Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Shri S C Hiremath And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|21 August, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4686/2016 BETWEEN:
1. SHRI S C HIREMATH S/O OF SHRI CHANNABASAYYA AGE: 60 YEARS OCCUPATION: ADVOCATE RESIDING AT SUBASHNAGAR SAGAR TOWN SAGAR : 577 401 SHIMOGA DIST.
2. K.SRIDHAR DIXIT S/O SRI K LINGA DIXIT AGE: 61 YEARS OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE NARAYANA ASHRAMA LAYOUT ANALEKOPPA SAGAR TOWN SAGAR : 577 401 SHIMOGA DIST. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI G.S.BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE HIGH COURT BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001 2. SRI MAHABALESHWARA S/O KESHAVA SETH AGE: 66 YEARS OCCUPATION: GOLD SMITH RESIDING AT 2ND CROSS, SHIVAPPANAYAKA NAGAR SAGAR TOWN SAGAR : 577 401 SHIMOGA DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1; SRI HARISH KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.682/2015 PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SAGAR.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R 1. Petitioners are accused nos.4 & 1 in the charge sheet laid against them for the offences under Sections 467, 468, 469, 471, 472, 209, 120(B) r/w 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned Additional SPP for respondent no.1 and learned counsel for respondent no.2.
3. Petitioner no.2/accused no.1 filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 24.03.2009 purported to have been executed by respondent no.2 in respect of site bearing No.3-3-1423. On service of summons in the said suit, respondent no.2 filed a private complaint before the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagar alleging that the said agreement of sale was forged and fabricated by the petitioners and other accused in collusion with each other to knock off the property of respondent no.2. The learned Magistrate referred the complaint for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and after investigation charge sheet has been laid against four accused persons.
4. The substance of accusations is that accused no.1 having acquainted himself with the signature of respondent no.2, in collusion with other accused fabricated an agreement of sale dated 24.03.2009 and based on the said agreement, accused no.1 filed a suit in OS No.7/2012. From the reading of charge sheet, it is clear that the very case of the prosecution is that accused no.1 was acquainted with the signature of respondent no.2/complainant and he entered into conspiracy with other accused. But, curiously the allegation is made against accused no.4 that he forged the signature of the complainant on the said agreement of sale. But, no material has been produced by the Investigating Agency prima facie to show that the signature of the complainant has been forged by accused no.4. In the wake of these allegations and especially in the absence of any evidence to show that accused no.4 has forged the signature of respondent no.2 on the aforesaid agreement, the implication of accused no.4 in the alleged offence, in my view, is wholly baseless and cannot be sustained.
5. Accused no.4 was the Advocate and it is stated that he scribed the aforesaid agreement of sale. There is nothing in the charge sheet or in the material produced therewith to show that accused no.4 has derived any benefit under the aforesaid agreement. In that view of the matter, continuation of the proceedings against accused no.4 in my view is legally untenable. However, as there are prima facie allegations against accused no.1 constituting the ingredients of the above offence, the proceedings against accused no.1 cannot be quashed at this juncture.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed in part. The proceedings in C.C.No.682/2015 pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Sagar, is quashed insofar as accused no.4 - Sri S.C.Hiremath is concerned. The trial shall proceed against other accused in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Shri S C Hiremath And Others vs State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
21 August, 2019
Judges
  • John Michael Cunha