Karnataka High Court
Renuka D/O. Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 July, 2022
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102556 OF 2019 (482-)
BETWEEN:
1. RENUKA D/O. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC- HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O- H.NO.1688, MADLERI ROAD,
RANEBENNUR, DIST- HAVERI
NOW AT BENGALURU-560001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MANE.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
SPP., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by BENCH AT DHARWAD.
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL 2. NARAYAN S/O NAGAPPA BATTAL,
Location: HIGH COURT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD OCC- AGRICULTURE,
R/O- YEREKUPPI VILLAGE,
TQ- RANEBENNUR,
DIST- HAVERI-581115.
3. VENKAPPA S/O RAMAPPA SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCC- AGRICULTURE,
R/O- MAIDUR,
-2-
CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019
TQ- RANEBENNUR,
DIST- HAVERI-581115.
4. NARAYAN S/O RAMAPPA SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O- MAIDUR,
TQ- RANEBENNUR,
DIST- HAVERI-581115.
5. MALESH S/O RAMAPPA SAWAKAR,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC-JOB,
R/O- MAHENDRAKAR CHAL,
NEAR KITTUR CHANNAMMA PARK,
DHARWAD-580008.
6. AKKAMMA @ VIJAYALAKSHMI
W/O LAXMIKANT DESI,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
OCC- HOUSEHOLD,
R/O- NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE
JUDICIAL BLOCK COREMANGAL
BENGALURU.-560047.
7. CHIDANANDA S/O VENKAPPA HADIMANI,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC- AGRICULTURE,
R/O- YEREKUPPI VILLAGE,
TQ- RANEBENNUR, DIST-HAVERI-581115.
8. BASAVARAJ S/O RACHAPPA HOSAMANI,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
(ATTESTING WITNESS TO WILL OF
LALITA)
OCC- RETIRED,
R/O- NEAR HEAD POST,
TQ- RANEBENNUR, DIST- HAVERI-581115.
9. MUKUNDAPPA S/O HANUMANTAPPA YOGI,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
(ATTESTING WITNESS TO WILL OF
LALITA)
-3-
CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019
OCC- AGRICULTURE,
R/O- YEREKUPPI,
TQ- RANEBENNUR, DIST- HAVERI-581115.
10. PANDAPPA S/O RAMAPPA MALLADAD @ MALLUR,
(ATTESTING WITNESS TO WILL OF
RAMAKRISHNA REDDY)
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
OCC- BUSINESS,
R/O- POST YEDAHALLI
TQ- MUDHOL, DIST- BAGALKOT-587117.
11. SUBASH S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA PALGI,
(ATTESTING WITNESS TO WILL OF
RAMAKRISHNA REDDY)
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
OCC- AGRICULTURE,
R/O- YEREKUPPI,
TQ- RANEBENNUR,
DIST- HAVERI-581115.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1,
SMT V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO 6
SRI T.M. NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R8 AND 9
R2, R7, R10 AND R11 ARE SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND ORDER DATED 30/10/2019 PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI
(SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
NO.196/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A WHEREBY CONFIRMING THE
-4-
CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019
ORDER 01/09/2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND 2ND JMFC, RANEBENNUR IN P.C.NO.106/2014
ACCEPTING THE B REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
POLICE AND TO DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO CONDUCT
THE FULL PLEDGED TRIAL AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 467, 468, 471,
477 R/W 34 AND PUNISH THE RESPONDENT ACCUSED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.
ORDER
Heard Sri Santhosh B Mane, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Ramesh Chigari, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Smt. Vidya, learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 6, Sri T.M. Nadaf, learned counsel for respondents No.8 and 9.
2. Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with the following prayer:
"Wherefore, the petitioner humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the lower court records peruse the same and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30-10-2019 passed by the -5- CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019 learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (Sitting at Ranebennur) in Criminal Revision Petition No 196/2018 vide Annexure-A, whereby confirming the order dated 1-9-2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge & 2nd Additional JMFC Ranebunnur in P.C. No 106/2014 whereby accepting the B Report filed by the respondent Police and to direct the trial court to conduct the full pledged trial against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 477 R/w 34 IPC and punish the respondents accused in accordance with the law, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. Brief fact of the case are as under:
A private complaint came to be filed by the petitioner herein with the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC., Ranebennur, which was registered in P.C.106/2014. Learned Magistrate on registering of the private complaint, perused the complaint averments and referred the matter to the jurisdictional police for investigation by exercising the power under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Ranebennur Town Police -6- CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019 thereafter, registered a case in Cr.No.300/2014 on 31.10.2014 for the offences punishable under Section 467, 468, 471, 477 r/w Section 34 of IPC. After thorough investigation, the police were of the opinion that the contents of the complaint averments were false and filed a 'B' final report. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed a protest petition. Thereafter, learned Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and its witnesses and after verification of the material on record, came to the conclusion that no case is made out unless scribe and witnesses were examined and therefore, dismissed the complaint.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners approached the District Court in Crl.R.P.No.196/2018 which came to be dismissed by order dated 30.10.2019.
5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner before this Court with the following grounds:
"The Courts below have failed to consider the case of the petitioner in a proper perspective and on the notion that the litigation is Civil -7- CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019 dispute in nature have rejected the complaint which is arbitrary and without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the same are liable to be set aside.
