Karnataka High Court
Shankreppa Basappa Madar vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A.PATIL
CRL. P. NO. 100752/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHANKREPPA BASAPPA MADAR,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE,
R/O ASHOK COLONY, BANHATTI,
TQ: JAMKHANDI, DT: BAGALKOT.
- PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
R/BY PSI BANAKATTI THROUGH SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.
2. SMT. AVVAKKA,
W/O SHANKAR MADAR @ MANG,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC.: AGRICULTURE, R/O KULHALLI,
TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI V.M. BANAKAR, ADDL. S.P.P. FOR R1,
SRI PRASHANT S. KADADEVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET BEARING NO.
130/2016 DATED 30.11.2016 OF BANAHATTI POLICE STATION
CRIME NO. 99/2016 DATED 28.08.2016 & ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
:2:
ORDER
This petition has been filed by the petitioner- accused No.1 u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 11/2016 pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge and JMFC, Banhatti, for the offences punishable u/s 465, 468, 471, 420, 354, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.
2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri S.C. Bhuti and Sri V.M. Banakar, learned Addl. SPP for the respondent-State. Though the complainant-respondent is served with notice but the learned counsel appearing on his behalf remained absent.
3. The facts leading to the case are that, land bearing R.S. No. 134/4 measuring 4 acres 11 guntas has been granted to one Sri Ittappa Sakreppa Madar. Subsequently he died on 14.04.1982. After his death the petitioner gave a varadi to the Revenue Department to mutate his name to the above said land. The :3: Revenue Authorities issued the public notice and as no objection have been received from anybody, name of the petitioner was entered into the revenue records by making a mutation entry. The husband of respondent No.2 subsequently claim that he is the son of deceased Ittappa. He challenged the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, Jamakhandi. The said petition came to be dismissed. Thereafter, he filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No. 45/2003 and the said matter has been amicably settled and it has been compromised before the Lokadalath.
4. It is further alleged that after disposal of the suit, husband of the complainant died and on 26.03.2016 she filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner and his son have committed offence of fraud, cheating and that they have also outraged her modesty. The said complaint was referred for investigation and the Investigating Officer after investigation filed charge :4: sheet as against the petitioner-accused No.1 alone by giving up the other accused. Challenging the same, the petitioner-accused No.1 is before this Court.
5. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a long pending litigation and after 21 years a false complaint has been registered by the respondent-complaint. Further, in the civil suit the husband of the complainant has got compromised the matter and under such circumstances filing of the complaint itself is nothing but abuse of process of law only with an intention to get the property or monetary benefit the complaint has been filed.
6. It is his further submission that, in the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 161(3) of Cr.P.C. she has clearly stated that, sons of the petitioner have not committed any overt acts and they are not involved and at the instance of the Advocate their names are appearing in the complaint. That itself shows the :5: concoction of the case against the petitioner. The entire proceedings is only a malafide. On these grounds he prayed to allow the petition and to quash the proceedings.
7. Per contra, learned Addl. SPP vehemently argued and submitted that the allegations made as against the accused are to be tried before the Court below. At this juncture it cannot be held that there is no material and there is abuse of process of law. The Investigating Officer has already filed charge sheet. Accused- petitioner if at all having any grounds to be made out, the accused will be having an opportunity to putforth all the grounds by giving appropriate application for discharge. On these grounds he prayed to dismiss the petition.
8. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the records. :6:
9. On perusal of the records and the contents of the complaint it discloses that there is some material as against the petitioner accused. Though it is brought to the notice of this Court the statement of the complainant recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that there is no involvement of the sons of the accused No.1 and at the instance of an Advocate their names are appearing in the complaint. Merely on the statement made by complainant, the Court cannot come to the conclusion that it is a cooked up and false case. Whatever the allegations which have been made are the matters which are to be adjudicated during the course of the trial. Even in the statement recorded u/s 161 of Cr.P.C. if any contradictions or omissions are there, they have to be put to the witnesses and thereafter reliability can be seen.
10. At this premature stage, by only looking into the statement recorded u/Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. it cannot be held that the petitioner has made out a case. The :7: Investigating Officer by relying upon the said material has dropped the other accused and the charge sheet has been filed only as against the petitioner-accused No.1. Under such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to exercise power u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings. The petitioner has not made out a case to quash the entire case. In that light, the petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. No order as to costs.
The observations made in the body of this order will not come in the way of disposing of the case by the trial Court on merits.
SD JUDGE bvv