IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 85/2016 BETWEEN 1. SMT. JALAJAKSHI W/O LATE B.S.VITTALA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O RAVI NIVAS, JODU BEETI, ARAVATHOKLU VILLAGE AND POST, VIA GONIKOPPA, VIRAJPET TALUK SOUTH KODAUGU 571 218.
2. R.RAVI SHANKAR AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE SUNDARA SHETTY, R/O RUCHI CHICKEN, MARKET ROAD, MANGALORE, PERMANENT RESIDENT OF JODUBETTI, AVARTHUKLU VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, SOUTH KODAGU 571 2018.
3. SRI.RATHISH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O SRINIVAS, R/O OF JODUBETTI, AVARTHUKLU VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, SOUTH KODAGU 571 218.
4. SRI.P.G.PRASAD S/O LATE GANAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O MATTUR VILLAGE, PONNAMPETE VILLAGE, VIRAJPET TALUK, SOUTH KODAGU 571 218. (BY SRI. RANJAN KUMAR K, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PONNAMPET POLICE STATION, VIRAJ PET TALUK 571 218.
2. SMT.K.MAMATHA W/O. B.S.ANANDA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O C.P.K.ROAD, PONNAMPET TOWN AND POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT 571 218.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 SRI. SUNIL K.N., ADV. FOR SRI. R. S. RAVI, ADV. FOR R2) ********* THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 19.02.2015 AND REGISTERING THE CASE U/S 465,467,468,471,420 R/W 34 OF IPC AND ISSUING OF SUMMONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS, PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMNFC AT PONNAMPETE, IN C.C.NO. 137/2015 (ANNEXURE-A).
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2015 passed by the Civil Judge & JMFC, Ponnampet in C.C.No.137/2015, whereby the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC and has issued summons to the petitioners.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute is civil in nature. The Will in question was produced before the civil court and the civil court has already given a ruling in respect of the said Will and therefore, there is no cause of action to proceed against the petitioners for the alleged offences.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, however, disputes the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners and contends that specific allegations are contained in the charge sheet and necessary material having been collected by the investigating agency, there is no reason to quash the charge sheet.
4. The charge sheet is filed against the petitioners on the specific allegation that the petitioners herein in collusion with each other got up a false document styled as “Will” of one K. Sundara Shetty. According to the prosecution, as on the date of execution of the said Will, the testator was hospitalised and the document was got up to knock off the properties of the prosecution witness. These allegations, prima facie, attract the ingredients of the offence alleged against the petitioners. Supporting material is collected in proof the said accusation. Hence, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE VP