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.4047 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. MR.S.PARTHINATHAN S/O STIFAN AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO.13, 16TH CROSS KAMMAGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU-15.
2. 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.
3. SMT. SOWMYANAYAKI W/O C.P. NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS NO.22, VIM CIRCLE, WARD NO.12 KAMMAGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU-15.
4. MR. M.SHANKARAN S/O LATE MURUGESH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.1, OMSHAKTHI NILAYA 7TH MAIN ROAD KAMMAGONDANAHALLI BENGALURU-15.
5. SMT. R SHWETHA W/O V ANIL AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS NO.112, KODANDARAMA NILAYA 7TH MAIN ROAD, 20TH CROSS SAHAKARA NAGAR BENGALURU-560 074.
(BY SRI.P N HEGDE, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH RAJAGOPALANAGAR POLICE REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-01.
2. SMT. SOUMYALATHA SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR NO.13, ANDANAPPA BUILDING PARWATHINAGAR, LAGGERE BENGALURU-560 017.
... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP FOR R1 R2- SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.02.2016 PASSED BY THE VII A.C.M.M., BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.6701/2016 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6701/2016 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.4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in C.C.No.6701/2016 seeking to quash the charge sheet filed against them for the alleged offences punishable under sections 465, 468, 471, 177, 120B, 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 served and unrepresented. Perused the records.
2. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioners based on the complaint lodged by the Sub-Registrar, Sub-Registrar Office, Laggere, Bengaluru on the allegation that the petitioners herein forged khatha extract in respect of eight sale deeds registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Laggere(Rajajinagara), Bengaluru.
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 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 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 deeds dated 25.06.2014 and 26.09.2014 respectively executed by accused Nos.1, 6 and 7 viz., Smt. Manjula, Sri. P. Pavan and Sri. P. Balaji indicate that on the same dates, eights sale deeds have been registered. In respective sale deeds, Sri. S.N. Prakash and Sri. S. Parthinathan viz., accused No.2 and accused No.5 are shown as either ‘confirming parties’ or ‘consenting witnesses’. These documents go to show that accused Nos.4 and 5 were not purchasers of the properties, but are the ‘confirming parties’ and ‘consenting witness’ who have joined the sale deeds 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.6, 7 and 8 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.6, 7 and 8 were instrumental in falsifying the documents or fabricating khatha extract. 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.6, 7 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 2/accused Nos.4 and 5 is dismissed.
b. Petition filed by petitioner Nos.3, 4 and 5 viz., accused Nos.6, 7 and 8 is allowed. Charge-sheet in C.C.No.6701/2016 pending on the file of learned VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is quashed in so far as accused Nos.6, 7 and 8 are concerned.
Trial shall proceed against other accused in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-