Karnataka High Court
Sri T R Rajendra Kumar vs Smt Sumithra Bai on 16 January, 2018
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N.Phaneendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8977/2017
BETWEEN:
1. SRI T.R.RAJENDRA KUMAR
S/O SRI T.RAMACHANDRA BHAT
AGED 45 YEARS, ADVOCATE
R/AT TALAKALUKOPPA VILLAGE
ULLAVI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577401.
2. SRI NAGAPPA
S/O SRI YALLAPPA
AGED 35 YEARS
R/AT PURA VILLAGE,
ULLAVI HOBLI, SORABA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577401. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI P.P.HEGDE, ADV.)
AND:
1. SMT SUMITHRA BAI
AGED 45 YEARS
W/O B.P.NAGARAJ
R/AT S.N.NAGARA, IKKERI ROAD
NEAR GAS GOWDOWN, SAGARA TALUK
SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577401.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SORABA POLICE STATION
SHIMOGA DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
-2-
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU-560001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANDESH. T. CHOUTA, SPP-II FOR R-2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND THE
ORDER DATED 26.09.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, SORABA IN
C.C.NO.303/2017 (PCR.NO.22/2013) ARISING OUT OF
CR.NO.406/2013 OF SORABA POLICE STATION, DIRECTING TO
REGISTER THE CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST ACCUSED No.1 AND 2
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 417, 420,
465, 468, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC AND TO ISSUE SUMMONS.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.
2. The respondent No.1 filed a private complaint in PCR No.22/2013 making allegations against the accused/petitioner for the offence under Section 407, 420, 463, 464, 465, 469 and 470 of I.P.C. It is alleged in the complaint that the petitioners have colluded with each other and they, in order to cheat the complainant, have forged certain documents in respect of the property pertaining to the complainant and they -3- have also taken some signatures and thumb impression of the complainant for the purpose of creating a sale deed in respect of the property of the complainant, in favour of accused Nos. 1 and 2 i.e., petitioners. Said complaint was referred to the police for investigation and the police have submitted B-Summary report. The learned Magistrate on 28.8.2015 has passed separate orders holding that he has perused the B-Summary report filed by the police and the complainant has raised objections to accept the same and it is opined by the learned Magistrate that, there are some materials to proceed further in the case against the accused. Therefore, recording such objections coupled with the allegations made in the complaint, the learned Magistrate has rejected B- report. Thereafter taking cognizance on the basis of the original complaint as well as the protest petition filed by the complainant and recorded his sworn statement and issued process against the accused. The learned Magistrate having -4- gone through the complaint averments in detail at paragraph 3 and also B-report submitted by the police, as well as the sworn statement of the complainant and thereafter recording his opinion held that that it is a fit case to issue process against the accused.
3. Though the learned counsel tried to convince this Court submitting that, in respect of the allegations made, in order to attract the penal provisions, no documents have been produced by the complainant, particularly the alleged forged documents or any document which show the forgery of the documents. It is too premature stage to draw an inference at this stage that merely because the complainant has not produced certain documents, the order of the Magistrate is illegal. What is to be looked into by the Court is that whether complaint averments have been considered by the learned Magistrate, as also the sworn statement and recorded his opinion to issue of process with regard to -5- his satisfaction. May be the opinion or the satisfaction of the Magistrate may be erroneous. Even such erroneous opinion or satisfaction cannot be interfered with at this stage when the learned Magistrate has specifically applied his mind to the facts of the case, complaint and the sworn statement and has recorded his finding that the allegations made in the complaint constitute an offence for the purpose of issue of process.
4. In the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Magistrate. It is also made clear that at the time of recording of the evidence under Section 244 of Cr.P.C., the petitioners would get sufficient opportunity to demolish the case of the complainant, if any document is produced or oral evidence is adduced. With these observations, I am of the opinion that it is not the appropriate stage to quash the proceedings. The petition deserves to be dismissed.
-6-
Accordingly the petition is dismissed. If any exemption application is filed by the accused before the trial Court for exemption of the accused, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
In view of the above order, IA-I/2017 does not survive for consideration and is, accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.