IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.2377/2013 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION No.4929/2013 In CRL.P.No.2377/2013 BETWEEN:
SRI K M NARENDRA KUMAR S/O K.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NO.93-G BLOCK, SAHAKARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560092.
(By Sri. M Nagaprasanna, Senior Counsel a/w ) Sri. Arun G., Advocate) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560065 2. SRI V C SAI BABU K/O, V.V SUBBA RAO, MAJOR, R/AT NO.3, 7TH CROSS, MATHRU LAYOUT, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE 560065.
(By Sri. Dildar Shiralli- HCGP for R1) (By Sri Omkar Basava Prabhu- Advocate for Sri R Srinivas, Advocate for R.2) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS IN CRL.P. No.4929/2013 BETWEEN:
SRI SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O LATE B.M. SHAMANNA, R/AT NO.62, 1ST MAIN ROAD, BYATRAYANAPURA SAHAKARNAGAR POST, BANGALORE (By Sri. Nagaprasanna, Senior Advocate A/w Asim Malik, Advocate) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YELHANKA, BANGALORE 2. SRI V.C. SAI BABU MAJOR, C/O V.V. SUBBA RAO, R/O. NO.3, 7TH CROSS, MATHRU LAYOUT, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE-560 065 (By Sri. (By Sri. Dildar Shiralli- HCGP for R1) (By Sri Omkar Basava Prabhu- Advocate for Sri R Srinivas, Advocate for R.2) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THESE CRIMINAL PETITONS ARE FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE FIR AND CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.20197/2012 IN CRIME NO.8/2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE C.M.M., BANGALORE.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R These two petitions are filed by accused no.2 in Crl.P.No.2377/2013 and accused no.1 in Crl.P.No.4929/2013 respectively seeking to quash the charge sheet laid against them in C.C.No.20197/2012 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 417, 419 and 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Respondent No.2 purchased 2 acres 32 guntas of land for a consideration of Rs.1,52,00,000/- under a sale deed dated 28.04.2007 from accused No.1-Somanna. Subsequently, he lodged a complaint against accused no.s 1 and 2 alleging that the sale deed executed by his vendor namely accused no.1 dated 02.01.2006 was forged and manipulated to make unlawful gain at the instance of accused No.2. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed against five accused persons.
4. Case of the prosecution is that, vendor of accused No.1 viz., Veluswamy was the owner of the above properties. He died on 18.11.1981. Accused no.1 in collusion with accused no.2 created a fake sale deed dated 02.01.2006 impersonating the deceased Veluswamy. It is alleged that accused nos. 3 to 5 signed the said sale deed as identifying witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that the dispute raised by respondent No.2 is purely civil in nature. The sale deed executed on 02.01.2006 by Veluswamy in favour of accused no.1 is not challenged before the Civil Court till date. Under the said circumstances, there was no basis for respondent no.2 to accuse the petitioners of criminal offences on the ground that the sale deed executed by Veluswamy was forged and impersonated. Thus, he contends that the prosecution launched against the accused is wholly illegal and an abuse of process of court.
6. Insofar as accused no.2 is concerned, learned counsel appearing for accused no.2 vehemently submitted that the allegations made in the charge sheet do not disclose involvement of accused no.2 either in the alleged manipulation of the document or in the matter of alleged impersonation. No material is produced along with the charge sheet to substantiate the allegations against accused no.2. Therefore, prosecution of accused no.2 is baseless, malafide and amounts to abuse of process of court.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 as well as learned HCGP for respondent no.1 argued in support of the impugned action contending that the material collected by the investigating agency prima facie discloses that Veluswamy died on 18.11.1981. The identity proof produced before the Sub- Registrar is shown to have not been issued by the authority concerned. In the said circumstances, there is prima facie material to show that by fabrication, forgery and impersonation, sale deed was got up in the name accused no.1 and on the strength of the said sale deed, accused no.1 received sale consideration of Rs.1,52,00,000/- and thereby cheated and defrauded the petitioner.
8. On considering the rival submissions and on going through the material on record, I find that the allegations made in the charge sheet prima facie disclose involvement of accused No.1 in the alleged offences. The material on record points out that the executant of the sale deed dated 02.01.2006 viz., Veluswamy died on 16.11.1981. Accused no.1 is the beneficiary of the said sale deed and immediately after execution of the said sale deed, he transferred the said property to respondent no.2, which is suggestive of a criminal intention which is sufficient to proceed against accused No.1 for the alleged offences. Hence, the contention urged by the learned counsel for accused no.1 that no civil suit is pending in respect of the alleged dispute cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings initiated against him. Even otherwise, the prosecution having clearly made out the ingredients of criminal offences, insofar as accused No.1 is concerned the contention urged by learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute in question is civil in nature cannot be accepted. The learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the alleged offence in respect of accused No.1 is concerned.
9. Insofar as accused No.2 is concerned, on going through the charge sheet, I find that except making omnibus allegations that the alleged offences have been committed in collusion with accused No.1 no material is forthcoming to substantiate the role played by accused No.2. Though there are allegations that accused No.4 to 6 have signed the sale deed as consenting witnesses, there are no such allegations insofar as accused No.2 is concerned. Undeniably, he is not the beneficiary of the alleged transaction. There are no allegations that he has received any part of the consideration. In the absence of any such material, in my view, prosecution of accused No.2 for the above offences is wholly baseless and illegal and cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 in Crl.P.No.4929/2013 is dismissed.
Criminal petition No.2377/2013 filed by accused No.2 is allowed. The proceedings inC.C.No.21097/2012 pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is quashed only insofar as accused No.2 is concerned.
psg* Sd/- JUDGE