Karnataka High Court
K Munirathnam vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 KAR 277
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P. Sandesh
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5641/2020
BETWEEN:
K. MUNIRATHNAM,
S/O VENKATASUBBA NAIDU,
AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.1, 12TH MAIN,
15TH 'B' CROSS, J.C. NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 086. ... PETITIONER
[BY SRI KALYAN R., ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
MAHADEVAPURA POLICE,
WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU.
REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU - 01.
2. SMT. J. BHAVANI,
W/O J. KONDAPANAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
PARTNER M/S LEAD BUILDERS,
HAVING OFFICE AT FLAT NO.104,
LEAD GRANDEUR NO.88/1,
SHIGEHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
OPP. TO SAI GARDENIA
2
NEXT TO HP PETROL BUNK,
KADUGODI ROAD, WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU - 560 067.
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.20201,
BHUVANA GREENS,
KASAVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 035.
3. J. KONDAPANAIDU,
S/O J. MALLAIAH NAIDU,
PARTNER M/S LEAD BUILDERS,
HAVING OFFICE AT FLAT NO.104,
LEAD GRANDEUR, NO.88/1,
SHIGEHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
OPP. TO SAI GARDENIA,
NEXT TO HP PETROL BUNK,
KADUGODI ROAD, WHITEFIELD,
BENGALURU - 560 067.
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.20201,
BHUVANA GREENS,
KASAVANAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 035. ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI K.S. ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1,
SRI P.P. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 AND R-3 (THROUGH V.C.)]
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
CR.NO.546/2018 REGISTERED BY MAHADEVAPURA POLICE AND
THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 16.11.2019 FOR
THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420,
465, 468, 471, 120(B) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC
PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIX ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU IN
C.C.NO.57765/2019.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
Though this matter is listed for admission today, with the consent of both the parties, taken up for final disposal.
2. This petition is filed by accused No.1 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the charge-sheet in Crime No.546/2018 registered by Mahadevapura Police and the order of taking cognizance dated 16.11.2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 and 120B read with Section 34 of IPC.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the accused and the complainants are the partners of the partnership firm and they entered into joint development agreement in respect of Survey No.88/1 to the extent of 37.04 guntas of land. There were differences between them and hence in terms of mutual settlement between the parties, complainant No.1 executed 11 sale deeds on 28.09.2017. It is the allegation that while taking the signature in respect of those 11 sale deeds, the petitioner herein and other accused persons have forged the signature of the complainant and obtained the sale deed in favour of accused 4 No.2. Hence, the complaint is lodged on 08.11.2018 that the petitioner forged the signature of the complainant and executed the sale deed in favour of accused No.2. The police have registered the case and investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. Hence, the petitioner herein is before this Court praying to quash the proceedings.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit is also filed in respect of particular sale deed and the same is pending. When the civil suit is pending, there cannot be any parallel proceedings against the petitioner and it amounts to an abuse of process. The learned counsel in support of his contentions, relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RAJESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PATEL AND OTHERS v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 3 SCC 794 and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph Nos.18 and 19 of the judgment, wherein the Apex Court has held that when there is a dispute with regard to the issue as to genuineness of documents, forgery of which was the basis of the criminal proceedings, was pending consideration in 5 civil suit, FIR ought not to have been allowed to continue in the present case as it would prejudice the interest of parties and the stand taken by them in the civil suit. The learned counsel referring this judgment would contend that there cannot be separate parallel proceedings and if the criminal proceedings is continued, it amounts to an abuse of process, which leads to miscarriage of justice. The learned counsel would also submit that the FSL report is obtained based on the xerox documents and the same cannot be a basis to proceed against the petitioner.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the complaint was given on 08.11.2018 and suit was filed on 19.11.2018. The civil suit is subsequent to the filing of the complaint. The police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. The police during the course of investigation have obtained the FSL report. The learned counsel would submit that when the accused was summoned to produce the original document, he did not produce the same, instead he made the submission before the Investigating Officer 6 that the said document is lost. Hence, the contention raised by the petitioner that xerox documents was sent for FSL cannot be accepted. The learned counsel would submit that accused Nos.3 and 4 are the attesting witnesses to the said documents and they are absconding. The learned counsel would submit that accused No.2 has already approached this Court by filing criminal petition before this Court in Crl.P.No.1768/2019 and this Court rejected the petition observing that the charge-sheet has already been submitted before the Trial Court and the same is pending before the XLIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate in C.C.No.57765/2019. While rejecting the petition, liberty is given to the petitioner to seek for discharge before the Trial Court.
6. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that suppressing the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for relief under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of M. KRISHNAN v. VIJAY SINGH AND ANOTHER 7 reported in (2001) 8 SCC 645, wherein the Apex Court has held that the proceedings initiated against the accused/ respondent under Sections 193, 209, 406, 468 and 471 read with Section 120B of IPC is quashed by the High Court due to pendency of a civil suit filed by the accused disputing the genuineness of the documents setting aside the High Court's order, held, mere pendency of the civil suit between the parties cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused. If permitted, such practice would be an easy way out for the accused to avoid criminal proceedings.
7. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of VIJAYANDER KUMAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER reported in (2014) 3 SCC 389. In this judgment the Apex Court with regard to exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in a criminal as well as civil liability has held that a given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to the informant/complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a 8 criminal proceedings. The real test is whether the allegations in the complaint disclose a criminal offence or not.
8. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of RAY CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED, IIT MARKET, POWAI, MUMBAI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER reported in 2020 (4) KAR.L.J.
555. This Court in this judgment referring the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2014) 3 SCC 389 held that after filing of the charge-sheet, took cognizance and issued process. The legality of it is well-settled that when given set of facts may make out a civil liability as also a criminal offence and only because civil remedy may also be available to the complainant, that itself cannot be a ground to quash criminal proceedings. The real test is whether the allegations disclose a criminal offence or not.
9. The learned counsel relying upon these judgments would contend that mere filing of a civil suit which is filed subsequent to the initiation of criminal proceedings, cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings.
9
10. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra, this Court has to consider the factual aspects of the case. On perusal of the complaint, specific allegation made against the petitioner is that the signature of the complainant is forged while executing the documents in favour of accused No.2 along with accused No.1. It is not in dispute that the sale deed contains the signature of the petitioner and also the signature of the complainant. The complainant's specific case is that her signature has been forged in connivance with the officials of the Sub-Registrar office. The matter has been investigated by the police after registration of the case. The police during the course of investigation have obtained the FSL report. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the FSL report is obtained based on the xerox documents. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that even though the accused is called to produce the original documents, he did not produce the same and he conceded the said document making the submission that the same is lost. The FSL report is obtained based on the certified copies. 10
11. Having considered the factual aspects of the case, it is nothing but disputed questions are before this Court. This Court cannot quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and cannot answer with regard to the disputed questions involved in the matter. The Court has to look into the contents of the complaint. Subsequently the matter has been investigated and charge-sheet has been filed. When the statements of the witnesses have been recorded and when the specific allegation that signature of the complainant has been forged while executing the sale deed in favour of accused No.2, though the learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajeshbhai Muljibhai Patel (supra), the Court has to take note of the factual aspect of the case. In the said case, the dispute is with regard to the receipt. In the present case, the dispute is with regard to execution of the sale deed forging the signature of the complainant. The facts of each case has to be taken note of while considering the matter. The Apex Court with regard to considering the factual aspects in other judgments which have been referred by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 also comes to a 11 conclusion that even though there was a civil suit between the parties, the parties who indulge in such acts cannot be scot free. Otherwise, it would be an easy way out for the accused to avoid the criminal proceedings. This Court in respect of accused No.2 also after filing of the charge-sheet dismissed the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and made an observation that he can make necessary application before the Trial Court for discharge.
12. Having considered the factual aspects of the case and the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the charge-sheet, serious question of issues are between the parties and hence this Court cannot invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C. If it is invoked, it amounts to interfering and stalling the proceedings when serious allegation of forgery is made. The Apex Court in the judgment in the case of DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104 has categorically held that if the material is collected by the Investigating Officer and the Court has taken the cognizance, the Court has to look into the prima facie material available on 12 record whether the same discloses commission of any cognizable offence and under such circumstances, it should stay its hands and should not act like an Investigating Officer and probe into the material available on record considering the evidence. Hence, I do not find any merit in the petition to invoke Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD