Rathnamma vs Chinnaswamy on 19 June, 2018

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Rathnamma vs Chinnaswamy on 19 June, 2018

Bench: K.N.Phaneendra

                             1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2018

                       BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

       CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6817 OF 2015

BETWEEN

1.    Rathnamma,
      W/o. G. N. Venkatesh,
      Aged about 60 years,
      Residing at Garvebhavi Palya,
      Beguru Hobli,
      Bengaluru South Taluk,
      Bengaluru District - 560 068.

2.    M. Sridhar Babu,
      S/o. Late Munireddy,
      Aged about 48 years,
      R/at No.48, 20th Main Road,
      BTM 1st Stage, Bengaluru - 78.      ...Petitioners

(By Sri. G. A. Vishwanatha Reddy, Advocate)

AND

1.    Chinnaswamy
      S/o. Late Hanumanthappa,
      Aged about 80 years,

2.    Raguramareddy,
      S/o. Chinnaswamy,
      Aged about 47 years,

3.    C. Ananda Reddy,
      S/o. Chinnaswamy,
      Aged about 42 years,
                            2



     All are R/at. No.260,
     Near Nandi Toyota Showroom,
     Garvebhavipalya,
     Bengaluru - 68.

4.   State by Madiwala Police Station,
     Bengaluru - 560 068.              ...Respondents

(By Sri. S.P. Totad, Advocate for R3,
    Sri. Chetan Desai, HCGP for R4.)

      This Criminal Petition filed under section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the order dated 24-01-2013
passed by the Court of the 3rd Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru
registering the complaint as a Criminal Case in
C.C.No.1517/2013 against the petitioners 1 and 2 for
the offences P/U/S 420, 468, 471 R/W 34 of IPC.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission
this day, the Court made the following:

                      ORDER

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for respondents.

2. Records disclose that the respondents have filed a private complaint under Sections 420, 468, 471 R/W 34 of IPC, alleging that petitioners herein have forged and connected a G.P.A. alleged to have been executed by the complainant and a finding has also been given by the Civil Court to that effect. Based on the judgment of the Civil Court as well as making such 3 allegation and producing the alleged forged document, a complaint came to be lodged in PCR.No.22424/2004. Initially said complaint was referred to Police for investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Police, after investigation submitted a 'B' summary report and it was challenged by the complainants by filing protest petition. After taking cognizance on the basis of the complaint and protest petition, learned Magistrate rejected the 'B' summary report. After recording the sworn statement of the complainant and perusing the complaint averments as well as other documents produced, learned Magistrate tentatively came to the conclusion that it is a fit case to issue process against the accused. A detailed order has been passed by the learned Magistrate in this regard.

3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners seriously contend that, the Civil Court has given its finding with regard to the forgery of the document without any basis. However, forgery is an offence as contemplated under Indian Penal Code. 4 When specific allegations are made with regard to forgery of documents, the same has to be unearthed by all means and matter has to be investigated either by the Police or inquired into by the Court. The learned Magistrate in fact, in his order referred to all the documents including General Power of Attorney and after going through the same and sworn statement of the complainant, the Magistrate has issued process. There is no illegality committed by the learned Magistrate.

4. In the above said circumstances, defence that has been taken by accused has to be thrashed out at the time of recording of evidence or framing of charges or on merits of the case.

5. Under the above said circumstances, I do not find any strong reason to quash the said proceedings. Hence, this petition is devoid of merits and same is liable to dismissed and accordingly, it is dismissed.

However, the petitioners can raise all their contentions before the trial Court at the time of argument before framing of charges.

With these observations, the petition is dismissed.

In view of disposal of the main petition, IA-1/2015 for granting stay does not survive for consideration. Hence, IA-1/2015 is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE SB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court