IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1673 OF 2013 BETWEEN:
1. Smt. Rangamma, W/o. Late Gunganna, Aged about 77 years, 2. Basavaraju, S/o Late Gunganna, Aged about 48 years, 3. Shivanna, S/o Late Gunganna, Aged about 46 years, 4. Narasimhamurthy, S/o Late Gunganna, Aged about 44 years, 5. Rajanna, S/o Late Gunganna, Aged about 40 years, 6. Mahesha, S/o Late Gunganna, Aged about 38 years, All are r/o Garden Road, Near Agrahara, Tumkur, Pin-572 101. ... PETITIONERS (By Sri. K R Ramesh, Adv.) AND:
Sri S Ganganna, S/o Late Seebaiah, Aged about 72 years, R/o Near Shanimahathma Temple, Aralimaradapalya, Tumkur, Pin No.572 101. ... RESPONDENT (By Smt.Nalina K., Adv., for Sri.S.K. Venkata Reddy, Adv.) This Crl.P is filed u/s.482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the order dated 05.02.2013 passed in PCR No.6/13 by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Tumkur and the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioners in the court of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and CJM, Tumkur in PCR No.6/13, as per Annexure-A.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Petitioners have sought for quashing the proceedings initiated against them in PCR No.6/2013 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & CJM, Tumakuru vide Annexure-A.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The respondent herein presented a complaint under S.200 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioners. The same was registered in PCR No.6/2013. Learned Magistrate referred the said complaint for investigation under S.156(3) of Cr.P.C. At that stage the petitioners approached this Court contending that the allegations made in the complaint did not make out any of the offences alleged against them and the registration of the complaint against them was vexatious and baseless. Further it was contended that the learned Magistrate has mechanically referred the said complaint for investigation by the police without satisfying himself as to whether the allegations made against the petitioners prima facie constituted the offences alleged against them, and on both these grounds the proceedings are liable to be quashed.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioners herein manipulated the RTC records relating to the properties standing in the name of one Gunganna and on the strength of the said forged document tried to obtain the occupancy rights in respect of the said property and therefore there is prima facie case for investigation by the police.
5. Considered the submissions and perused the records. The material allegations made in the complaint read as under:
“ 2. That the complainant is being a person who have the settled possession of the land bearing its Sy.No.190/1A of an extent of 5-10 guntas of Tumkur Village, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, is bounded on : East : Land of Govindaiah and Ramanna, West: Land of Complainant, North: Land of Chikkanna and Sannaramappa and South: Rayagaluve, was originally belonging to one Narayanappa S/o Narasimhaiah, the complainant is being and have the regular continuous possession of the property, the complainant enjoying the property by making improvements upon the property and paying the tax, as it well known to original owner of the land. As such the complainant continuously enjoying the property by ploughing and by raising crops upon the property.
3. That on 29-04-2011 and on 25-07-2011 at the premises of Hon’ble II Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) at Tumkur and at the place of land in dispute, Kasaba Hobli, Tumkur Taluk, the accused are all common object to furtherance of committing the impersonation and cheating towards to complainant and also dishonestly making the false claim in the court too also false personation for purpose of act or proceedings in suit, the accused persons are all filed a suit illegally against to one unconcerned person before the Hon’ble Court on the file of O.S.No.542/2011 for seeking the relief of permanent injunction against to one Prasanna Kumar and also got a order of Temporary injunction upon the property behind back of knowledge of the complainant by cheating by personation and caused cheating and dishonestly inducing attempt to delivery of property by saying the name of Ganganna and Late Gunganna is one and the same. Taking the advantage of deceptively similarity in the name of complainant with the father of accused Nos.2 to 6 and husband of 1st accused are all illegally make a forgery, forgery of record of Court or public register, forgery for purpose of cheating cause against to interest of the complainant upon the property.
4. That the husband of the 1st accused was died on 27-12-2002 by name Pailvan Gunganna and who was father of Accused Nos.2 to 6. The name similarity in the word the accused Nos.1 to 6 with the furtherance of common object of dishonestly making the false claim in the court too also false personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit. This difference between the name of Ganganna and Late Gunganna was specifically find out by the Hon’ble Land Tribunal, Tumkur on the file of KLRM.92/75-76 dated.29-08- 1987, as such the name of the complainant is totally different with the name of late Gunganna. Taking the undue advantage of political influence and physical inability of the complainant the accused Nos.1 to 6 with the furtherance of common object to false claim in the Court too also false personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit with the intention to cause cheating against to interest of complainant upon the property. Thereby accused persons are all committed an offence punishable Under Section 205, 209, 465, 466, 468, 419, 420 R/W 149 of the IPC within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court.
5. The complainant is have relied on the documents which are listed under the documents list annexed with the complaint.
6. That the complainant have deserved his right to add more and more point in additional to this at the time of arguing the matter on merits.
7. That the complainant have approached the jurisdictional police by orally, but jurisdictional police have not yield any request of the complainant nor issued any NCR or FIR against to accused for this complainant.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court that it may kindly be pleased to refer the case Under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for proper investigation through a Superintendent of Police Office, Tumkur, consequently take a cognizance against to all accused for the offence punishable Under Sec. 205, 209, 465, 466, 468, 419, 420 R/W 149 of the IPC and punish them in accordance with the law, in the interest of justice.
8. That the complainant has produced the documents with list.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court be kindly pleased to register the case against the accused and issue summons to the accused and punish him as per law in the interest of justice.”
6. From the above it is difficult to gather the real grievance of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the respondent / complainant, the petitioners herein have forged the name of one Gunganna in the RTC. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the name of husband of first petitioner is Gunganna and the said Gunganna himself submitted an application in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of property comprised in Sy. No.190/1A measuring 5 acres 10 guntas of Tumakuru Village. That application was rejected on technical reason for not mentioning the name of the landlord in the application. In the meanwhile the landlord having passed away, late Gunganna himself continued to be in possession of the said land and accordingly his name was entered in the Revenue Records.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent concedes that complainant has not sought for any occupancy rights in respect of the said land. Under the said circumstance, there is absolutely no basis for the respondent / complainant to allege any criminal offence by the petitioners. Even otherwise the alleged dispute is purely civil in nature apparently arising on account of an entry in the revenue record for which the proper remedy is to approach the competent forum to seek rectification of entries. The allegations made in the complaint do not make out the act of forgery entailing the prosecution of the petitioners for the alleged offences. Hence the prosecution of the petitioners being illegal and contrary to process of law cannot be continued.
Accordingly criminal petition is allowed. Proceedings in PCR no.6/2013 pending against the petitioners on the file of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & CJM, Tumakuru are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*