Karnataka High Court
Sri P Ramaswamy vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 August, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.233 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI P.RAMASWAMY
S/O LATE PILLAPPA @
BIKKALA VENKATANA BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO 3, 1ST CROSS
1ST PHASE, SAI SIDDI APARTMENT
V.R.LAYOUT, J.P.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 078.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MAHESH M.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI N.MANJUNATH
S/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
R/AT VADDARAPALYA VILLAGE
JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 106.
2
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI A.N.RADHAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.214/2019 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 468, 465, 420 OF IPC REGISTERED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT POLICE PENDING BEFORE THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE,
SENIOR DIVISION AND CJM COURT AT ANEKAL, BENGALURU
RURAL DISTRICT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.06.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Crime No.214 of 2019 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Anekal arising out of PCR No.423 of 2019 registered for offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 420 and 120B of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri M.R.Mahesh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri A.N. Radhakrishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
33. Brief facts that lead the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-
The 2nd respondent one Manjunath is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging aforesaid offences. It is the case of the complainant that property in Sy.No.22 (old) and Sy.No.144 (new) measuring 2 acres at Surjukkanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District initially belonged to Bikkala Venkatana Bhovi S/o Venkataswamy Bhovi (hereinafter referred to as 'the grantee') by virtue of grant certificate issued in his favour on 1-10-1952. During the life time of the said grantee, the property was in his exclusive possession and all the records were in the name of the said grantee. The grantee dies and then his legal heir one Pujari Sallapuriyappa acquired right and title in respect of the property in dispute. It is the claim of the complainant that Pujari Sallapuriyappa was an illiterate and he died on 6-03-2019. After his death, the complainant who claimed to be the grandson of the original grantee noticed that the documents regarding the property in dispute which belonged to his grandfather had been changed 4 without his knowledge in the name of the accused. It is then the whereabouts of the accused were traced by the 2nd respondent and all the documents were gathered and then a complaint is registered by invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Magistrate having referred the matter for its investigation, a crime is registered in Crime No.214 of 2019. Challenging the said registration of crime, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complaint was not even maintainable since the matter is purely civil in nature and a civil suit has been filed. The petitioner's father was also known as @ Bikkala Venkatana Bhovi and he was the original grantee and after his death, petitioner is in possession of the land for over 10 years. He would submit that a frivolous complaint is registered against the petitioner to knock off the property that belongs to him. The learned counsel would also submit that he has placed on record certain documents that would go to the root of the matter and demolish the case of the complainant.
55. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner P.Ramaswamy is the President of Jai Bheem Kshemabhivrudhi Sangha ('the Sangha' for short) and using his political clout has generated documents to demonstrate his father's name as Bikkala Venkatana Bhovi and this has to be thrashed out in a full blown investigation or trial; the entertainment of the petition, at this stage of the proceedings, would not be available to the petitioner and would also submit that he has filed a civil suit seeking relief of declaration with regard to the subject property.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and perused the material on record.
7. The complaint registered by the complainant is for offences punishable under Sections 468, 465, 420 and 120B of the IPC.
Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC deal with forgery. Section 465 directs punishment for forgery and Section 468 directs punishment for forgery used for the purpose of cheating. They read as follows:
6"465. Punishment for forgery.-- Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
... ... ...
468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the 3 [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Section 463 of the IPC defines what is forgery. Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document with intent to cause damage to the public or to any person would be committing the act of forgery. Sections 465 and 468 of the IPC are the ones that would make the ingredients of offence of Section 463 of the IPC punishable.
8. To demonstrate the stand of the 2nd respondent in registering the complaint, detailed objections along with documents are filed. The name of the father of the petitioner was Pillappa. To claim the subject land petitioner has added @ Bikkala Venkatana Bhovi which was never the name of his father or his claim in the past. Forgery of documents that are placed by the 2nd respondent could be summarized as follows:
7(i) The petitioner is the President of the Jai Bheem Bhovi Kshemabiruddi Sangha, in which he has shown as "Ramaswamy, P. S/o Pillappa".
(ii) School study certificate issued by Higher Primary School, Indlawadi and in that also the petitioner's name is shown as "P.Ramaswamy, S/o Pillappa".
(iii) Voters list of Jayanagar Assembly Constituency in which the petitioner's name is shown at No.153 as P.Ramaswamy, S/o Pillappa and there only along with the petitioner, his wife's name is mentioned as R.Lakshmamma, W/o P.Ramaswsamy.
(iv) In election I.D. card the name of the petitioner is shown as Ramaswamy P., S/o Pillappa.
