IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.5968 OF 2016 BETWEEN:
1. V. Srinivas, S/o. late Chinnappa, Aged about 63 years, Residing at Krishna Layout, Hulimavu Village, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 076.
2. Gopal Reddy, S/o. Nagareddy, Aged about 57 years, Residing at Vanakanahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 101.
3. Krishna Reddy, S/o. late Kariyappa, Aged about 55 years, Residing at Kalkere Village, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru – 560 101.
4. Smt. Mangalamma, D/o. B.G. Venkataramanappa, Aged about 63 years, 5. B.V. Venkatesh, S/o. B.G. Venkataramanappa, Aged about 60 years, 6. Smt. Gowri, D/o. B.G. Venkataramanappa, Aged about 56 years, 7. Smt. Indira, D/o. B.G. Venkataramanappa, Aged about 47 years, 8. Devaraj, S/o. Yashodhamma, Aged about 48 years, 9. Santhosh, S/o. Mangalamma, Aged about 40 years, Petitioner Nos.4 to 9 are R/at No.203, 2nd Cross, Dathathreya Extension, K.G. Nagar, Bengaluru – 560 019.
10. Mohammed Rafi, S/o. late Babu Sab, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No.23, Banashankari 3rd Stage, 2nd Main, Gururaja Layout, Bengaluru – 560 050.
11. C. Lakshminarayana, S/o. late Chowdappa, Aged about 50 years, Residing at No.219, Hulimavu Village, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru – 560 076. …Petitioners (By Sri. H.N. Venkatesh, Advocate) AND:
1. State of Karnataka, By its Inspector, Electronic City Police Station, Bengaluru – 560 100.
2. G. Prabhakara, S/o. Gopala Reddy, Aged about 50 years, R/at K.S.R.T.C. Layout, J.P. Nagar 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 78. ...Respondents (By Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, SPP-II for R1; Sri. B.M. Arun, Advocate for R2) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. No.4063/2010 on the file of C.J.M., Bengaluru as an abuse of process of law.
This Criminal petition coming on for Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Petitioners have sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.4063/2010 pending on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned SPP-II for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. The substance of accusation against the petitioners is that petitioner Nos.2 to 9 executed a Sale Deed in respect of the ancestral property belonging to the complainant comprised in Sy.No.294/3 measuring 3 acres 33 guntas situated at Begur Village, Bengaluru South Taluk. According to the prosecution, accused Nos.2 and 3 forged the signatures of the erstwhile owners Gopal Reddy and Krishna Reddy and with the help of accused Nos.10 and 11, accused Nos.2 to 9 executed two sale deeds in favour of accused No.1.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute raked up by the complainant is purely civil in nature. The sale deed was executed in favour of accused No.1 on 21.01.2009. The said sale deed is challenged in a civil suit by the uncle of the complainant Krishna Reddy and the matter is pending consideration of the Civil Court. The complainant has given a criminal complexion to the civil dispute with an ulterior motive and therefore, impugned proceedings amount to an abuse of process of Court.
5. Refuting the submissions, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 contends that the material on record prima-facie establish that the signatures of the executants was forged by accused Nos.2 and 3. Gopal Reddy died on 18.07.1998. Therefore, he could not have executed any sale deed in favour of accused No.1 in 2009. This itself is sufficient to make out the ingredients of the offences under Sections 419 and 420 of IPC. The suit challenging the sale deed is filed by the uncle of the complainant. The complainant is not a party to the said suit. Nature of the allegations leveled against the petitioners clearly make out the ingredients of criminal offence. Therefore, pendency of the civil suit cannot be a reason to quash the proceedings in the instant set of facts and circumstances.
6. The learned SPP-II has argued in support of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and would contend that additional charge sheet has been filed and reliable material is produced in support of the accusations leveled against the petitioners. Therefore, merely on the ground of pendency of civil suit, criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners cannot be quashed, as the allegations made against the petitioners satisfy the ingredients of criminal offence.
7. Considered the submission and perused the records.
8. Even though it is contended that a civil suit is pending in respect of the very same subject matter yet, a perusal of the charge sheet and the material produced along with the charge sheet clearly indicate that act of forgery and falsification of documents has taken place in bringing about the disputed sale deed. Reliable material is collected to substantiate that accused Nos.2 and 3 have forged the signatures of the erstwhile owners Gopal Reddy and Krishna Reddy. One of the executants namely Krishna Reddy himself has challenged the said sale deed before the Civil Court, which indicates that the document has come into existence by playing fraud and forgery. Therefore, the allegations made against the petitioners as well as the materials collected by the Investigating Agency, in my view, squarely attract the ingredients of criminal offence.
9. Furthermore it is necessary to note that the instant petition is filed in the year 2016, by then, additional charge sheet was filed against the petitioners incorporating charges under Sections 468, 471, 426 and 120B of IPC. Based on the said material, charges are framed against the petitioners and trial has already commenced and four witnesses have been examined. It is at that stage, petitioners have come before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings. There is nothing on record to show that the additional charge sheet has been challenged by the petitioners from 2013 till 2016.
10. I am satisfied that the allegations made against the petitioners prima-facie make out ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners. Therefore, this is not a fit case to quash the proceedings. In view of the pendency of Civil suit pending between the parties, without expressing any opinion on other contentions raised by the petitioners, petition is dismissed.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner Nos.10 and 11 are wrongly implicated in the alleged offences and that there are no allegations whatsoever in so far as these petitioners are concerned, cannot be accepted for the reason that the prosecution has invoked Section 120B of IPC and supporting material is produced to prove conspiracy. Therefore, I do not find any good ground to quash the proceedings even in respect of these petitioners are concerned.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE SV