Karnataka High Court
Shameembano Rafiq Ahamed Inamdar vs The State on 25 November, 2021
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P NO.102603/2017
BETWEEN
SHAMEEMBANO RAFIQ AHAMED INAMDAR
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: PRINCIPAL ROYAL ENGLISH
MEDIUM SCHOOL, R/O: NYAYA MARG,
NEAR SP OFFICE, SUBHASH NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADV.)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,
KHANIJA BHAVAN,BENGALURU.
REP.BY SPL.PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
2. JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
ENQUIRY & INSPECTION,BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SANTOSH MALAGOUDAR, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI.RAVINDRA NAIK, HCGP FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
DATED 18.08.2016 AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND THE
-2-
REGISTRATION OF FIR ON 15.03.2017 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(i)(c)(d) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT AND SECTIONS 465, 468 AND 471 OF IPC PENDING
ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI IN ACB POLICE
STATION CRIME NO. 4 OF 2017 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B
SO FAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 17.09.2021 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.5 is before this court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated on the basis of the first information lodged by respondent No.2, registered in Crime No.4/2017 by ACB Police, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(i)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2- Joint Director of Land Records, Enquiry and Inspection, Belagavi, filed the first information with ACB Police against the accused No.1 stating that city survey property bearing No.7948 measuring 2400 Sq.ft situated in Malamaruthi Extention, Belagavi City and bearing Municipal Property No.2663, it is found -3- in the city survey records that the property was registered in the name of Smt.Malaprabha Bharama Ajrekar in 1985, based on the so called sale deed dated 19.11.1982. On the basis of the said sale deed, the name of said Smt.Ajrekar was entered in the CTS records. In the meantime, there was a civil suit between said the Smt.Ajrekar and Sri.Shankarappa Meshtri in O.S.No.1060/2014 before the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC, Belagavi. The said suit ended in compromise as Smt.Ajrekar admitted that the property in question was basically the property belonging to the Municipal Corporation, Belagavi and also contended that the property actually belongs to Sri.Meshtri. Based on the compromise, the property was mutated in the name of said Sri.Shankarappa Meshtri.
3. It is stated that the Deputy Director, Land Records was asked to verify the records in the matter. He reported that the name of Smt.M.B.Ajrekar was mutated in the Municipal records as the same is shown to have allotted in her favour for a sale consideration of Rs.36,000/- on 13.05.1985. It is also reported that there were no records to prove such allotment and -4- the signatures of the officer approving the mutation is also doubtful. The report also highlighted that mutation in the name of Smt.Ajrekar was done without any records and the name of Sri.Meshtri was mutated only on the basis of compromise decree. When a detailed enquiry was held in the office, it was found that whole process is handiwork of a well organized group, who have devised a process and created papers to knock off the Municipal property worth crore of rupees.
4. It is also stated that, as per the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and the City Survey Manual, every property should have a Self Index File containing every action taken on the property and the said file is to be maintained by the office making entries regarding mutation, partition, transfer of right, mortgage etc. In the present case, such Self Index File of the property bearing No.7948 was not available, but the compromise entered into between Smt.Ajrekar and Sri.Meshtri was also suspicious. Moreover, immediately after mutation of the CTS records in the name of Sri.Meshtri, he advertised to sell the property in -5- question. It is suspected that there was criminal conspiracy by a group of persons with an intention to knock off the Municipal property. It is also suspected that the city survey officials must have joined hands and facilitated to grab the property which indicates abuse of authority vested in them.
5. It is stated that the Corporation is not a party in O.S.No.1060/2014 between Smt.Ajrekar and Sri.Meshtri. As per the terms of the compromise, Smt.Ajrekar concedes that there was no sale in her favour in respect of the property in question, but on the other hand contends that sale was in favour of Sri.Meshtri by the Municipal Corporation and she withdrew from her contention that property was sold in her favour. The suit ended in compromise and was not decided on merits. Therefore, in view of the same, a detailed investigation is to be held to find out as to who are responsible for concoction of the documents in respect of the valuable property belonging to the City Municipal Corporation, Belagavi. Therefore, he requested ACB, Belagavi to register a case and to conduct investigation. Accordingly, the -6- ACB, Belagavi registered crime No.4/2017 for the above said offences.
6. The petitioner is before this court seeking to quash the criminal complaint and FIR in crime No.4/2017 by the ACB, Belagavi.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde, learned counsel Sri.Santosh Malagoudar for respondent No.1 and learned HCGP Sri.Ravindra Naik for respondent No.2.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in the first information or in the FIR registered by the ACB Police. She is not a government servant and there is no allegation against her and she has not committed any offence. It is also not the contention of the prosecution that she availed any benefit under any of the transactions but the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5 only on the allegation that she instigated accused No.2 in committing the offence. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner is arrayed as an accused only on the basis of the say of the co-accused. It is -7- also stated that mutation was effected in respect of the property in question on the basis of the decree passed in O.S.No.1060/2014. The said decree is not challenged by anybody, including the informant and the City Municipal Corporation. When there are absolutely no materials to connect the petitioner to the offence in question, the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, he prays for allowing the petition.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned HCGP for respondent No.2 opposing the petition submitted that serious allegations are made regarding concoction of the documents and misusing the authority. A detailed investigation is required to be undertaken, as the property belongs to the City Municipal Corporation, Belagavi, which is valued crore of rupees. The City Municipal Corporation is not a party in the suit in O.S.No.1060/2014, which is apparently a collusive suit. In the meantime, the internal investigation held in the department discloses that there is apparent concoction of the documents and suppression of material facts, only with an intention to knock off -8- the valuable property. The investigation is still in progress, several documents were seized and disputed signatures were sent for examination by the experts. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot seek the relief of quashing the criminal proceedings. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.
10. Perused the material on record. The point that would arise for my consideration is:
Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Sections 465, 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(i)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act pending in crime No.4/2017 of ACB, Belagavi is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
11. It is the specific contention of the informant who is the Joint Director of Land Records, Enquiry and Inspection, Belagavi a responsible public officer, who made specific -9- allegation regarding concoction of the document, forgery and presenting the forged document, as if it is a genuine document and also misconduct committed by the officials working in the City Municipal Corporation. Even though the petitioner is not named either in the first information or in the FIR, during investigation, the Investigating Officer while filing the remand application arrayed this petitioner as accused No.5. In the said remand report, it is specifically stated that, it is the petitioner who instigated the accused Smt.Ajrekar and took her signature on the various documents under the pretext of getting her pension. On the basis of such statement and in the light of the serious allegation of commission of the offence, this petitioner was apprehended. Admittedly, investigation is not yet completed and the charge sheet is not yet filed. When there are specific allegations against all the accused for having committed the offence in respect of the valuable property belonging to the City Municipal Corporation, Belagavi, the same cannot be ignored by giving flimsy reasons. The allegation made by the informant is to be investigated in detail to find out the role of each and every accused in commission of the offence. Simply because the
- 10 -
petitioner is not named in the FIR and she was not a government servant, cannot be a ground to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention taken by the petitioner. Hence, I answer the above point in the "Negative" and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MBS/-