IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5929 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
SRI AYYAPPA EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST ® A REGISTERED TRUST HAVING ITS OFFICE AT SRI AYYAPPAN TEMPLE COMPLEX JALAHALLI WEST BENGALUR-560 057 BENGALURU-560 057 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI. M. LOGANATHAN (BY SRI:K. SUMAN, ADV., ) AND:-
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION SOLADEVANAHALLI BENGALURU ……PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY STATE, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. R. GURUPRASAD AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS S/O. LATE RAMAIAH @ RAMANNA R/AT NO.4546 RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT KAMMAGONDANAHALLI JALAHALLI WEST BENGALURU-560 015. …….RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:K.G. DEVAIAH AND SRI ANUP RAJ, ADVS. FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06.10.2016 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE LEARNED CJM, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN PCR NO.437/2015 AND TO CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.354/2016 OF SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 403, 417, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468, 470, 474 R/W 34 AND 120B OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS THEREON.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to set- aside the order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District in PCR No.437/2015, whereby the learned magistrate has referred the private complaint filed by respondent No.2 for investigation under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
[ Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.1. Perused the records.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the prosecution is launched against the petitioner based on the allegation that the power of attorney said to have been executed by one Ramaiah-father of the second respondent was forged and on the strength of said power of attorney, a bogus sale deed has been executed on 28.01.2004. Relying on the finding recorded by the civil court in O.S.No.381/2005, learned counsel has emphasized that aforesaid Ramaiah-the predecessor of the complainant/respondent No.2 himself had filed an affidavit before the court admitting execution of alleged general power of attorney and handing over possession of properties in favour of the plaintiff under the aforesaid sale deed. In the said circumstances, there is no basis to sustain the allegations made in the complaint.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and learned Addl. SPP however have argued in support of the impugned action contending that the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie disclose forgery and falsification of documents making out the ingredients of offences punishable under sections 403, 417, 420, 463, 464, 465, 468, 470, 471, 474, 120B r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and the matter being under investigation, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
Considered the submissions and perused the records.
4. A perusal of the order passed by learned VII Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.380/2005 reveals that the predecessor of the complainant viz., Ramaiah was arrayed as 4th defendant in the said suit. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff therein. In the said suit, in para 18, the civil court has recorded a finding which is extracted hereinbelow:-
“18. The Ex-P.8 is registered power of attorney executed by Ramaiah in favour of President of the trust. It is vehemently argued by learned counsel for the defendants that the compromise decree and registered general power of attorney are in the name of M.R. Nair in individual capacity, but not in the capacity as a President of temple. But, the cause title of the plaint and judgment in O.S.No.7125/1990, mutation entries and pahani patrike and registered general power of attorney go to show that the name of M.R. Nair is shown as President of Sri Ayyappa Temple (regd.), Jalahalli West. If the document was taken by M.R. Nair in his individual capacity, there was no need to show the address of President of the temple in the said documents. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that said documents were executed in individual name of M.R. Nair. More over, the fourth defendant, who is author of Ex.P.8- general power of attorney and party to the earlier suit, himself has not challenged the said documents. In the affidavit filed before the Court, said Ramaiah has clearly admitted about the compromise decree, handing over of possession, execution of registered general power of attorney in favour of the President of Ayyappa Temple.”
5. It is not in dispute that the said order has attained finality and no further appeal or revision has been filed by any one of the parties aggrieved by the said order. In the wake of the said finding, the contention of the second respondent that the alleged power of attorney dated 12.05.1995 was forged and concocted and the sale deed executed based on the said power of attorney was a bogus deed, cannot furnish cause of action to the complainant to set criminal law in motion. The allegations made in the complaint having already been adjudicated by the civil court, the finding recorded in the above suit is binding not only against deceased Ramaiah, but also against the legal heirs of Ramaiah. As such, no prosecution could be continued based on the allegations made in the said complaint. Consequently, the prosecution launched against the petitioner for the alleged offences being abuse of process of Court is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 06.10.2016 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District and the consequent FIR registered in Cr.No.354/2016 are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-