Karnataka High Court
Mv Mohan Kumar vs State Of Karnataka on 31 May, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.4724 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. M.V. MOHAN KUMAR,
S/O LATE P.VENKATESH,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
2. R.M. PADMAVATHI,
S/O M.V.MOHAN KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
PETITIONERS 1 TO 2 ARE R/A
NO.752, 2ND MAIN ROAD,
MATHIKERE, BENGALURU - 560079.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.H.P.LEELADHAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY BENGALURU METROPOLITAN
TASK FORCE, BENGALURU,
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. SRI MANJUNATH B.,
S/O T. BYLAPPA, AGED 33 YEARS,
R/AT NO.27, SINGAPURA VILLAGE,
YELAHANKA HOBLI, VIDYARANYAPURA POST,
BENGALURU NORTH, BENGALURU - 560097.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. S.G.MUNISWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.20767/2015,
DATED 24.08.2015 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3, 4 OF SC/ST (PTCL) ACT, 1978
AND UNDER SECTIONS 468, 420 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Charge sheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 4 and 8 of Karnataka SC & ST (PTCL) Act, 1978 against the petitioners alleging that they have purchased the property in question from grand father of the C.W.1 fully knowing that the land was granted in favour of Thimmaiah who belongs to schedule caste community and without obtaining permission from the competent authority by creating false documents. Learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Taking exception, this writ petition is filed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force (for short, 3 the 'BMTF') which is established for the purpose of investigation and prosecution of such offence relating to the unauthorized occupation of land belonging to the Government has registered a complaint against the petitioners. He submits that in the present case, property in question belongs to a private person and as such registration of FIR by the BMTF is one without jurisdiction. In support of his case, he places reliance on the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5340/2012 disposed of 10.10.2013. He further submits that the charge sheet material does not disclose commission of the aforesaid offences which is alleged against the petitioners and in the absence of any corroborating material, the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioners is without any substance.
3. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners have purchased the property in question by 4 creating false documents and without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority as specified under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Hence, the police after investigation have rightly filed the charge sheet and same cannot be faulted with.
4. I have carefully examined the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. The BMTF Committee is established by the Government vide Order dated 17.11.2004 authorizing it to investigate and prosecute such offence relating to the unauthorized occupation of the land belonging to the Government. In the present case, the allegation is that the petitioners by creating false documents and contrary to the provisions of the PTCL Act have purchased the property belonging to the second respondent which is a private property and not a Government land. Hence, registration of FIR culminating in filing of the charge sheet by the BMTF Committee is held to be one without jurisdiction.
5
6. To constitute the offence of forgery there should be creation of documents resulting in causing personal injury to the second respondent. In the present case, the charge sheet material does not disclose that the petitioners have created any documents so as to cause personal injury to the second respondent. In the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute offence punishable under Section 468, the filing of the charge sheet for the said offence is without any substance.
7. To constitute offence under Section 420 there must be specific allegation that the petitioners from inception i.e., from the date of execution of the sale deed had dishonest intention to cheat the second respondent. In the absence of such specific allegation and petitioners having purchased the property in question from the grand father of the second respondent on 17.07.1995, the filing of charge sheet for the aforesaid offence is also held to be one with out substance.
6
8. The alleged incident has taken place in the year 1994 however, the FIR was lodged in the year 2014 without offering plausible explanation.
9. The Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M.Madhusudhan Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 582 at paragraph 30 as held as follows:
30. "Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the First Information Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First Information Report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity.
Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained."
10. In the absence of explanation offered by the second respondent in lodging FIR, it is implied that the 7 FIR lodged by the second respondent is with malice and ulterior motive so as to wreak vengeance against the petitioners-Accused.
11. In view of the preceding analysis, the registration of FIR and filing of the charge sheet by the BMTF is held to be one without jurisdiction. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. Criminal petition is allowed.
ii. The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.20767/2015 pending on the file of Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE RKA