IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24th DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4045 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. MR.S N PRAKASH S/O LATE S NARAYANA DAS AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS NO.1161, 5TH MAIN ROAD ‘A’ BLOCK, 2ND STAGE RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU – 10.
2. MR. SRINIVAS REDDY S/O SANJITH SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.6, 22ND CROSS BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR T.DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-57.
3. MR. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O K C VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS NO.E/283, SAPTHAGIRI NIVAS 12TH CROSS, KAMMAGONDANAHALLI JALAHALLI EAST BENGALURU-58.
4. MR. S PARTHINATHAN S/O STIFAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.13, 16TH CROSS KAMMAGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU-561115.
(BY SRI.P N HEGDE, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RAJAGOPALANAGAR POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-01.
2. MR. T GOPALAKRISHNA SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR 14TH CROSS, PEENYA 2ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 057.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP FOR R1 SMT.SARASWATHI, ADV. FOR R2-ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.02.2016 PASSED BY THE VII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.6706/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6706/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF VII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R This petition is filed by accused Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5 in C.C.No.6706/2016 seeking to quash the charge sheet filed against them for the alleged offences punishable under sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 120B and 420 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code.
Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. Counsel for respondent No.2 is absent. Perused the records.
2. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners based on the complaint lodged by the Senior Sub-Registrar, Sub- Registrar Office, Peenya, Bengaluru on the allegation that the petitioners herein forged E khatha and tax receipt in respect of three sale deeds registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Peenya.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners’ submits that the petitioners are bonafide purchasers; they would not have stood to gain by purchasing properties on the strength of false khatha certificate or the tax receipts as alleged. The material collected by the investigating agency does not disclose involvement of the petitioners in the alleged offences. Merely because the petitioners have purchased the properties in question, they have been implicated in the alleged offences and therefore their prosecution is illegal and amounts to abuse of process of Court.
4. Learned Addl. SPP however argued in support of the impugned charge sheet contending that the material collected by the investigating agency clearly disclose that the khatha extract and the tax receipt produced before the registration authorities were fake and forged and thereby, the petitioners have committed the above offences and hence it is not a fit case for quashment of the proceedings.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
5. A perusal of the sale deed executed by accused Nos.1, 6 and 7 viz., Smt. Manjula, Sri. P. Pavan and Sri. P. Balaji dated 28.06.2014 indicate that on the same day, three sale deeds have been registered. In all these sale deeds, Sri. S.N. Prakash and Sri.
S. Parthinathan viz., accused No.2 and accused No.5 are shown as ‘confirming parties’. These documents go to show that accused Nos.2 and 5 were not purchasers of the properties, but are the ‘confirming parties’ who have joined the sale deed apparently to confirm the title in favour of the purchasers. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that all the petitioners were innocent purchasers and were not parties to the alleged forged or fabrication of the documents cannot be accepted. However, insofar as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned, they are shown as purchasers of the properties covered under the respective sale deeds. There is nothing in the entire charge sheet to indicate that accused Nos.3 and 4 were instrumental in falsifying the documents or fabricating khatha extract or tax receipts. A perusal of the sale deeds do not indicate that the vendors have made any recital with regard to the said documents making it evident that the alleged falsity of the said documents were within the knowledge of vendors and not within the knowledge of the purchasers. To that extent, the material produced by the petitioners, in my view, does not prima-facie make out the ingredients of the alleged offences insofar as accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned. To this extent, the petition deserves to be allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed-in-part.
a. Petition filed by petitioner Nos.1 and 4/accused Nos.2 and 5 is dismissed.
b. Petition filed by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 viz., accused Nos.3 and 4 is allowed. Charge-sheet in C.C.No.6706/2016 pending on the file of learned VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is quashed in so far as accused No.3 and 4 are concerned.
Trial shall proceed against other accused in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-