IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4777 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. K. NAGESH SHARMA S/O SRI NARASIMHA BHAT, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ADVOCATE, 2ND FLOOR, GAJANANA TOWERS, OPP POLICE QUARTERS, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT. (BY SRI: ARUNA SHYAM M, ADVOCATE) AND SMT. VIDYA S W/O LATE SRI B V GANESH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT ‘NANDANA’, NO 2-6, NEAR ADARSHA SCHOOL KARMAR PADIL, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
(BY SRI: P N HEGDE, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENT THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR.NO.2/2015 (C.C.NO.526/2015) ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 420,468,471 OF IPC IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2016 PASSED BY THE V ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DAKSHINA KANNADA, MANGALORE SITTING AT PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT IN CRL.R.P.NO.5048/2015 AND ALLOW THIS CRL.P.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent. Perused the records.
2. Petitioner is an Advocate by profession. The allegation against the petitioner is that he assisted accused Nos.1 to 9 in creating a fabricated general power of attorney and a sale deed in respect of the immovable properties belonging to the respondent.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except making bald and general allegations that the alleged fabrication is done at the instance of the petitioner, prima facie material is not available to show the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged transaction. Solely on the ground that the petitioner was representing accused Nos.1 to 9 as their counsel, he has been implicated in the alleged offence. There is nothing in the said complaint to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged offence and hence, the prosecution of the petitioner is an abuse of process of Court.
4. Learned counsel for respondent however submits that the allegations made in the complaint prima-facie disclose involvement of the petitioner and hence, there is no reason to quash the proceedings.
5. On going through the averments made in the complaint, I find that except making bald and general allegation that the petitioner herein being an Advocate of accused Nos.1 to 9, assisted the accused in fabricating the alleged document, no material is produced to support these allegations. In the absence of any specific averments with regard to the role played by the petitioner in bringing about said document, solely because the petitioner happened to be an Advocate of the co-accused, cannot be a reason to implicate him in the alleged offences. The manner in which the allegations are made in the complaint indicate that without any basis, the petitioner has been implicated in the alleged offences. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of the allegations made against the petitioner and the circumstances brought out in the complaint, the prosecution of the petitioner, in my view, is unwarranted, unjustified and cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the petition is allowed. C.C.No.526/2015 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada is quashed only insofar as the petitioner/accused No.10 is concerned.
*mn/-
Sd/- JUDGE