IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9860/2017 BETWEEN:
1. HEMAVATHI W/O LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT KOTE RAMANAKOPPALU BELLUR HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 418.
2. KARIYAPA @ KARIYAPPAGOWDA S/O KARIYAPPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
3. CHANNEGOWDA S/O KARIYAPPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.
4. SHIVANANDA S/O KARIYAPPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. R-2 TO R-4 ARE R/O THOREMAVINAKERE BELLUR HOBLI NAGAMANGALA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 418.
(BY SRI. K.N. MOHAN., ADVOCATE FOR ... PETITIONERS SRI. UMA SHANKAR M.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY NAGAMANGALA TOWN POLICE STATION NAGAMANGALA REP. BY STATE PP.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RACHAIAH, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:07.07.2017 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MANDYA IN CRL.RP NO.5/2016 BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED:30.11.2015 IN C.C.NO.850/2010 OF THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NAGAMANGALA.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. K.N.Mohan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Sri. Umashankar M.N, for petitioners and Sri. S. Rachaiah learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos. 2 to 5 in C.C.No.596/2000 were being tried for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 447 and 506 IPC, and came to be released on bail by offering surety of accused No.1 who has produced RTC extract standing in the name of one Smt. Jayamma w/o Venkategowda, Badanahalli village, Nagamangala Taluk and to the said effect, an affidavit was also filed stating that her name is Jayamma and she is owner of the property. On 26.12.2011 one Smt. Jayamma w/o Venkategowda appeared before Court and filed an affidavit stating that she had not offered surety to accused in C.C.No.596/2000 and third party has produced RTC of her property by falsely stating her name as Smt. Jayamma. After filing of said affidavit, learned APP is said to have filed a memo to take necessary action against accused. On the basis of same, Circle Inspector, Nagamangala Police registered a case against accused. Based on same FIR in question came to be registered against petitioner in Crime No.5/2002 and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.850/2010. In the meanwhile, petitioners have also filed an application for discharge of application under Section 239 Cr.P.C which came to be allowed and same came to be set aside by the revisional Court, which orders are also called in question. Hence, seeking for quashing of the proceedings as well as the orders dated 17.11.2015, 07.07.2017 and 30.11.2015, petitioners are before this Court.
3. It is the contention of Sri.K.N.Mohan learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that offences alleged against the petitioners is one attracting Section 205 IPC and cognizance of the said offences can be taken by jurisdictional Court if there is compliance of Section 195(1)(b)(i) namely, if complaint is filed in writing to that Court by such officer of the Court which that Court may authorise in writing in that behalf. Hence, contending that said procedure has not been adopted, petitioners are seeking for quashing of said proceedings.
4. The allegation against petitioner is of falsely impersonating another for which Section 205 IPC has been invoked and FIR has been filed and after investigation, charge sheet has been filed. Mandate of Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. is clear and unambiguous namely, cognizance of the offence can be taken only when such complaint is made in writing by that Court or by an officer authorised by that Court and in the instant case, complaint having been registered by the jurisdictional police, proceedings are in violation of Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. and as such, continuation of proceedings against petitioners would be onerous and contrary to statutory provisions and thereby it would be an abuse of process of law.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDER (1) Criminal petition is allowed.
(2) Proceedings pending in C.C.850/2010 against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 205 and 144 r/w Section 34 of IPC is hereby quashed.
(3) Petitioners are acquitted of said offences.
SD/- JUDGE RU