IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.4245/2015 BETWEEN:
1. Ranemma W/o. Kannappa Aged about 55 years R/o. Vengasandra Village & Post Kyasamballi Hobli, Bangarapete Taluk, Kolar District – 563 114.
2. Kannappa S/o. Yarrappa, Aged about 69 years R/o. Vengasandra village & Post Kyasamballi Hobli, Bangarapete Taluk, Kolar District 563 114.
…Petitioners (By Mr. Shivananda D.S., Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By K.G.F. Police Station, Kolar district, Rep.by S.P.P.
High Court building, Bengaluru- 01.
2. Vijay V.S. Tahasildar, Bangarapete, Kolar District 563 114.
...Respondents (By Mr. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R1; R2 – served & unrepresented) *** This Criminal petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.73/2015 on the file of the Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM Court at K.G.F., Kolar District registered by the 1st respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 197, 198, 465, 471, 468 of IPC, etc.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioners have sought to quash the FIR in Crime No.73/2015 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 197, 198, 465, 471, 468 of IPC.
2. During the pendency of this petition, petitioner No.1 having died, the proceedings against him have been abated.
3. Heard the learned counsel on behalf of petitioner No.2 and the learned SPP-II on behalf of the Respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and un-represented.
4. The learned counsel for the second petitioner submits that the allegations made against the second petitioner are false and do not constitute the basic ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR. Further, he submits that the second Respondent has lodged a complaint against the second petitioner and two other respondents and the instant complaint is a counter blast to those complaints.
5. Having regard to the nature of the allegations made against the second respondent, the complaint in question requires to be investigated by the Police. On going through the FIR, it is seen that the said FIR is registered based on the complaint lodged by the Tahsildar of Bangarpet Taluk alleging that the Caste Certificate relied on by the petitioner bearing No.R.D. 003820201359 was not issued from the Office of the Tahsildar and therefore, on the face of it, the said document is a forged and concocted one and hence, he has sought for an investigation into the matter.
6. These allegations prima facie constitute the ingredients of the offences alleged against petitioner No.2. The complaint lodged by the second petitioner against the second respondent appears to be a sequel to the above complaint. When the specific case of the Tahsildar is that no such Caste Certificate was issued from the Office of the Tahsildar, investigation into the said allegations cannot be stalled merely because a complaint is filed by petitioner No.2 against the Tahsildar.
7. On considering all the above facts and circumstances, I do not find any reason to quash the FIR registered against the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE BMV*