IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8448/2016 BETWEEN NAGARAJU S/O JAVEREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT NO.3, 5TH MAIN ROAD RAGHAVENDRA BLOCK BENGALURU-560 050.
(BY SRI B RAMESH, ADVOCATE) AND 1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION, ANEKAL BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT.
2 . LAKSHMI VINUTHANA REDDY W/O LATE S RAMAKRISHNA R/AT NO.102, NGAAHUJA ENCLAVE 1ST FLOOR, ST JOHNS ROAD BENGALURU-560 042.
(BY SRI VINAYAKA V S, HCGP FOR R1 SRI ABHINAV R, ADVOCATE FOR R2) ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN CR.NO.302/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, ANEKAL FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 426 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Though the matter is coming up for admission, with the consent of the learned counsels on both the sides, the matter is heard and disposed of finally.
2. The grievance of the petitioner, who has filed this Criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC., is that he has been harassed at the hands of the respondent on an allegation that he has stood as a witness to a sale deed that was executed by one Ramakrishnappa S/o Late P.T.Seetharam in favour one Sri.H.Shankaregowda S/o Late Hanumanthegowda vide an absolute sale deed dated 08.07.2015, which was registered in the office of sub- Registrar, Anekal on 08.07.2015.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the said sale deed the name of one Nagaraju S/o Devegowda appears as a witness to the execution of the sale deed. It is submitted that respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police alleging that the sale deed has been executed unauthorisedly by the said Ramakrishnappa, who is no way concerned with the property as shown in the sale deed. It is the allegation of respondent No.2 that the documents have been created to knock off the property belonging to respondent No.2. In this regard, a complaint has been lodged against the parties to the sale deed and the witnesses therein. On the basis of the complaint, an FIR has been registered, wherein the name of Nagaraju S/o Devegowda is also listed as accused No.3.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Station House Officer of Anekal Police Station has taken up the investigation and he is harassing the petitioner. It is in this background that this criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the FIR in Cr.No.302/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Anekal.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that respondent No.2 has lodged a complaint by giving the very same names that appeared in the sale deed. It is further contended that if, it is the case of the petitioner that he is not the witness who has signed the sale deed, then there is no occasion for the Station House Officer to harass the petitioner. Learned counsel therefore submits that the petition need not be entertained on the basis of the apprehension of the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the petition papers.
6. On going through the petition papers and on hearing the learned counsels, this Court finds that the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded. The petitioner’s father name is Javaregowda, while the person who has stood as a witness in the sale deed is Nagaraju S/o Devegowda. Even the address that is shown in the sale deed differs from the address shown by the petitioner in the cause title. All these information and materials may be placed by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer. It is duty of the Investigating Officer to look into all the material that will be placed by the petitioner before the Investigating Officer and it is only on the basis of the material placed by the petitioner and on verification that the Investigating Officer should proceed further.
7. In the opinion of this Court, the Investigating Officer cannot harass the petitioner without going into the material that would be placed by the petitioner. The law mandates that the Investigating Officer shall proceed only on the basis of the material that he could collect during the course of investigation. Therefore, the petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of being premature.
8. The criminal petition is accordingly disposed of while directing the respondent No.1-Investigating Officer to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate his contentions and thereafter proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE DL