IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6657 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHENNAMMA W/O LATE DALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT 1192, BASATTI KOPPAL, HASSAN-573 201 2. SMT H D SARWA MANGALA W/O KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT MARGANA HALLI, RAMAGANA TARTI, CHIKKABALLAPURA-5602104 3. SMT H D JYOTHI W/O M RUDRAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A NO.273, KHB COLONY, T R NAGAR, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT- 577 522 4. SMT H D GAYATHRI W/O SRI RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.1810, DASAGOWDA BEEDI, HOLENARASIPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 211 5. SMT DHANALAKSHMI W/O SHIVUKUMAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT PAPA REDDY BUILDING, NO.1A,RUPENA AGRAHARA, BANGALORE-560 041.
(BY SRI: N C NAGESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. STATE THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER, J P NAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY:
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001 2. SMT VEENA W/O SHIVA KUMAR, NO.90,3RD CROSS,38TH MAIN, ROSE GARDEN,J.P. NAGAR 6TH PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI: VENKATRAMAN NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR SRI: R.NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO (a) QUASH THE FIR AND INFORMATION DATED:02.07.12, REGISTERED AS FIR NO.565/12 WITH RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE (ANNEXURE-A AND A1) (b) QUASH THE FINAL REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE IN MATTER BEARING CRIME NO.565/12, RENUMBRED AS C.C.NO.3550/13, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ACMM, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-B) (c) QUASH THE ORDER DATED:02.08.13 PASSED BY THE V ACMM, BANGALORE IN MATTER BEARING CRIME NO.565/12, RENUMBERED AS C.C.NO.3550/13 (ANNEXURE-C) (d) QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN MATTER BEARING C.C.NO.3550/13, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE V ACMM, BANGALORE (ANNEXURE-C) THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R In this petition, petitioners have sought to quash the FIR and the final report in Crime No.565/2012 pending on the file of the V Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru in C.C.No.3550/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 352, 498A r/w.34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2. During the pendency of the petition, a joint compromise petition filed by the petitioners and respondent No.1 was put up for consideration on 4.4.2009. Looking into the said compromise memo, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Sri.R.Nagendra Naik disowned his signature and submitted that he did not subscribe his signature to the said compromise memo and the signature appearing on the second page of the compromise memo was not his signature.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 was placed on record and the say of the learned counsel for the petitioners was called for. But when the matter was listed again on 11.04.2018, counsel for the petitioners remained absent and hence notice was issued to the learned counsel for the petitioners-Sri.N.C.Nagesh Kumar and one Mr.Harish to appear before the Court on 22.04.2019. On 22.04.2019 Sri.N.C.Nagesh Kumar, learned counsel on record for the petitioners, though appeared before the Court, yet did not submit anything in writing, instead, he made his oral submission that he prepared the joint memo and gave it to his client- Sri.Shivakumar to obtain signatures of the parties. The counsel Sri.N.C.Nagesh Kumar pointed out to a person in the open court and identified him as Sri.Shivakumar. On questioning, the said Shivakumar submitted that he subscribed his signature to the said joint memo and thereafter, handed it over to respondent No.2-Smt.Veena to obtain her signature and the signature of her counsel, but by mistake, respondent No.2-Smt.Veena took the signature of the counsel who was representing her before the lower court and thereafter handed over the said memo to him and he, in turn, handed it over to his counsel Sri.N.C.Nagesh Kumar. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel Sri.N.C.Nagesh Kumar that the aforesaid Shivakumar was not a party to the proceedings before this Court, immediately learned counsel submitted that the said Shivakumar was accused No.1 before the Court below and therefore, he handed over the said memo to the said Shivakumar.
4. Undisputedly Criminal Petition is filed before this Court by accused Nos.2 to 6 but the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners goes to show that the learned counsel has been taking instructions from accused No.1, who appears to have been maintaining the criminal petition on behalf of accused Nos.2 to 6. Be that as it may, the proceedings that had taken place in the open court were recorded and the matter was directed to be listed on 23.04.2019 for the say of respondent No.2-Smt.Veena and her counsel.
On 23.04.2019, Respondent No.2-Smt.Veena was present before the Court and she made a submission that her trial Court Advocate took her signature on the memo and lower court Advocate himself signed the joint memo. At that stage, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.N.C.Nagesh Kumar, filed an affidavit tendering unconditional apology and sought to withdraw the joint memo dated 08.01.2016.
5. The above events clearly suggest that the parties have abused the process of court and accused No.1 has instituted champertous proceedings in the name of the petitioners viz. Accused Nos.2 to 5. Sri.N.C.Nagesh Kumar has misconducted himself by filing a petition before the Court on the instructions of accused No.1 who is not a party to the petition. The conduct of the learned counsel for the petitioners is highly reprehensible and condemnable. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.N.C.Nagesh Kumar, has virtually played fraud on the court and has acted in gross violation of the provisions of the Advocates Act.
However in view of the unconditional apology tendered by learned counsel for the petitioners, I desist from taking any action against the learned counsel Sri. N.C. Nagesh Kumar with the hope that he would demonstrate his compunction in action.
In the above circumstances, the joint memo filed by the parties is rejected and consequently, the petition is also dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/- / rs