IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4th DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR Criminal Petition No.1013/2018 BETWEEN:
SHIVAMURTHY S/O KARISIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.108, 1ST BLOCK, BELAVADI VILLAGE, YELVALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570 001. … PETITIONER (BY SRI VIJAYAKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE, NOW REP.BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 040.
2. A.S.PRATHIBA W/O MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.C-35, C.F.T.R.I.QUARTERS, MYSURU CITY-570 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R1 SRI ARUN KUMAR Y.H., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.11.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED IV JMFC, MYSURU, IN C.C.No.706/2016, WHEREBY THE HON’BLE COURT HAS TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 448, 468, 504, 506, 420 OF IPC AND HAS SUMMONED THE PETITIONER AND ETC., THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard Sri Vijayakumar Prakash, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri S.Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State and Sri Arun Kumar Y.H., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the records.
2. Respondent No.2 herein lodged a complaint alleging that her grand mother Smt.Shanthamma had purchased four guntas of land in Sy.No.70 of Belavadi Village, Yelvala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, from one Sri Siddashetty under a registered sale deed dated 18.09.1991 and she had gifted the land equally to her grand daughter who is respondent No.2 herein and daughter Smt. Shylaja under two registered gift deeds dated 28.08.2008 who are said to have constructed a compound wall and also AC sheet house in the said property. It is further alleged that revenue records came to be mutated to their names by Belavadi Grama Panchayath and they had issued Katha bearing Nos.1921 and 1921A. Petitioner herein has attempted to interfere with their possession by trespassing into their land on 07.09.2012. Though, complaint came to be lodged with Vijayanagar police, they had not taken any action on the complaint registered as LCR.No.581/12 due to political clout petitioner/accused possessed. It is further alleged that on account of petitioner having produced a demand tax register extract in respect of property depicting his name in Katha No.733/1, representation was submitted to the Tahsildar who issued showcause notice to the petitioner and also to the jurisdictional Panchayath Raj Office and PDO of jurisdictional Panchayath who have furnished written statement certifying that said katha does not relate to property in question and would not come within the ambit of Sy.No.70 measuring four guntas. It is also further stated that pursuant to the same, jurisdictional Tahsildar ordered for conducting a survey and at that point of time, petitioner is said to have furnished one more demand tax register extract relating to property bearing No.869 and based on the said document, Revenue Officers are said to have submitted a report along with sketch certifying that the grand mother of petitioner was in possession of the land in question. It is further stated that petitioner having noticed that there was no nexus between two demand tax register extracts produced by him, he produced one more demand tax register extract No.839 by fabricating said document. It is specifically alleged in the complaint that petitioner has created these successive documents. As complainant sought for suitable action being taken against petitioner herein and investigation to be conducted by taking cognizance of the offences, jurisdictional police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 468, 504, 506 and 420 of IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed in C.C.No.706/2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 468, 504, 506 and 420 of IPC. For quashing of said proceedings, petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri Vijayakumar Prakash, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would fairly submit that though, petition is filed for quashing of entire proceedings, he would confine his argument for the charge sheet being filed against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC only and elaborating his contention, he submits there is no material whatsoever insofar as alleged forgery, which is said to have been committed by petitioner and as such, invoking of Section 468 of IPC against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sheila Sebastian Vs. R.Jawaharaj and Another reported in (2018) 7 SCC 581.
4. Per contra, Sri S.Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1-State would support the case of the prosecution.
5. It is trite law that for considering the prayer for quashing of criminal proceedings registered against an accused the probable defense of the accused would not be in the domain of consideration by this Court. If the charge sheet material were to disclose the offence alleged, investigation has to be proceeded or trial has to be continued as the case may be. The probable defense of the accused on which he or she may be entitled for being acquitted would also not be in the zone of consideration by this Court.
6. In the instant case, petitioner has claimed right over the land, for which respondent No.2/complainant is said to have acquired title under gift deed and had also obtained katha of the said land after sale in her favour. When allegation made in the complaint is seen along with charge sheet material, it would clearly disclose that at different intervals of time, petitioner herein had produced katha extract reflecting three different numbers of the katha’s and at every point of time he was relying on these three different demand tax register extracts by claiming that he is the owner of the property and as against this claim, petitioner had contended that these are all documents, which have been forged by respondent No.2 with an intention to cheat the authorities as well as complainant. The charge against the petitioner as sought to be laid by the prosecution from bare reading would clearly indicate that petitioner has created these documents or otherwise forged these documents. The charge against the petitioner as sought to be put forth by the prosecution reads:
“ªÉÄʸÀÆgÀÄ £ÀUÀgÀ «dAiÀÄ£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÁ ¸ÀgÀºÀ¢Ý£À ¨É¼ÀªÁr UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.70 gÀ°è 4 UÀAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:18.09.1991 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀªÁr UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹ ¯ÉÃmï ¹zÀݱÉnÖ JA§ÄªÀªÀjAzÀ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÁ®A £ÀA.6 gÀ°è £ÀªÉÆâ¹gÀĪÀ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀÄ 8 ¸Á«gÀgÀÆUÀ½UÉ Rjâ¹zÀÄÝ. F §UÉÎ ªÉÄʸÀÆj£À G¥À-
£ÉÆAzÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃw CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ £ÉÆAzÁªÀuÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ. ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À §UÉÎ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÆ ¸ÁQë-2 gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÀÄÝ, vÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:25.08.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÛ£ÀÄß JgÀqÀÄ ¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁr ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀjUÉ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ zÁ£À ¥ÀvæÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¸Àéw£À zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°èzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÄÛ EªÀgÀ C£ÀĨsÀªÀzÀ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ. »ÃVgÀĪÁUÉÎ ¢:07.09.2012 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¨É½îUÉÎ 09-00 UÀAmÉUÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛUÉ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæzÀ PÁ®A £ÀA.05 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ CPÀæªÀÄ ¥ÀæªÉñÀ ªÀiÁr ±Éqï£ÀÄß PÉqÀªÀÅwzÁÝUÀ, PÉüÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÀ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀjUÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÄÛ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÉÝAzÀÄ vÀAiÀiÁj¹PÉÆArzÀÝ £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÁQë-
1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 gÀªÀjUÉ vÉÆÃj¹, ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀéwÛ£À §UÉÎ £ÀPÀ° zÁPÀ¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉÆøÀ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, PÁ®A £ÀA.5 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹gÀĪÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ J¸ÀVgÀĪÀ PÀÈvÀåªÀÅ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ ¸Á©üÃvÁzÀ »£À߯ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀ®A ¥ÀæPÁgÀ DgÉÆæAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÝ vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæ”.
(emphasis supplied by me) 7. As already noticed hereinabove, charge made against the petitioner is forging of documents for the purposes of cheating. As to whether petitioner had forged or he has made use of forged documents for the purposes of cheating the complainant would all be in the domain of consideration by the learned trial Judge and it is for the prosecution to establish said charge against the petitioner/accused and necessarily beyond reasonable doubt after trial. As such, this Court would not conduct micro analysis of the charge sheet material of the prosecution or probable defense which accused may set up during trial. Any such exercise, if undertaken by this Court, it would only cause prejudice to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case where exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 of IPC to quash the proceedings is called for. No other good ground is made out. For the reasons aforestated, criminal petition stands rejected.
In view of rejection of main petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and same is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE PB