The courts below have failed to consider that the allegations of forgery and criminal conspiracy is alleged against the accused persons which implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital Societal interest in securing probity of titles to or interest in land. Under such circumstances, both the court are erred in holding that it is merely a Civil dispute ignoring the conspiracy of the accused in creating the forged documents to be used in Court of law for wrongful and illegal gain.
The courts below have failed to consider that the forged documents are being used as evidence on a court of law which itself is grave offence under the provisions of IPC which required to be dealt with iron hands by the court but unfortunately, without considering these facts the courts below have brushed aside the allegation in a most arbitrary fashion which is required to be interfered with this Hon'ble Court.-8- CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019
The Courts below have failed to consider the gravity of the offences alleged against the accused where they have tried to create forged documents to be used in court of law to deprive the petitioner who is only daughter of her parents from her legitimate right of property and driven her away from the house of her parents.
The courts below have failed to consider that the petitioner has placed prima facie material such as the forensic lab report along with other documents such as the affidavit sworn before the court by her father and his service records which clearly disclose that the petitioner is the only daughter to her parents and she is the only person who can inherit the properties of her parents. But unfortunately without considering the facts and circumstances of the matter have rejected the complaint on the ground that it is civil dispute between the parties which encourage the persons like accused create any amount of forged documents to engulf the properties of poor people.
The Courts below have failed to consider that the case involve the allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of -9- CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019 fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the Court and deprivation of the complainant of his interest in the property on the basis of a fabricated Wills and if the allegations of FIR are construed as they stand it is evident that they implicate serious offences having bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of title to or interest in land as such these offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime as held by the Hon'ble Court Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimasinghbhai Karmur & others vs State of Gujrat and another.
The courts below are even not justified in accepting the report of the Police as the respondent Police is not authority to pass the judgment on the material evidence it is only required to investigate matter and provide the evidence before the court to decide the nature of offence and the punish the culprit. Unfortunately, in the present case, the Police itself have acted as a court in passing the judgment holding the dispute between the parties is Civil in nature without investigating
- 10 -CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019
the criminal part of such an act on the part of the accused.
The courts below have failed to consider that the prima facie evidence such as expert opinion was already placed before it and the petitioner being a young student was subjected to such a fraud depriving her of the parents properties and having been involved in such a grave offence of creating and fabricating of the evidence, the court below ought to have conducted the trial in accordance with the law.
The Courts below have failed to consider that the statement recorded by it after the receipt of the report by the Police also prima facie establishes that the offence of forgery and fabrication of documents has been committed by the accused persons but unfortunately without proper verification of the statements of the witnesses, the courts below have taken the entire matter so lightly which has resulted in rejection of the complaint holding it as mere civil dispute in a most arbitrary fashion."
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019
6. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Santhosh Mane vehemently contended that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Magistrate and dismissal of the revision petition by the learned District Judge is opposed to the settled principles of law and sought for allowing the petition.
7. He also pointed out that the learned Magistrate at the time of taking the cognizance of the offences alleged against the respondents 2 to 12, should not have insisted for explaining scribe and therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Magistrate accepting the B report which is incorrect which was not properly considered by the learned District Judge in Revision Petition No.196/2018.
8. He further contended that the learned Trial Magistrate has not properly decided the case as per the procedure known to law while accepting the B report and reject the protest petition sought for allowing the petition.
9. Per contra, Smt. Vidya, learned counsel contended that respondents 3 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased Padmavathamma,
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019 contended that per se no criminal action can be foisted against the legal representatives.
10. Further, Sri Nadaf, learned counsel contended that respondents 8 and 9 are the witnesses to the Will said to have been executed by Lalithamma and therefore, they cannot be preceded with the criminal action.
11. Learned HCGP however submits that learned Trial Magistrate has rightly considered the material on record and passed appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case and sought for passing appropriate order.
12. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
13. Admittedly, there is a civil dispute pending between the parties which is now pending before the I Appellate Court. In the mean time, the complaint lodged by the complainant was referred to the police and police is of the opinion that there is no material on record to proceed against the proposed accused persons and filed B report. B report was objected to by filing the protest petition. After
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019 considering the protest petition, learned Trial Magistrate directed the complainant to examine himself for the purpose of sworn statement and witnesses. On such consideration of the contents of the sworn statement and documents produced by the complainant, learned Magistrate passed detail order stating that the complainant failed to make out the case as to the investigation conducted by the police is not correct nor any case is made out proceed against respondents 2 to 12 for the alleged offences and passed an order accepting 'B' report.
14. The said order was subject matter of Revision Petition No.196/2018. Learned District Judge after re- appreciating the material on record, has confirmed the order of the Trial Magistrate.
15. This is factual finding that the complainant has failed to make out a case proceed against the respondents 2 to 12 for the aforesaid offences.
16. This Court while considering the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot revisit to the factual aspect of
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019 the matter having regard to the scope under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
17. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere with the learned Trial Magistrate and confirmed in Revision Petition No.196/2018. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
However, dismissal of this petition and the termination of the criminal proceedings shall not affect the rights of the petitioners in the pending civil litigation.
Sd/-
JUDGE MR