(v) The petitioner has sold the lands and executed two sale deeds on 16-08-1991 and on 26-08-1991 in which in the sale deed the petitioner's name is mentioned as P.Ramaswamy S/o Pillappa.
(vi) In the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, in which the petitioner's name is shown as "Sri Ramaswamy, S/o Pillappa."
(vii) One K.Prathap Reddy, S/o K.Narasimha Reddy has filed a suit in O.S.No.5669 of 2020 against the petitioner herein and h is wife and son in which the petitioner's name is shown as R.Ramaswamy S/o late Pillappa.
(viii) The petitioner has filed M.F.A. before this Hon'ble Court against K.Prathap Reddy and another, in which he has mentioned his name as "Sri P. Ramaswamy, son of late Pillappa", his wife's name as Smt. Lakshmamma, S/o P.Ramaswamy.
(ix) In the family partition deed dated 18-10-2010 in which the petitioner's name is shown as "P Ramaswamy, S/o Pillappa."8
(x) The petitioner's son Praveen R, has executed an agreement to sell on 26-08-2020 in which the petitioner's name is shown as Praveen B., S/o P.Ramaswamy.
(xi) The petitioner has filed a private complaint against K.Prathappa Reddy in P.C.R.No.76 of 2020, before the learned City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in which he has shown his name as P.Ramaswamy, S/o late Sri Pillappa.
(xii) The petitioner and his wife Smt. Lakshmamma filed suit in O.S.No.5732 of 2020 against K.Prathap Reddy and his son Praveen, before the City Civil Judge, at Bengaluru in which it is shown his name as "P.Ramaswamy, S/o late Pillappa", his wife's name as "Smt. Lakshmamma, S/o P.Ramaswamy" and his son's name as Praveen, S/o P.Ramaswamy.
(xiii) In O.S.No.5669 of 2020 and O.S.No.5732 of 2020 the petitioner has filed an application under Section 24 IPC, seeking transfer of suits from City Civil Court (CCH-64) to any other Court, in which the petitioner on 12-08-2021 has filed Affidavit and in that sworn affidavit he has shown his name as "P.Ramaswamy son of late Pillappa".
(xiv) In the Release Deed dated 20-12-2018 between the petitioner and his son, he has shown his name as 'P.Ramaswamy, S/o Pillappa'.
(xv) In a Joint Development Agreement between the petitioner, his wife and son with B.R.Mohan Kumar in which his name is shown as P.Ramaswamy son of late Pillappa.
(xvi) In recent days, the petitioner, his wife, his daughter have approached the learned 1st additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in Cri.Misc.No.880 of 2021 in which he has shown as (A2) his wife Lakshmamma (A3) and his daughter (A4), wherein name is shown as "P.Ramaswamy, son of late Pillappa.9
(xvii) The petitioner has filed a complaint against Dr. K.M. Veerappa Reddy and Dr. J.Venkatarama Reddy on 02-12-
2010 alleging that they have committed offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 506 (B) r/w 34 IPC and under Sections 3, 4 and 10 of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 before Madiwala Police, wherein the complaint Police filed charge sheet and in his deposition he has shown his name as P.Ramaswamy son of Pillappa.
(xviii) The petitioner has filed a complaint against Dr. Veerappa Reddy and other, before Madiwala Police alleging that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 427, 506 IPC and under Section 3(iv)(x) of SC/ST 1989, the Madivala Police after investigation has filed a final report in Special Case No.9 of 2011. In that case the accused Dr. K.M.Veerappa Reddy and others have approached this Hon'ble Court, seeking quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. showing this petitioner's name as P.Ramaswamy Son of Pillappa in Crl.Petition No.2314 of 2011.
The petitioner being the President of the aforesaid Sangha is shown as P.Ramaswamy, son of Pillappa; school study certificate shows the name of the petitioner as P.Ramaswamy son of Pillappa; Voters list shows the name of the petitioner as P.Ramswamy son of Pillappa and his wife as R.Lakshmamma wife of P.Ramaswamy. The voter ID shows the name of the petitioner as P.Ramaswamy son of Pillappa. The petitioner has also executed several sale deeds all of which show his name as P.Ramaswamy son of Pillappa. Caste certificate that the petitioner secured and is in his possession depicts petitioner's name to be P.Ramaswamy son of Pillappa.
10Likewise, all the documents found in the afore-quoted summary, names the petitioner as only P.Ramaswamy son of Pillappa. The allegation is that the petitioner for the purpose of grabbing the land belonging to the original grantee has shown his father's name as @ Bikkala Venkatana Bhovi, which in the teeth of the aforesaid facts, prima facie meet qua the offences so alleged.
