IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.6084/2016 c/w.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6125/2016 IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.6084/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI JAMPANNA S/O POOJARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, GOWDAGERE HOBLI, SHIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-18 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI: PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DUDDA POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 2. NANJAMMA W/O JAVAREGOWDA, MAJOR, HEDNAHALLY VILLAGE, DUDDA HOBLI, HASSAN-18 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1;
SRI: H.J. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (Vakalath filed)) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.116/2016 ON THE FILE OF DUDDA P.S.,HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 420, 447, 506, 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) AND JMFC COURT, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN IN SO FAR AS PETR. IS CONCERNED.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.6125/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. RAGHU S/O ANNAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS DEVIHALLY VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI NOW AT DUDDA R S DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN DISTRICT-18 (BY SRI: PRATHEEP K C, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DUDDA POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 ... PETITIONER 2. NANJAMMA W/O JAVAREGOWDA MAJOR HEDNAHALLY VILLAGE DUDDA HOBLI HASSAN-18 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, SPP-II FOR R1 SRI: H.J. ANANDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.116/2016 ON THE FILE OF DUDDA POLICE STATION, HASSAN DISTRICT FILE OF THE I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.Dn) & JMFC COURT, HASSAN FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 420, 447, 506, 34 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS PETR. IS CONCERNED.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R These petitions are filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.116/2016 of Dudda Police Station pending on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Hassan District, Hassan, for the offences punishable under sections 420, 447, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Since both the petitions arise from same crime number raising common question of law and fact, they are disposed of by this common order.
2. Heard the learned counsel for accused No.1 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.6125/2016) and accused No.2 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.6084/2016), learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1/State.
3. The criminal prosecution was launched against the petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2) based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent Smt.Nanjamma w/o. Sri.Javaregowda. According to the complainant, after the death of her father-in- law and husband, she is in actual possession and enjoyment of 4 acres 27 guntas of land comprised in Sy.No.24 situated at Koravangala Kavalu village, Dudda Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District. In respect of the said property, accused No.2 Jampanna executed a sale deed in favour of accused No.1 Raghu by impersonating the erstwhile owner Sri.Hanuman Singh bin Hanuman Prasad.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the properties in question were originally granted to Sri.Hanuman Singh bin Hanuman Prasad in the year 1948 under darkasth. Accused No.2 Jampanna purchased the said property from aforesaid Sri.Hanuman Singh through a registered sale deed dated 11.08.2016 for a consideration of Rs.5,87,000/-. It is a registered sale deed. The same is not questioned till date. On the other hand, on account of the interference in the said properties, accused No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.359/2016 for injunction and trial court after hearing both the parties passed an interim order of status-quo on 25.05.2016. Further he submits that in respect of the very same property, husband of the complainant Javaregowda had filed a complaint before the Lokayuktha police which was referred for investigation to respondent No.1 Police on 26.10.2015. In the said proceedings, the husband of the complainant gave a statement that he had lodged the said complaint at the instigation of someone and sought to close the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant has filed the instant complaint making allegations of forgery. In the meanwhile, the properties were transferred to accused No.1.
The complainant has not questioned any of these sale deeds. The complaint also does not disclose the right or title of the complainant over the properties in question. Complainant has no locus standi whatsoever to question the validity of the sale deeds in a criminal prosecution. Hence, initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioners amount to abuse of process of court.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/complainant submits that the complainant and her husband are in actual possession and enjoyment of the properties in question. Their names are shown in column 12 of RTC as cultivators of the said properties since 1977. Since forged documents have been brought into existence by playing fraud, prosecution is rightly initiated against the petitioners. The matter is under investigation. The allegations made against the petitioners squarely attract the ingredients of the offences under sections 420, 447, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code and hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
6. Learned SPP-II appearing for the State submits that having regard to the specific allegations made in the complaint, the matter requires investigation and hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage.
7. Considered the submissions and perused the records.
8. The complaint does not disclose right of the complainant in respect of the properties comprised in Sy.No.24 measuring 4 acres 27 guntas situated at Koravangala Kavalu village, Dudda Hobli, Hassan Taluk, Hassan District. According to the complainant, her father-in-law and her husband Javaregowda were in possession of the said properties as tenants. There is nothing on record to show whether any occupancy rights have been conferred in favour of either the father-in-law or husband of the complainant. Undeniably, the erstwhile owner has executed a registered sale deed in favour of accused No.2. The factum of registration of sale deed is within the knowledge of the complainant as well as her husband as is evident from the plaint in O.S.No.359/2016. Neither the complainant nor her husband have challenged or questioned the registered sale deeds executed in favour of the accused persons. On going through the averments made in the complaint, it is evident that original grantee is still alive. Under the said circumstances, the true owner having not questioned the sale- deeds, the complainant has no locus standi to question the alleged sale deeds on the ground of forgery of the signature of the erstwhile owner. Since the petitioners are claiming right to the said properties under registered sale deeds which have not been challenged either by the erstwhile owner or any person claiming any interest or title therein, the allegation of forgery made against the petitioners at the instance of the complainant cannot furnish a cause of action to the respondent No.1 – Police to investigate into the said allegations. Therefore, registration of FIR and consequent investigation in the instant case are wholly illegal and are stark abuse of process of court and are liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed. The FIR in Crime No.116/2016 of Dudda Police Station pending on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Hassan District, Hassan and all consequent proceedings thereon are hereby quashed.
In view of the disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2018 filed in Crl.P.No.6125/2016 does not survive for consideration and it is also disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Bss