Karnataka High Court
Sri. Gangapa Mogaveera vs State By Kota Police Station on 25 January, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3590 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
SRI. GANGAPA MOGAVEERA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O KUKSHTA MOGAVEERA,
R/AT DURGA KRUPA,
28, HALADI, KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT-576222. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY KOTA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY OFFICE OF SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU.
2. SMT JYOTHI,
MAJOR, W/O SHEKAR,
R/AT KEDLAHAKLU,
SAIBRAKETTE POST,
9TH SHIRIYARA VILLAGE,
UDUPI TALUK AND
DISTRICT-576210. ...RESPONDENTS
-:2:-
(BY SRI RENUKARADHYA R. D., HCGP FOR R1,
SRI P. KARUNAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.CASE NO.24/2018 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE AT UDUPI,
FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 465 OF IPC AND SECTION
3(2)(vii) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.PC., for quashing of the proceedings in Spl.Case No.24/2018 pending on the file of the Principal District and Session Judge at Udupi, for the offence punishable under Sections 465 of Indian Penal Code and 3(2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "SC/ST Act").
2. The second respondent lodged first information report alleging that she belongs to Schedule Caste -:3:- community and she was appointed as the President of the Shiriyara Grama Panchayat and some of the members of the Grama Panchayat who were unable to bear her appointment as the President conspired to remove her from the post of the President. It is further alleged that the petitioner with an intention of cheating has created the documents by forging her signature on the documents including the work orders.
3. The Jurisdictional Police registered a case against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Police after investigation filed the charge sheet for the offence under Section 465 of IPC.
4. On 15.12.2017, the Investigating Officer made a request before the learned Magistrate to transfer the entire file in C.C.No.1590/2017 to the Jurisdictional Sessions Judge on the ground that he has already submitted additional charge sheet under Section 173(8) of Cr. P.C. by inserting -:4:- offence punishable under Section 3(2) (vii) of the SC/ST, Act. The learned Sessions Judge on the additional charge sheet filed by the Investigating officer has registered the case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC and Section 3(2) (vii) of the SC/ST, Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed this petition.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charge sheet for the offence punishable under section 465 of IPC was filed based on a report submitted by the private laboratory and not by the forensic laboratory of the Government and as such charge sheet filed is not sustainable in law. It is further submitted that the allegation made in the FIR does not discloses the commission of the offence punishable under 3(2) (vii) of the SC/ST Act. He further submitted that the investigating officer cannot be directed to be influenced by opinion of the public prosecutor before filing the report. In support of his -:5:- submission, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R. Sarala -vs- T.S. Velu and Others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1731.
6. On the other hand, respondent No.2 would submit that the allegations made in the FIR clearly discloses that the petitioner has committed the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC and also having regard to the fact that the respondent No.2 belongs to the Schedule caste community, the investigating officer is justified in filing the additional charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 3(2) (vii) of the SC/ST Act.
7. Learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1-State would reiterate the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. -:6:-
9. Though there is no allegation in the FIR lodged by the respondent No.2, the Police initially registered the FIR against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 of Indian Penal Code and after investigation, the investigating officer has filed the charge sheet against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 465 of IPC based on a report submitted by a private laboratory stating that the petitioner has created the document by forging the signature of the respondent No.2.
10. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.100822/2016 disposed on 23.11.2016 has held that the investigating officer has committed a serious error in referring those documents for verification to a private laboratory, instead of sending the same to forensic laboratory of the Government. Therefore, it is seen that the court below though initially committed an error in accepting aforesaid 'B' report has subsequently set right this mistake by rejecting the report.
-:7:-
11. In view of the same, the charge sheet filed by the investigating officer on the basis of the report submitted by the private laboratory is not sustainable in law.
12. A perusal of the compliant discloses that there is no allegation against the petitioner for having committed offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (vii) of the SC/ST Act and the only allegation against the petitioner is that he has created the documents by forging the signature of the respondent No.2 which does not attract offence punishable under Section 3(2) (vii) of the SC/ST Act.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that impugned proceedings against the petitioner requires to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal Petition is allowed -:8:- ii. Proceedings in Spl.Case No.24/2018, pending on the file of the Principal District and Session Judge at Udupi, for the offence punishable under Sections 465 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(2) (vii) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HR