9. Insofar as the contention of the complainant that he is the grandson of the original grantee and a Writ Petition in W.P.No.12737 of 2012 is also filed by Pujari Sallapuriyappa during his lifetime, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is of no avail, as in the subject writ petition filed by Pujari Sallapuriyappa, the name of his father is shown as Pujari Venkatana Bhovi @ Pujari Venkataswamy Bhovi and it does not reflect that complainant is the grandson of Bikkala Venkatana Bhovi or that the land was even granted to his grandfather.
10. However, as there are seriously disputed questions of facts where examination of documents would be required, all of which are placed before this Court by way of statement of 11 objections by the 2nd respondent, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. In the teeth of seriously disputed questions of fact, if this Court were to interfere in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAPTAN SINGH v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH1 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
"9.1. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC has quashed the criminal proceedings for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC. It is required to be noted that when the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC quashed the criminal proceedings, by the time the investigating officer after recording the statement of the witnesses, statement of the complainant and collecting the evidence from the incident place and after taking statement of the independent witnesses and even statement of the accused persons, has filed the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 406, 329 and 386 IPC and even the learned Magistrate also took the cognizance. From the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court, it does not appear that the High Court took into consideration the material collected during the investigation/inquiry and even the statements recorded. If the petition under Section 482 CrPC was at the stage of FIR in that case the allegations in the FIR/complaint only are required to be considered and whether a cognizable offence is disclosed or not is required to be considered. However, thereafter when 1 (2021) 9 SCC 35 12 the statements are recorded, evidence is collected and the charge-sheet is filed after conclusion of the investigation/inquiry the matter stands on different footing and the Court is required to consider the material/evidence collected during the investigation.
Even at this stage also, as observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions, the High Court is not required to go into the merits of the allegations and/or enter into the merits of the case as if the High Court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. As held by this Court in Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel [Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2018) 3 SCC 104 : (2018) 1 SCC (Cri) 683] in order to examine as to whether factual contents of FIR disclose any cognizable offence or not, the High Court cannot act like the investigating agency nor can exercise the powers like an appellate court. It is further observed and held that that question is required to be examined keeping in view, the contents of FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At such stage, the High Court cannot appreciate evidence nor can it draw its own inferences from contents of FIR and material relied on. It is further observed it is more so, when the material relied on is disputed. It is further observed that in such a situation, it becomes the job of the investigating authority at such stage to probe and then of the court to examine questions once the charge-sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material.
9.2. In Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar [Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 18 SCC 191 :
(2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 672] after considering the decisions of this Court in Bhajan Lal [State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426] , it is held by this Court that exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings is an exception and not a rule. It is further observed that inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC though wide is to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution, only when such exercise is justified by tests specifically laid down in the section itself. It is further observed that appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the stage of quashing of proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 13 482 CrPC. Similar view has been expressed by this Court in Arvind Khanna [CBI v. Arvind Khanna, (2019) 10 SCC 686 :
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 94] , Managipet [State of Telangana v. Managipet, (2019) 19 SCC 87 : (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 702] and in XYZ [XYZ v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 10 SCC 337 : (2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 173] , referred to hereinabove.
9.3. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
10. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that there are very serious triable issues/allegations which are required to be gone into and considered at the time of trial. The High Court has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that the document i.e. a joint notarised affidavit of Mamta Gupta Accused 2 and Munni Devi under which according to Accused 2 Ms Mamta Gupta, Rs 25 lakhs was paid and the possession was transferred to her itself is seriously disputed. It is required to be noted that in the registered agreement to sell dated 27- 10-2010, the sale consideration is stated to be Rs 25 lakhs and with no reference to payment of Rs 25 lakhs to Ms Munni Devi and no reference to handing over the possession. However, in the joint notarised affidavit of the same date i.e. 27-10-2010 sale consideration is stated to be Rs 35 lakhs out of which Rs 25 lakhs is alleged to have been paid and there is a reference to transfer of possession to Accused 2. Whether Rs 25 lakhs has been paid or not the accused have to establish during the trial, because the accused are relying upon the said document and payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010. It is also required to be considered that the first agreement to sell in which Rs 25 lakhs is stated to be sale consideration and there is reference to the payment of Rs 10 lakhs by cheques. It is a registered document. The aforesaid are all triable issues/allegations which are required to be considered at the time of trial. The High Court has failed to notice and/or consider the material collected during the investigation.
