Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

K. Vasantraj S/O Late Mallayya vs State Of Karnataka on 19 June, 2023

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                      -1-
                                                              CRL.P No. 101023 of 2017




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                               DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

                                                  BEFORE

                              THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA

                               CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101023 OF 2017

                      BETWEEN:

                      K. VASANTRAJ S/O. LATE MALLAYYA,
                      AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
                      R/O: KARUR VILLAGE,
                      TQ: SIRGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI.
                                                                         ...PETITIONER

                      (BY SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                      (GARAG POLICE STATION, DHARWAD)
                      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      DHARWAD.
SAROJA
HANGARAKI                                                              ...RESPONDENT

Digitally signed by
SAROJA HANGARAKI
                      (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
Date: 2023.06.23
15:32:02 -0700
                             THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
                      OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH
                      THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 813 OF 2014 PENDING ON THE
                      FILE   OF   I   ADDL.   CIVIL   JUDGE    AND   JMFC,   DHARWAD
                      PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 419, 465, 468 OF IPC.


                             THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
                      THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                   -2-
                                           CRL.P No. 101023 of 2017




                               ORDER

Heard Sri V.M. Sheelvant, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent/State. Peru sed the records.

2. The pres ent petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-

"To allow the petition and quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 813 of 2014 pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Dharwad punishable under Section 419, 465, 468 of IPC."

3. The brief facts of the case are as under :-

Additional Registrar General attached to High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench in pursuance of the dir ections issued in W.P.No.66477/2009 (LR) dated 12.03.2010 l odg ed a complaint against the petitioner.

3.1 The complaint averments reveal that petitioner who is also called Goravara Mallikarjuna -3- CRL.P No. 101023 of 2017 filed a writ petition before this Court making Land Tribunal and Assistant Executive Engineer as party respondents questioning th e order dated 16.11.2009 passed by the Land Tribunal, Siruguppa. During the pend ency of the said writ petition, the Government Advocate attached to the High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench, requested that the petitioner be kept present before the Cour t a s there is a serious doub t a s to the petitioner who said to have filed the cas e. To keep the petitioner present, matter was adjourn ed to 18.12.2009, 04.01.2010, 05.01.2010 and 12.01.2010. On none of those occasions, petitioner dared to appear before the Cour t. Later on , it was noticed that the petitioner was impersonated and therefore complaint came to be filed. Based on the complaint, Garag Police registered a case in Crime No.55/2010 on 24.03.2010 for the offences punishable U/sec.419, 465, 468 IPC.

CRL.P No. 101023 of 2017

3.2 After thorough investiga tion, police also filed charge sheet for the offence punishable U/sec.419, 465 and 468 IP C. 3.3 The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cog nizance and the same is under challenge in this petition.

4. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, Sri V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the registrati on of the case and filing of charge sheet against the petitioner and pending proceedings in C.C.No.813/2014 is totally uncalled for as the advocate who identified the petitioner in the pending writ petition was not even examined by the investigation agency and tw o of the officials of this Court have identified the petitioner who said to have impersonated the original petitioner in W.P.No.66477/2009 (LR) is a story whi ch cannot be per se believe and sought for allowing the petition. -5- CRL.P No. 101023 of 2017

5. Per contra, lear ned High Court Government Pleader opp oses the peti tion gr ounds by contending that the test identifi cation has been made and statements of the offi cials attached to this Court has been recorded before filing th e c harge sheet and only on the ground that the lawyer who identified the petitioner before this Court having not been examined by the investigation agency itself w ould not render an inference that the ca se of the prosecution is false and sought for dismissal of the petition.

6. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

7. On such perusal of the material on record, it is s een that in pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, the then Additional Registrar General filed the complaint. Before directing the Additional Registrar General to file a complaint, this Court granted suffici ent time for the petitioner to appear -6- CRL.P No. 101023 of 2017 in person upon the objection raised on behalf of the Government Advocate. However, petitioner failed to appear before this Court despite granting sufficient opportunity whic h per se resulted in entertaining the doub t in the mind of this Court to issue direction in W.P.No.66477/2009 (LR). Thereafter, learned Additional Registrar General lodged the complaint with Garag Police. Police after thoroug h investigation, filed the charge sheet against the petitioner. While so fili ng the charge sheet, the investigation ag ency has broug ht the petitioner who was in their custody and sh own him to the officials of this Court who identified him, as the person who appeared before them and repr esented that he is Mallikarjuna @ Goravara Mallikarjuna.

8. Whether at all the petitioner is totally innocen t and he has not impersonated Mallikarjuna @ Goravara Mallikarjuna is a matter that has to be enquired into b efore the trial Court and a definite -7- CRL.P No. 101023 of 2017 opinion about the innocence or guilt of the petitioner can be decided after the full-fledged trial.

9. It is too premature for this Court to form an opinion about the innocence of the petitioner that too with the limited scop e of ju risdiction U/sec.482 Cr.P.C. havin g regard to the attendant circums tances.

10. Further, the official s of this Court who have identified the petitioner did not possess any enmity or animosity to falsely implica te the petitioner in the case.

11. Taking note of these aspects of the matter , this Court is of the considered opinion that the grounds urged in the petition are hardly su fficient to quash the p ending proceedings. Hence, the following order is passed.

ORDE R The p etition is dismissed.

However, the observation made by this Court during the course of this order shall not affect the rights of th e petitioner in any manner in the pending tri al.

Sd/-

JUDGE CLK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 54