IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5123 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
Sri Mohammed Yousuff S/o Late Mohammed Hussain Sab Aged about 62 years Occupation: Advocate and Landlord R/o Malnad Building I.G. Road Chikamagalur-577101. ... Petitioner (By Sri Jagadish .D. hiremath - Advocate) AND:
1. Smt. Sarambi Alias Noorjan W/o Mohammed Ghouse Aged about 64 years.
2. Mohammed Ghouse S/o Late D. Chamanuddin Aged about 64 years Both are residing at Opposite M.E.S. School Near State Bank of India Ratnagiri Road Chikamagalur – 577 101. Respondents This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order passed by the learned I-Additional Civil Judge Senior Division and JMFC, Chikkamagalur in PCR No. 25/14, dated 03.02.2015, and also the order passed by the learned Principal Session Judge, Chikkamagalur in Crl. R P. No. 54/2015, dated 18.12.2015 etc.
This petition coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., alleging first respondent has instituted a suit for partition and separate possession against him (complainant) in O.S.No.64/2006. In the said suit, accused No.1 denied existence of registered mortgage deed dated 18.04.1972 executed by the deceased Mohammed Ali (brother of complainant). It was also alleged that accused No.2 has falsely deposed before the court that he has not executed the registered Release Deed dated 18.05.1977. It is the further allegation of complainant that accused No.2 had falsely deposed with regard to purported loan obtained from Canara Bank, Basavanahalli Branch, Chikkamagaluru and he has categorically stated on oath before the Court that complainant is owing loan as on the date of his evidence and the bank officials were pestering him and harassing him for recovery of loan outstanding. Knowing it to be false and knowing well that no amount was due and payable by the complainant since he had already discharged the loan by repaying the same to Canara Bank, yet accused No.2 had falsely tendered evidence with an intention to support the claim of first accused and thereby accused persons have committed offences punishable under Sections 191, 193, 199, 209 and 504 of IPC.
2. Learned trial judge by order dated 03.02.2015, in exercise of powers vested under Section 203 Cr.P.C., dismissed the complaint on the ground that case of complainant rests on purported decree passed in O.S.No.64/2006 dated 06.11.2013 and there was no material on record to show that same had been challenged before the Appellate Forum and also on the ground that complainant had not challenged said judgment and decree and as such, question of contending that accused had deposed false evidence would not arise. Accordingly, the complaint came to be rejected. Being aggrieved by same, complainant filed Criminal Revision Petition No.54/2015 which was also dismissed on 18.12.2015. Before the Revisional Court the learned counsel appearing for the complainant had produced the copy of RFA No.220/2014 filed before this court challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.64/2006 and as such, he sought for quashing of the order passed by the trial court.
3. The learned Revisional Court has rightly observed that except the interested say of complainant that accused persons have given false evidence in O.S.No.64/2006, there was no other evidence available to arrive at a conclusion that accused persons had rendered false evidence before the court. That apart, it has been noticed that issues involved in the suit O.S. No.64/2006 had resulted in judgment and decree being passed which was under challenge in RFA No.220/2014 where under drawing up of final decree had been stayed. In this background, learned Trial Judge has rightly arrived at a conclusion that there are no sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. It has further observed that there is no allegation in the complaint or in the sworn statement by the complainant that accused persons have committed an offence punishable under Section 504 IPC, and as such it is rightly held by the Revisional Court that mere production of deposition and certified copies of certain documents are not sufficient to proceed further against the accused. This court does not find any error committed by the courts below calling for interference.
4. There are no good ground to quash the proceedings. Criminal Petition is rejected. In view of petition having been rejected, I.A.No.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and same is also rejected.
SD/- JUDGE Np/-