IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA WRIT PETITION NO.20225 OF 2013(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
NEHA PRASANNA GHOTAGE W/O PRASANNA GHOTAGE, AGED 38 YEARS, NO.202, CHIDAMBAR NAGAR, ANGUL EXTENSION, TILAK WARD, BELGAUM-560 006.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI: SARAVANA S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI: D R RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE BY HOSKOTE POLICE STATION, HOSKOTE, HOSKOTE TOWN, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560081.
2. M.V.VENKATA RAMANAPPA S/O MUNI NAYANAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS, 3. H.V.JAYASHREE D/O MUNI NAYANAPPA, AGED 35 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE R/AT NO.892, RAMAKRISHNA ROAD, 1ST RIGHT, B.V.EXTENSION, HOSKOTE, BANGALORE DISTRICT-560081.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI: N.R.RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN CRIME NO.31/13 DATED 23.01.13 BY THE R1 VIDE ANNX-E, GRANT AN INTERIM STAY OF ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING INVESTIGATION AND THE ARREST OF THE PETITIONER PURSUANT TO REGISTRATION OF CRIME NO.31/13 DATED 23.01.13 BY THE R1, HOSKOTE POLICE STATION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petitioner is aggrieved by the registration of FIR in Cr.No.31/2013 for the alleged offences punishable under sections 506, 420, 415, 417 & 468 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that accused Nos.1 to 8 in collusion with accused No.9- namely, the branch Manager, Canara Bank, Karwar by playing fraud upon the complainant, on the pretext of executing collateral security documents for Rs.4.00 crores took his signatures on the loan documents/security documents for Rs.8.00 crores.
3. The above allegations imply that the respondents do not dispute the execution of mortgage of the properties as collateral security for Rs.4.00 crores. The only grievance made out in the complaint is that his signatures were obtained by playing fraud and misrepresentation. But from the copy of the orders passed by the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Karnataka in O.A.No.157/2014 dated 16th February 2016, it is seen that on account of the default committed by the main borrower viz., M/s. Castle Rock Mineral Traders Belgaum, recovery proceedings were initiated under section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993. In the said application, respondent Nos.2 and 3 were arrayed as defendant Nos.4 and 5 respectively. Contrary to the allegations made in the instant complaint, in the said proceedings, respondent Nos.2 and 3 took up a specific plea that they are illiterates and have no legal knowledge in respect of mortgaging of schedule-B property by deposit of originals title deeds and in that background, defendant No.1 viz. M/s. Castle Rock Mineral Traders by playing fraud and mischief, defendant No.4 accepted to mortgage the property and defendant No.4 in collusion with defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the bank manager took signature of respondent No.2/defendant No.5. Thus before Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru, the 4th and 5th defendants have totally denied having executed any loan documents, whereas in the instant case, second and third respondents have come with the allegations that the loan documents which were purported to have been executed for Rs.4.00 crores were got executed for Rs.8.00 crores making it evident that false and baseless allegations have been made against the petitioner. The order passed by Debts Recovery Tribunal clearly indicate that the contention set up by the second and third respondents are proved to be false and untenable and the second and third respondents have suffered jointly and several a decree for Rs.12,45,56,670/-.
4. In this context, it may be relevant to refer to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in KISHAN SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRs. v. GURPAL SINGH AND OTHERS, (2010) 8 SCC 775 wherein it is held that the findings recorded by the civil Court are binding in criminal proceedings between the same parties in respect of the same subject matter.
5. In the wake of the above material, there is absolutely no basis to prosecute the petitioner. The above discussion clearly suggest that 2nd and 3rd respondents have abused process of law and have set the criminal law in motion solely to wriggle out of the application filed against them before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Bengaluru. Besides, the complainant having failed to make out any prima-facie material to proceed against the petitioner for the above offences, in my view, the prosecution of the petitioner being abuse of process of court is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. FIR in Cr.No.31/2013 pending on the file of learned Addl. Civil Judge(Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Hosakote, Bengaluru is quashed.
In view of disposal of the main matter, I.A.No.2/16 for vacating interim order does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-