IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3402 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
SMT DEVAMMA W/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS R/AT MARALEBEKUPPE VILLAGE, UYYAMBALLI HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK-562117 RAMANAGAR DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI: HANUMANTHA REDDY Y. S., ADVOCATE) AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SATHNUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.05.2015 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PROSECUTION UNDER SECTION 216 OF CR.P.C. IN C.C.NO.879/1992 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. C.J. AND J.M.F.C., KANAKAPURA VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No.879/1992 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kanakapura. Charges were framed against the petitioner/accused under Sections 465, 471, 420 and 379 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the grant order in respect of 25 acres of land comprised in Sy.No.421 of Maralebekuppe village was fabricated by the petitioner/accused and on the strength of the said document, the properties were alienated to one T.R.N. Swamy.
3. After recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, at the stage of examination of the petitioner/accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the prosecution moved an application under Section 216 Cr.P.C. seeking to frame additional charge under ‘Section 474 IPC’. In the application, it was stated that the material collected by the prosecution clearly make out the ingredients of Section 474 IPC; but at the time of framing charge, the Court omitted to frame charge for the said offence and hence, the prosecution sought to frame additional charge under section 474 IPC.
4. The application was opposed by the petitioner/accused contending that the charges have been framed based on the material available on record, that the Witnesses were examined by the prosecution long back, that the petitioner is a Senior Citizen; she is aged 93 years and the prosecution is interested in protracting the proceedings.
5. Though the prosecution moved the above application at the fag end of the trial at the stage of examination of the accused under 313 Cr.P.C., but solely on that ground, the application moved by the prosecution cannot be rejected. Records indicate that specific allegations are made against the petitioner that she fabricated a document styled as ‘grant order’ purporting to have been issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner under the Inams Abolition Act and fraudulently and dishonestly used the said document as genuine and on the strength of the said document, alienated the properties covered under the said document to one T.R.N. Swamy.
6. In the objection statement filed by the petitioner, she has unequivocally admitted that whatever documents she was in possession in respect of the property in question, the same have been handed over to aforesaid T.R.N. Swamy. The petitioner has nowhere denied the existence of the original document nor has she taken a stand that she was not in possession of the grant order, in respect of which, the impugned proceedings are initiated. Under the said circumstance, there being clear and cogent material to show that the petitioner was in possession of the alleged grant order, in the wake of clear and definite allegation that the said order was forged one and was fraudulently and dishonestly used as genuine, in my view, the offence under Section 474 IPC is clearly made out by the prosecution. Under the said circumstances, the trial Court ought to have framed the charge against the petitioner/accused for the offence punishable under section 474 Indian Penal Code. Since the trial Court has omitted to frame the said charge at the initial stage, the said error could be rectified at any time before the pronouncement of the judgment and hence, the trial court has rightly allowed the application filed by the prosecution and has ordered for framing additional charge for the alleged offence under section 474 Indian Penal Code. I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Since the trial has been inordinately prolonged, the learned Magistrate is directed to expedite the proceedings and conclude the trial within an outer limit of six months from the date of communication of this order.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-