal by way of registered sale deed dated 26.04.2014 by impersonating some other person as respondent No.2 and executing the sale deed in favour of accused No.1. Further, it is stated that the petitioner herein and other accused persons were hand in glow with the said illegal sale transaction. 4 Further, it is alleged that another instrument styled as Possession Certificate dated 14.05.2014 has been created in favour of accused No.7 Najamunnisa Begum W/o Abdul Gani Jambagi by impersonating someone else as respondent No.2 has also been executed with respect to the very same land with the assistant of accused Nos.8 to 10 showing that the said land was sold to accused No.7 by respondent No.2. Therefore, with these allegations, complaint is lodged before the police and based on the said complaint a case is registered in Crime No.64/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 470, 471, 420 r/w Section 149 of IPC.
3. After registration of the crime, investigation was started and after investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against the petitioner and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC.
5
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is no way concerned with the alleged offence and his name is not found in the FIR, but the petitioner's name is shown in the charge sheet as accused No.4. Therefore, he submitted that when there is no allegation against the petitioner, then without there being any reason, arraigning the petitioner as accused No.4 is abuse of process of the court. Therefore, he prays to quash the criminal proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned. He further submitted that in the complaint some other name is stated, but in the charge sheet petitioner's name is shown as accused No.4. The petitioner is not resident of Vijayapur and he is the resident of Basavana Bagewadi and he is no way concerned to the said illegal transaction urged in the complaint and the petitioner is completely alien to the said accusations, but he was wrongly implicated as accused. Therefore, he prays to 6 quash the proceedings insofar as the petitioner is concerned.
5. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1- State submitted that during the course of investigation it is revealed that the petitioner had involved actively in collusion with the other accused in the said illegal transaction of the offence of fabricating the documents, forgery and cheating. Therefore, upon the evidence collected, the petitioner is arraigned as accused No.4. He further submitted that the person stated in the complaint at Sl.No.4 is none other than the petitioner herein and both names are pertaining to the same person, who is none other than the petitioner herein. Therefore, he submitted that the prosecution has sufficient material and prima facie case to proceed with the trial as against the petitioner and other accused also. Therefore, he submits that the petition is liable to be dismissed.
7
6. On the other hand, leaned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant submitted that the petitioner and the other accused have conspired to each other and have shared common object in furtherance of commission of offence alleged and thus, committed the offence of cheating by creating forged documents. Further, he submitted that the person shown at Sl.No.4 in the complaint is the same person that of the petitioner herein and thereafter ascertaining the correct name of the petitioner, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet arraigning the petitioner as accused No.4. Therefore, when the prima facie materials are there showing the complicity of the petitioner into the crime along with other accused, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance and issuance of process. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the petition. 8
7. It is the main submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the name of the petitioner is not found in the complaint, but it suddenly appeared in the charge sheet as accused No.4, the petitioner is completely alien to the present alleged transaction and is falsely implicated into the crime. Further, it is submitted that the person named at Sl.No.4 in the complaint is not the petitioner herein and both are different, but any how the petitioner's name is roped into the alleged crime, for which he has submitted a certificate of 'Banker's Verification Form' issued by the Kotak Mahindra Bank, which shows the petitioner's name and signature which is different from the alleged sale deed. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioner is not the person, who had involved into the alleged crime. Considering these submissions, whether the petitioner is involved in the alleged crime or not cannot be decided only on the basis of the certificate of 'Banker's Verification Form' stated to have been issued by Kotak 9 Mahindra Bank. Whether there is complicity of the petitioner into the crime or not can be decided during the trial. If at all it is the contention of the petitioner that the person named at Sl.No.4 in the complaint is different and petitioner is different, but this aspect cannot be decided in the present petition, because it is a fact in issue to be adjudicated before the Trial Court. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate in taking cognizance and issuing process against the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be reserved a liberty to urge all the contentions urged in the present petition before the Trial Court at the stage of framing charge as well as in the trial. Therefore, the petitioner is reserved liberty to urge all the contentions, grounds urged in the present 10 petition as well as whatever urged during the oral arguments, before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of charge/discharge.
With these observations, the petition is disposed off.
In view of disposal of the main petition, I.A.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG