Karnataka High Court
Parappa S/O Yellappa Byakod vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 May, 2023
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
CRL.P No. 103745 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MAY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103745 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
PARAPPA S/O. YELLAPPA BYAKOD,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULURIST AND
EMPLOYEE, R/O: CHIMMAD, BYAKOD TOTA,
TQ: RABAKAVI, BANHATTI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NARAYAN V. YAJI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
BANHATTI POLICE STATION,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
REPRESENTATION BY
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
KATTIMANI
Date: 2023.06.01
11:15:52 -0700
OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD-580011.
2. VITTAL S/O. SIDDAPPA KARJOL,
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST
R/O: CHIMMAD, BYAKOD TOTA,
TALUK: RABAKAVI, BANHATTI,
DIST: BAGALKOT-587312.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT AND
SRI. M.L. VANTI, ADVOCATES)
-2-
CRL.P No. 103745 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR, CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN BALLARI MAHILA POLICE STATION CRIME
NO.205/2019 CC NO.370/2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S
498A, 504, 506, R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3 AND 4 OF DP ACT
PENDING ON THE FILE OF 4TH ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
BALLARI IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Girija S.Hiremath, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and Sri M.L.Vanti, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
2. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with the following prayer :-
"To quash the FIR, charge sheet and entire proceedings in Ballari Mahila Police Station Crime No.205/2019 CC No.370/2021 for the offence punishable u/s 498A, 504, 506, r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act pending on the file of 4th Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Ballari in the interest of justice and equity."
3. Though the matter is listed for admission by consent of the parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
-3-CRL.P No. 103745 of 2022
4. The brief facts of the case are as under :-
A complaint came to be lodged by Vitthal Siddappa Karjol with Banahatti Police, Bagalkot District on 24.10.2022 which was registered in Crime No.101/2022 for the offences punishable U/sec.465, 468, 471 IPC against the petitioner. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that the complainant was acting as the Director of Milk Production Co-operative Society and petitioner and others were working as Directors of the said society. There was some differences between the complainant and the accused and in that regard, the accused said to have forged the signature of the complainant and converted it as a resignation letter and forwarded the same to the concerned authority and removed the complainant from the directorship. Therefore, the complainant sought action against the accused- petitioner. Based on the complaint, police registered the case as aforesaid and are investigating the matter.-4-
CRL.P No. 103745 of 2022
In the meantime, petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to quash the complaint stating that along with the complainant seven other directors have given a resignation letter and none of them have challenged the validity of the said resignation letter except the complainant and there is a huge delay of 23 days in filing the complaint which exposes the hollowness in the claim of the complainant and sought for quashing of the FIR and further proceedings thereon.
5. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as an afterthought, complainant want to retrace steps in resigning from the post of director for the society and filed a false complaint against the accused herein and the contention that his signature is forged is far from truth and sought for quashing of the criminal complaint.
6. Per contra, Sri M.L.Vanti, learned counsel for the defacto complainant vehemently contended -5- CRL.P No. 103745 of 2022 that the investigation is stayed and if the matter is investigated and the signature of the complainant is referred to the handwriting expert on the disputed resignation letter and the admitted signature, truth will be unearthed and necessary report would be filed by the Investigation Officer and if there is any adverse report against the petitioner herein, it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the same after the charge sheet is filed and if the report is favourable in favour of the accused petitioner, he would be absolved from all the liabilities and therefore, it is too premature for this Court to form an opinion about the merits of the case and sought for rejection of the petition.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader supports the arguments put forth on behalf of defacto complainant and sought for dismissal of the petition.
-6-CRL.P No. 103745 of 2022
8. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
9. On such perusal, there is no dispute that complainant was a Director of Milk Production Co-operative Society by name Byakoda Tota Halu Utpadakara Sahakara Sagha Niyamita, Chimmad. So also there is no dispute that the accused was the Secretary of the said society.
10. The bylaws of the said society are annexed to the petition. Copy of the disputed document is also furnished along with the petition.
11. Perusal of the same would show that on 01.10.2022, the complainant said to have given a unconditional resignation to the post of the directorship and the same is received by the accused petitioner in the office by subscribing his signature and the seal of the society and forwarded the same to the concerned authority for acceptance of the -7- CRL.P No. 103745 of 2022 resignation letter and removal of the directorship of the complainant. Similar letters were also said to have been given by other seven directors and the copies thereof are also furnished along with the petition to establish that it is not an isolated act of the complainant that has been acted upon by the accused-petitioner.
12. Admittedly, the said resignation letter finds a signature said to have been made by the 2 n d respondent/defacto complainant. Sri M.L.Vanti, learned counsel seriously disputed that said signature is that of 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.
13. This Court at the stage of deciding the merits of the present petition, cannot form a opinion that the signature found on the resignation letter is the genuine signature of the 2 n d respondent or not. It is for the investigation agency to refer the said signature to the expert and obtain necessary report from the handwriting expert and proceed with filing -8- CRL.P No. 103745 of 2022 appropriate report as is contemplated U/sec.173 of Cr.P.C.
14. If any adverse report is filed against the petitioner, it is always open for the petitioner to challenge the same either before this Court or before the trial Court as the case may be in accordance with law.
15. Reserving such liberty for the petitioner, directing the investigation to continue by disposing of the present petition would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following order is passed.
ORDER The petition is dismissed.
However, liberty is reserved for the petitioner to approach the Court again with appropriate prayer in the event of the petitioner suffering any adverse report at the hands of investigation agency.
Sd/-
JUDGE CLK