Karnataka High Court
Sri.Gurusiddappa vs The State Of Karnataka, on 23 November, 2018
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
Criminal Petition No.101232/2016
BETWEEN:
SRI GURUSIDDAPPA
S/O; SHIVAPPA CHABBI,
AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: PENSIONER,
R/O; WARD NO.52, MADANI COLONY,
PADMARAJ, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD-580021.
.....PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.R.HEGDE, ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY IT'S HIGH COURT
ADDL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER
BENCH AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION,
DHARWAD.
.......RESPONDENT
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET
FILED BY THE RESPONDENT IN CRIMINAL CASE NO.653
OF 2009 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE PRINCIPAL CIVIL
JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS
DHARWAD AS PER ANNEXURE-C WITH RESPECT TO THE
PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
:2:
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is directed against the continuation of the proceedings in a criminal case No.653 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420, 511 r/w 34 of IPC and the petitioner is said to be accused No.9 in the said case and seeks for quashing of the proceedings.
2. Though the matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
3. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties herein are referred with reference to the rank and status as set out before the trial Court.
4. The substance of the complaint as could be seen from the materials available on record, is that the case of the Deputy Commissioner of Dharwad directed the complainant to lodge a complaint against the petitioner :3: and others in connection with misuse, misrepresentation and misappropriation of the status and money which constituted the offence under Section 465, 466, 468, 471, 511 r/w 34 of IPC.
5. The crux of the matter is that the accused persons without any legitimate rights to claim pension either help or prepared documents knowing it to be fake nor claim pension reserved for political sufferers. The banner of their claim is that they sought for political pension claim that they participated in Quit India Movement. The petitioner is accused of mediating or licensing the transactions and correspondence litigation to represent as political sufferer.
The involvement of the petitioner according to the prosecution is that he mediated for the other applicant to lace them as a State political sufferers. One of the major ways has been procured in the affidavit of the pensioners to the effect that the claims or political sufferers are to the effect they were imprisoned along with them. :4:
In this connection crime came to be registered by the respondent police in crime No.63 of 2000. The Secretary to the DPAR Karnataka in is letter dated 17.01.2000, communicated to the Deputy Commissioner Dharwad, thereafter proceedings started. The case came to be registered on 19.04.2000 for the offence punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 420 511 r/w 34 of IPC. Thereafter, after the completion of investigation upon submission of the final report and the case came to be numbered C.C.No.653 of 2009.
6. Sri S.R.Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that even according to the prosecution there are no allegations against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no monitory game has been obtained by the petitioner nor he has caused monetarily loss to the Government or others. Further, petitioner is no charged a custodian of forged records or for having manipulated. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel is to the effect that he has not participated in any kind of illegal transaction or correspondence for :5: getting the documents of claiming benefits from the Government either for himself or for others.
7. Learned HCGP opposes the petition and submits that the petitioner has been instrumental completion of the offences. In this connection he submits column No.17 of the final report would expose the criminal activity being carried on by the petitioner.
8. First of all it is necessary to make out the Quit India Movement history which tell that it is of the year 1942-43. It is the claim of the applicant in question that they participated in that movement which was nearly over 50 years as on the date of the filing of the application as it is reported to have been in the year 1993.
The applicants seeking for the relief are; A-11 Shivaputrappa, A-12 Smt. Neelavva, A-13 Gangappa, A-14 Ganganagouda, A-15 Iranagouda, A-16 Phakirappa, A-17 Kariyappa, A-18 Sheshappa, A-19 Gangayya, A-20 Smt. Shantavva, A-21 Ningappa, A-22 Yankappa, A-23 Shivaputrappa, and A-24 Gurusiddappa. The mediators :6: and the conspirators who are present and stating that they are present pensioners in this case are, A-5 Siddappa, A-6 Basavannappa, A-7 Somappa, A-8 Halappa, and A-9 Gurusiddappa and the persons who are said to be dead are A-73 Basappa, A-74 Hatelsab, A-75 Gurunath, A-76 Chandrappa.
9. Thus, it is the claim that the accused No.9 who is the petitioner was instrumental in making the offence and the documents said to have been concocted for claiming political pension are applications, statements, affidavit, declaration by the applicants and affidavit sworn by the present pensioners endorsing and confirming the participation of the respective accused persons as those who participated in Quit India Movement.
The applicants also did not directly submit the applications to the competent authority on the other hand they were submitted to the Government without through proper channel. Accused Nos.1 to 24 are said to have committed the offence under Section 465, 466, 468, 471, 120-B, 420, 511 r/w 34 of IPC.
:7:
10. Insofar as the present petitioner is concerned, he is said to be the mediator according to the complaint, regard being had to the fact that the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is no way concerned to the offences and there is no scope for criminal proceedings against him. In the circumstance of the case, nature of the alleged offences cannot be considered lightly if it is committed then it becomes a matter of concern wherein genuine pensioners will have to be doubted and as the pension is given as a token of respect to the Freedom Fighters and there shall be no other helter and shelters in this connection. The very object of law deserves to be respected and every offence need not be carried by the documents, regarding each weapons. On the other hand, the circumstances, when established will have to be considered nor they amount to offence or otherwise.
11. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the grounds urged by the petitioner is almost factual concept wherein he submits go on rising presumption in one or :8: other manner in favour of the petitioner that is not available in the facts and circumstance of the case.
Hence, I find the petition is totally devoid of merits and it is rejected.
At this stage, the learned counsel submits for a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
I agree with the contentions, at the same time, I am abrupt of the fact of pending of cases before the District Judiciary. However, considering the matter is of the year 2000, the learned trial Judge shall make all the endeavor to dispose of the matter expeditiously within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE msr