1411. Now so far as the finding recorded by the High Court that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the High Court itself has noted that the joint notarised affidavit dated 27-10-2010 is seriously disputed, however as per the High Court the same is required to be considered in the civil proceedings. There the High Court has committed an error. Even the High Court has failed to notice that another FIR has been lodged against the accused for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC with respect to the said alleged joint notarised affidavit. Even according to the accused the possession was handed over to them. However, when the payment of Rs 25 lakhs as mentioned in the joint notarised affidavit is seriously disputed and even one of the cheques out of 5 cheques each of Rs 2 lakhs was dishonoured and according to the accused they were handed over the possession (which is seriously disputed) it can be said to be entrustment of property. Therefore, at this stage to opine that no case is made out for the offence under Section 406 IPC is premature and the aforesaid aspect is to be considered during trial. It is also required to be noted that the first suit was filed by Munni Devi and thereafter subsequent suit came to be filed by the accused and that too for permanent injunction only. Nothing is on record that any suit for specific performance has been filed. Be that as it may, all the aforesaid aspects are required to be considered at the time of trial only.
12. Therefore, the High Court has grossly erred in quashing the criminal proceedings by entering into the merits of the allegations as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction and/or conducting the trial. The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC.
13. Even the High Court has erred in observing that original complaint has no locus. The aforesaid observation is made on the premise that the complainant has not placed on record the power of attorney along with the counter filed before the High Court. However, when it is specifically stated in the FIR that Munni Devi has executed the power of attorney and thereafter the investigating officer has conducted the 15 investigation and has recorded the statement of the complainant, accused and the independent witnesses, thereafter whether the complainant is having the power of attorney or not is to be considered during trial.
14. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the impugned judgment and order [Radhey Shyam Gupta v. State of U.P., 2020 SCC OnLine All 914] passed by the High Court quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 CrPC is unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Now, the trial is to be conducted and proceeded further in accordance with law and on its own merits. It is made clear that the observations made by this Court in the present proceedings are to be treated to be confined to the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC only and the trial court to decide the case in accordance with law and on its own merits and on the basis of the evidence to be laid and without being influenced by any of the observations made by us hereinabove. The present appeal is accordingly allowed."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court in the case of RAJEEV KOURAV v. BAISAHAB2 -
has held as follows:
"5. A final report was filed on 19-7-2014 on completion of investigation. A petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed for quashing the criminal proceedings. It was contended on behalf of Respondents 1 to 3 before the High Court that the ingredients of Section 306 IPC have not been made out and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. According to Respondents 1 to 3, the FIR and the charge-sheet would only disclose that the entire family of the appellant was being harassed. The respondents cannot be held guilty of offence under Section 306 as there is 2 (2020) 3 SCC 317 16 nothing on record to show that they have incited the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide.
6. The High Court summoned the record of investigation and perused the statements recorded by the appellant and his family members under Section 161 CrPC. The High Court held that statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC would show that Respondent 1 is a quarrelsome lady who has threatened the appellant's family of false implication in a criminal case. The High Court observed that none of the persons whose statements under Section 161 CrPC were recorded have mentioned about the complaint of the deceased and that she was thinking of committing suicide due to the harassment of Respondents 1 to
3. The High Court recorded a finding that Ramsharan Kourav, the uncle of the deceased, has stated in his statement under Section 161 that the deceased informed him that she is unable to bear the torture of Respondents 1 to 3 and was thinking of putting an end to her life.
7. The High Court observed that the allegations made against Respondents 1 to 3 at the most constitute an offence under Section 506 IPC for criminal intimidation. Read as a whole, the allegations made against Respondents 1 to 3 did not make out an offence under Sections 306/34 IPC. The High Court further held that ingredients of Section 107 IPC are also not satisfied. In that view, the petition filed by Respondents 1 to 3 for quashing the criminal proceeding was allowed.
8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing 17 the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal proceeding."
The Apex Court, in the afore-quoted judgment has clearly held that proceedings cannot be quashed merely because it is civil in nature or a civil suit is pending adjudication; if a case of cheating and forgery is prima facie made out in the complaint or in any document, it becomes a matter of trial, as serious disputed questions of fact have to be thrashed out.
11. In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court as well as plethora of facts which are seriously disputed being existing in the case at hand, I decline to interfere in the further proceedings against the petitioner at whatever stage they are.
12. In the result, finding no merit in the petition, the Criminal Petition stands dismissed.
It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of 18 petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the pending proceedings between the parties.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