Karnataka High Court
Basavaraj S/O. Shivalingappa ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P.NO.102371/2017
BETWEEN:
1. BASAVARAJ S/O SHIVALINGAPPA BENDIGERI,
AGE-43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O BENDIGERI ONI, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SHIVAKUMAR S/O CHANNAB ASAPPA RAMANAKOPPA,
AGE-42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
R/O 205/2, WARD NO.33, PART NO.2,
SHREE VEERESHWAR NAGAR, BANKERS COLONY,
JAKIR HUSSAIN COLONY, GADAG, DIST: GADAG.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.H.ANGADI, ADV.)
AND :
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI)
R/BY ITS S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
2. CHANDRAHAS S/O DATTATRAY RAYKAR,
AGE-61 YEARS, OCC:-GOLD SMITH,
R/O SONARWADA, SADASHIVAGAD,
TQ: KARWAR, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRASHANT S.MOGALI, HCGP. FOR R.1
SRI J.S.SHETTY ADV. FOR R.2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING THIS COURT TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PRESENT
PETITIONERS IN C.C.NO.67/2016 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED CIVIL
JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC., HUBBALLI, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420, 465, 468, 471 READ WITH
SECTION 34 OF IPC AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR
REGISTERED BY THE HUBBALLI SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION AT
THEIR MAG CRIME NO.83/2014, DATED 21.04.2014, FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420, 465, 468 AND 471
READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AS AGAINST THE PRESENT
PETITIONERS.
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
: O RD ER :
Though this petition is listed for admission,
with the consent of learned counsel for both the
parties, the same is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.2 and 3
in Crime No.83/2014 of Sub-Urban Police Station,
Hubballi, registered on the basis of the private
complaint No.1859/2013 on the file of the Court
of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C. Hubli ("the
Trial Court" for short), which is now pending in
C.C.No.67/2016 before the Trial Court are before
this Court seeking to quash the criminal
proceedings initiated against them.
3. Brief facts of the case are that, the
complainant Chandrahas filed the private
complaint in PCR.No.1859/2013 against accused
Nos.1 to 6 for the offences punishable under
Sections 465, 471, 419 and 420 read with section
3
34 of IPC alleging that accused Nos.1 to 6 in
collusion with one another impersonated the
deceased land owners and the witnesses,
concocted three general power of attorney deeds,
forged the signatures of the executants named
therein and got registered the same before the
Sub-Registrar by impersonating. Thereby they
have fabricated the document committed
cheating. It is stated that all the accused in
colluding each other sold the property in favour of
accused Nos.2 and 3 under two different sale
deeds dated 13.06.2012 and the consideration
received by them were misappropriated and
thereby they have committed the offences.
Therefore, the complainant requested the Trial
Court to take cognizance of the offence and to
initiate legal action.
4. The Trial Court referred the matter for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C to
Hubballi Sub-Urban Police Station. Crime
No.83/2014 was came to be registered and the
4
investigation was undertaken. After investigation,
charge sheet was came to be filed against
accused Nos.1 to 11 for the above said offences.
The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence and now the matter is pending in
C.C.No.67/2016 before the Trial Court for framing
charge.
5. The petitioners who are arrayed as
accused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court seeking
to quash the criminal proceedings initiated
against them.
6. Heard Sri R,H,Angadi, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri Prashanth Mogali, learned
High Court Government Pleader for respondent-
State and Sri J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for
respondent No.2.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that, bald and general allegations are
made against all the accused by the complainant
for having committed the offences. These
5
petitioners being accused Nos.2 and 3 are the
purchasers of the property in question for
consideration and they have never knew that the
general power of attorney deeds were fabricated
or forged by the other accused as alleged. There
is absolutely no allegation in the complaint nor in
the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer
regarding the role played by accused Nos.2 and 3.
Under such circumstances, initiation of criminal
proceedings against these petitioners would
amount to abuse of process of Court and hence he
prays for allowing the petition.
8. Per contra, learned High Court
Government Pleader and the learned counsel for
respondent No.2 opposing the petition submitted
that, serious allegations are made against the
petitioners along with other accused, for having
committed the offence. Apart from the allegations
made in the private complaint, the Investigating
Officer, held the investigation and filed the
charge sheet. Prima facie materials are placed
6
before the Court. Under such circumstances, the
criminal proceedings against these petitioners
cannot be quashed. The Trial Court has already
taken cognizance of the offences in the matter.
Under such circumstances, no grounds are made
out for allowing the petition and accordingly, they
prays for dismissal of the petition.
9. Perused the materials on record.
10. The point that would arise for
consideration of this Court is as follows:
"Whether the criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioners in
C.C.No.67/2016 (Crime No.83/2014
arising out of PCR.No.1859/2013) on
the file of the Trial Court for the
offences punishable under Section 420,
465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34
of IPC are liable to be quashed under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C?
11. My answer to the above point is in the
'affirmative' for the following :
7
: REASONS :
12. The complainant filed the private
complaint in P.C.R.No.1859/2013 against accused
Nos.1 to 6 alleging that the accused have
colluded with one another and concocted three
different general power of attorney deeds and
subsequently sold the property in question in
favour of accused Nos.2 and 3. After due
investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed
and it is stated that all the accused colluded with
one another, impersonated the deceased co-
owners and the witnesses, concocted the general
power of attorney deeds, forged the signatures of
the real owners, registered the general power of
attorney deeds and thereby committed cheating.
It is also stated that on the basis of the said
concocted general power of attorney deeds, the
properties in question were sold in favour of
accused Nos.2 and 3 under two different sale
deeds on 13.06.2012. If the private complaint and
8
also the charge sheet filed by the Investigating
Officer are considered in the light of statements
of the various witnesses. There is allegation
regarding commission of offence by all the
accused in collusion with one another. However,
specific allegations were made against accused
No.4 for having impersonated deceased
Smt.Ranjana and one more witness. Similarly,
accused No.6 alleged to have impersonated
deceased Santosh, accused No.8 impersonated
one Sri Ravishankar Parigonda and the
complainant and accused No.10 impersonated the
witness Sanjay Raikar. It is stated that, accused
No.1 who is power of attorney holder who got the
said document registered through other accused
by impersonating the real owners. It is stated
that accused No.1 sold the property in favour of
accused Nos.2 and 3 for consideration. Except
saying that, accused Nos.2 and 3 have purchased
the property for lower price, I do not find any
other allegations against them for having involved
9
in concoction of general power of the attorney
deeds in any manner.
13. As rightly contended by learned counsel
for the petitioners, when there are no specific
allegations to contend that accused Nos.2 and 3
were very well knowing that they are party to the
criminal conspiracy or concoction, fabrication,
forgery of the document and also about
impersonation, it cannot be said that they are
also involved in commission of the offence.
Admittedly, they purchased the land for
consideration under two different registered sale
deeds. Since there are no allegations against
these petitioners for having involved in
commission of any of the offence as stated above,
I am of the opinion that the criminal proceedings
initiated against them is liable to be quashed as
the same would amount to abuse of process of
the Court. Hence, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and accordingly proceed to pass the
following :
10
: ORDER :
The criminal petition is hereby allowed.
The criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners herein (accused Nos.2 & 3) in C.C.No.67/2016 on the file of the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 420, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM