Karnataka High Court
Mr M Bhaktavatsala vs Smt Manjula on 13 April, 2012
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
the katha of lands in their names. The petitioners (accused) have created false, sham and fictitious documents. The I- respondent alleging offences punishable under
& 420 IPC, filed a complaint under section'll"2=Q.O::_iCrlPl.C;lf_ V' which has been referred for investigation u'nder_ selciiiori. 156(3) Cr.P.C. The investigation pending, * investigation has been stalled"'ve«iIVTi*view of._thEt order it passed by this court. .
5. The sale deeds to show Jonl.lV2'7;'l)2.l968, late Patel Maregowdjaigthigh'? Til'-reslpondent had sold 3/ 4"' interest in properties described in complaint in ra§o__u'r_ of--.,/Q:D;'V.Padmanabhajah S/o. late D.\/fenkpataramva'-E.$harrna. and H.L.Narasimha Sastry S/o.
" lIfl'.'Subram"anyaml V" lllll Bangalore. The above said and H.L.Narasimha Sastry sold the aforestated fproperties in favour of M.Bhakthavatsala (petitioner No.1), M.Surendranath (the father of petitioner M.Ramesh (petitioner No.5) and M.Ravindranath (the father of petitioner No.7) under registered sale deed dated JV V 26.03.1968. Thereafter, names of petitioners were entered in revenue records, which are sought to be rectified, by I--respondent and other family members in a regular.la'plpealr.p filed before the Assistant Commissioner at K it The I--respondent and other 'metmbersfl«of_V'i5atei. Maregowda have filed O.S.No.g.175/20.1 on thejfile of Civil Judge at Devanahalli,l"*vh,f:or. partitioii,fandiseparatell' possession of their shares in property, wherein they have alleged that had two wives and defendant«1\lo'{-1 step mother of I--respondent 5 are legal heirs of "son"lof Late Patel Maregowda through his alleged in O.S.No. 175/2011 that defendants tliefbrothers of plaintiffs and they have been _m1'.s~managing, the suit schedule properties. The 'lgpetitiovnersghave managed to get the revenue entries H their favour. In O.S.No. 175/2011, the I-respondent and other daughters of late Patel Maregowda 1' " liayve sought for partition and separate possession of their shares in the properties mentioned in complaint. owfiwéi.
9. I have extracted the relevant averments of complaint, which accepted at their face value do not disclose Offences punishable under sections 420 8: 465 IPC, cognizable offence. It is not the case of petitioners herein had forged sale' "dated 27.02.1968 and 26.03.1968? has to convert a civil dispute has resorted to pressur,e"~..tacticis"' lllhelpjof police. Therefore, the complaintlisl 'mlo--tilvated.ti' * The initiate§i'~l.)-luloceedings before the conceded that revenue entnies H" petitioners herein. In the appeal .__filedl Assistant Commissioner on 16.05._201ul, is 'not-alleged that petitioners have committed of, anylfldocuments or they have cheated the using forged documents. On the other hand, A1t_is allege.-dfthat I--respondent/complainant was shocked to find' names of petitioners herein in the revenue records. 2 petitioners being powerful persons have managed to get their names entered into revenue records. In YN L W/L./L(£' 10 offence upon a Police report and should proceed in person or depute one of his prescribedbg deputies to proceed to the spot to investigat.e"'p'<.Vg:'l'._ under Section 157(l)(a) when the offender -1- named and if the case is not of a seri_ous'_:
the officer need proceed in person. or'..&depute._l_1i:s'fl p subordinate. Under Section (1'll'b_)"' appears to such Police Qfficerathat sufficient ground for entering on he shall not invesptigatg,tlieiicase,.andfithe. officer should informv "--t.he_ under the prescribed manner,v:f'Th1;.5:'; Officer who is empowered to investigate'_j_on_.tlj:ef information receiv'e:d.'__ conirnission of a cogniza'b.lei_offenc--eu"c.andevoid whether there is {no "su.fficief1t' for entering into an Vilnvestigationaridifthere is no sufficient ground he'should"'no4"tinvestigate the case. But once the ' ~ MagistraAte"o'rders an investigation under Section ;,.1"56{3)» the Police Officer is bound to
-investigate the matter and there is no question V'of"'_h_is'V.f:deciding not to investigate. Thus, by an order of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) the ~ discretion given to the Police Officer under Section 157 is taken away. It is therefore very important that the Magistrate applies his mind and finds that the allegations made in the ®\2y xm,,x 12 personal grudge. When such is the circumstane'efl'--iy. which is disclosed from the materials l"
it is not only empowers this Court to 4.
the interest of justice, but it Tlil1'€'._ duty t.f_i1'§V":l'V Court to nip such an investigatlionl The learned single Jud}3,e«--xyas, lthereforeg:rightin allowing the Wnt petitivonis' and lqilasiliinéfithe investigation in .each, i' o'1ie_: ' ' of " a. the T complaint referred by the M'agl,istratef,to Police. We 'find that there is no...rIien.'t'li,ni.yyth.ese":iQyrit appeals.
These #appe_als dismissed with; each of the writ 3PP€3*1$3"' V' if T] T
12. In made" V supra, I have held that aVer1nents<--of comlplaint._:acCepted at their face Value do not constitute 'offences punishable under sections 465 & 420 IPC V. A do notllconstitute any cognizable offence. . :13: Qrné -perusal of the proceedings before the revenue ._authorities__, safely be inferred that I--respondent has filed tl__1is'z:'omplaint to harass the petitioners as a short cut ..method: The learned Magistrate Without taking pains to find l'~_lout"lif the complaint would disclose cognizable offence has Jlmechanically passed an order of reference under section l'\7 ~ Vi/the-.174"