Karnataka High Court
Smt.Mahalakshmi Kumari vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 September, 2014
Author: K.N.Phaneendra
Bench: K.N. Phaneendra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4th SEPTEMBER, 2014
:BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N. PHANEENDRA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4657/2014
BETWEEN:
SMT.MAHALAKSHMI KUMARI
W/O V.PRADEEP
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/O 12-3-11/7/1
KORTHA PETA
HYDERABAD-500 060.
PREVIOUS GIVEN ADDRESS
NO.385, 11TH CROSS
5TH MAIN, R.M.V. 2ND STAGE
BANGALORE- 560 094. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J. SUDHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY YALAHANKA POLICE BANGALORE
REPRESENTED BY ITS
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BANGALORE-560 001
THROUGH YELAHANKA POLICE
2. SRI. N. RAMARAJU
2
S/O LATE CHIKKANANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
3. SRI. K.R. NARAYAN SWAMY
S/O N. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
4. SRI. R. NAGARAJ
S/O N. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
5. SRI. R. JAGADESHA
S/O N. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
6. SRI. R. LOKESH
S/O N. RAMARAJU
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.756
KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE
SAHAKARANAGAR POST
BANGALORE-560 092. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B. VISWESWARAIAH, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN C.C.NOD.17259/2007
VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ON THE FILE OF THE C.M.M.,
BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
The present petition is filed for quashing of the entire proceedings in CC No.17259/2007 pending on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
2. The petitioner is arrayed as A4 in CC No.6094/2004 originally registered along with other accused persons for offence punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. Thereafter, it appears, a split-up charge sheet filed against this petitioner in the above said Criminal Case (CC No.17259/2007) sought to be quashed.
3. The brief allegations on which the charge sheet has been filed against all the accused persons i.e. A1 to A4 in CC No.6094/2004 are that A1 to A4 being the partners of Aravind builders entered into an agreement dated 7.5.1995 to develop 25 guntas of land in survey No.14/1 of Kodigehalli village and during the progress of 4 the work, it is alleged that the accused persons have concocted the GPA said to have been executed by CW1- Ramaraju, CW2-Narayanaswamy, CW3-Nagaraju, CW4- Jagadeesh and CW5-Lokesh and thereby they have been cheated by the accused persons. Accused have also raised a loan of Rs.1,28,00,000/- from Federal Bank by mis-representation, producing concocted documents posing them as genuine documents and thereby committed the offences alleged against them. The case against A3 and A4 was split up and case against A1 and A2 were tried.
4. The Trial Court has framed charges against A1 and A2. While framing of the charges, the trial court has also framed charges incorporating the names of the other accused (petitioner and another), though they were not present, the charge framed by the Trial Court is as follows:
5
(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that A1 and A2 along with other two persons namely Manikamba and Mahalakshmi Kumari being the partners of Arvind Builders after entering into agreement dated 7.5.1995 and CW1 and his children during the process of constructin of the Aravind Apartments in Sy. No.14/1 of Kodigehalli, created another G.P.A. in their names by forging the signatures and by mis- representing with Federal Bank Authorities, raised the loan of Rs.1,28,00,000/-
intentionally knowing that they are the concocted documents and thereby committed the offences punishable under Secs.468, 471 and 420 r/w. 34 of IPC.?
5. This clearly goes to show that even according to the Trial Court, the overt acts of the accused persons are inseparable in nature and they are overlapping with each other. No independent charges have been levelled against each individual accused, the police have also 6 invoked Section 34 of IPC in order to prove common intention amongst all the accused persons.
6. The trial court has concluded the trial against A1 and A2 and ultimately acquitted the accused.
7. The perusal of the judgment of the trial court and the deposition of the witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 5 discloses that they do not know who alleged to be the persons cheated the complainants and that they have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Further, they have not spelt out anything about the overt acts of the accused persons. Even the other witnesses examined i.e., PWs.6 & 7 have also turned hostile to the prosecution and no witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. PW6 - Ashwathappa, Asst. Director, FSL, Bangalore, has stated that Ex.P3, GPA was verified by him with the signatures of PWs.2 to 5 and he found that on comparison, he came to know that PWs.1 to 5 7 have not signed in Ex.P3 as F1 to F5 and he issued the opinion certificate at Ex.P28 with the reasonings at Ex.P29. But he has admitted that he has not taken the specimen signatures of the accused persons for comparison. It is not clear from the evidence of PW6 as to how the offence against the accused persons have been made out, as per the prosecution case. Therefore, the Trial Court in view of the hostility of the prime prosecution witnesses has come to the definite conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, consequently acquitted the accused persons. Since this judgment is not challenged, it reached the finality.
8. Looking to the above said circumstances, even though split up cases are allowed to be continued and tried by the Trial Court, the consequence will not differ. Their case should also bound to end up in acquittal, it will become a futile exercise of wasting the judicial time. 8 Therefore, in my opinion, the proceedings pending against the accused persons deserves to be quashed, in view of the rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court between Central Buread of Investigation Vs. Akhilesh Singh, reported in AIR 2005 SC 268 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that -
"While exercising the power u/s.482 of Cr.PC for quashing of the charge and discharge of co-accused - validity of offence of criminal conspiracy and murder - once the main accused, who is alleged to have hatched the conspiracy and who had the motive to kill the deceased was discharged and when that matter had attained finality, the learned Single Judge was fully justified in holding that no purpose would be served in further proceedings with the case would be served."
9. It is to be noted that evidence proposed to be led against the present accused person is not different from that of the evidence already led against all the accused persons. Merely because the accused were 9 absconding and split up charge sheet has been laid against them, the accused persons cannot be tried. Therefore, in the above said circumstances, when there is no chance of conviction, there is no purpose in continuing the said prosecution. Hence, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the Petition is allowed. The proceeding in CC No.17259/2007 pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, against this petitioner is hereby quashed.
SD/-
JUDGE PL