IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.2947/2017 BETWEEN:
1. Hanumanthappa, S/o.Papaiah, Aged about 56 years, R/at Sunkalpet, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru-560 017.
2. H.Raghavendra, S/o.Hanumanthappa, Aged about 30 years, R/at Sunkalpet, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru-560 017.
...Petitioners (By Sri.Dinesh Kumar K.Rao, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By Hosakote Police Station, Hosakote, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru-560 017.
2. Sunil Jolly, S/o.late T.N.Jolly, Aged about 59 years, Office at No.108, Oxford House, Rustam Bagh Main Road, HAL Airport Road, Bengaluru-560 017.
...Respondents (By Sri.S.Chandrashekharaiah, HCGP for R-1, Sri.S.Samartha, Advocate for R-2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR and complainat against the petitioners in Cr.No.539/2016 of Hosakote P.S, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru pending on the file of Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC Court, Hosakote, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru.
This Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Heard Sri.Dinesh Kumar K.Rao, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, learned High Court Govt. Pleader appearing for Respondent No.1 and Sri.S.Samartha, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. Perused the records.
2. A complaint came to be lodged by the second respondent before the jurisdictional police station on 08.10.2016 alleging that she and her brother are the joint owners of the property bearing Survey Nos.141 and 143, measuring 2 acres 10 guntas and 3 acres respectively situated at Kambalipura village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote taluk, Bengaluru District, having purchased the same under two registered sale deeds dated 28.08.1993 and 30.08.1993 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. It was further contended that revenue records have been mutated to their names and they are in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same. Complainant has alleged that during 2016, accused who are petitioners herein had created a general power of attorney by forging the signature of the complainant and her brother and on the basis of the said general power of attorney, first accused had sold the property to the second accused alleging petitioners are attempting to sell the remaining land belonging to the complainant. On the basis of the said complaint, the jurisdictional police have registered an F.I.R against the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Sections 34, 420, 468, 467 and 471 of IPC. Hence, petitioners are before this Court for quashing of the proceedings contending interalia that second respondent- complainant has already filed a civil suit in O.S.No.348/2016 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hosakote Taluk and as such, the civil litigation is sought to be converted into a criminal case by filing a false complaint. Hence, they are seeking for quashing of the said proceedings.
3. Per contra, learned advocates appearing for the respondents have contended that initiation of prosecution against petitioners is just and proper and have prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records in general and particularly the complaint in question, it would clearly indicate that complainant has specifically alleged that the accused persons have forged his signature and have created a general power of attorney by virtue of which, they are attempting to sell the property purchased by complainant and his sister. The alleged suit which the second respondent has filed no doubt relates to the property which has been purchased by the petitioners and it is for the relief of perpetual injunction. In the said suit, it has been specifically contended that the general power of attorney executed by the first accused in favour of the second accused is forged. Even if there is a flavour of civil dispute in a complaint lodged and would also attract penal provisions, it would not be a ground on which criminal proceedings can be quashed. On the other hand, if the dispute is purely of a civil nature and same is sought to be converted into a criminal prosecution, this Court under such circumstances, can definitely interfere and quash the proceedings in exercise of extraordinary power vested under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In certain disputes, ingredients of civil dispute and also penal provisions would be attracted and in such circumstances, this Court would refrain from quashing the proceedings. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of MOHAMMED IBRAHIM AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER reported in (2009)8 SCC 751 has held in some civil disputes, it may also contain ingredients of criminal offences, such disputes have to be entertained as criminal cases. It has been held:
“This Court has time and again drawn attention to the growing tendency of the complainants attempting to give the cloak of a criminal offence to matters which are essentially and purely civil in nature, obviously either to apply pressure on the accused, or out of enmity towards the accused, or to subject the accused to harassment. Criminal courts should ensure that proceedings before it are not used for settling scores or to pressurize parties to settle civil disputes. But at the same time, it should be noted that several disputes of a civil nature may also contain the ingredients of criminal offences and if so, will have to be tried as criminal offences, even if they also amount to civil disputes. Let us examine the matter keeping the said principles in mind.”
5. The instant case is one such, viz., the complainant having specifically contended that the general power of attorney purported to have been executed by her in favour of the first accused is fabricated by the first accused by forging her signature. A meaningful recalling of the complaint do not suggest that no offence is made out. Only on completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, the resultant magnitude of the case can be ascertained. Whether allegation made in the complaint and F.I.R are true or false cannot be found out at threshold itself. This aspect can be examined only after investigation. Hence, this Court declines to interfere in the matter of investigation and it is open to the Investigating Officer to examine from all angles which he deems fit.
6. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits, Petition stands dismissed.
bnv* Sd/- JUDGE