IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4105/2018 BETWEEN:
YOGENDRA NAIK S/O MAHALINGA NAIK AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS ADVOCATE, ROOM NO.29 MUNICIPAL COMPLEX KUNDAPURA UDUPI DISTRICT-576 201 ... PETITIONER (BY SHRI. H. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. HEMALATHA BALLAL W/O DR.H.SUDHARSHAN BALLAL AGE: MAJOR R/AT NO.72, LAVELLE ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA POLICE SUB INSPECTOR GONIBEEDU POLICE STATION CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY HIGH COURT SPP BANGALORE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI. K. SHASHI KIRAN SHETTY, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LATHA S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SHRI. S. RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR RELATING TO CRIME NO.24/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN) AND JMFC, MUDIGERE, CHIKKAMAGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss.420, 468, 471, 463 & 464 OF IPC, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS DOCUMENT NO.1 AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION WITH COSTS.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER 1. Heard Shri H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Shri K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 and Shri S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP for the State.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that, based on a complaint lodged by respondent No.1 (complainant) FIR No.24/2018 was registered on 24.2.2018 in Gonibeedu Police Station against three persons, out of which, petitioner is accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 471, 463 & 464 of IPC.
3. Adverting to paragraph No.7 of the petition he submitted that, Petitioner, who is an advocate by profession, in his busy schedule, has affixed his signature on a document when accused No.1 (Mohandas Shetty) requested him to identify the signatory. Complainant did not give a copy of the said document. Shri Pavana Chandra Shetty further submitted that lawyers in their profession are required to file Vakalathnama, affidavit and other documents and in that process identify the clients who approach them. In the instant case also, the petitioner has affixed his signature in good faith. In the circumstances, he submitted that the petitioner may be protected from the criminal prosecution initiated pursuant to registration of FIR.
4. Learned HCGP for the State submitted that the police have registered the FIR based on the complaint. Since proceedings have been stayed by this Court, there has been no further progress in the matter. He assured that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, police will record petitioner’s statement without harassing him.
5. Learned Senior Advocate for respondent No.1 submitted that so far as the complainant is concerned, he is the owner of plantation lands. The complainant has learnt that accused No.1 has created a document as if the complainant has agreed to sell ‘Dalchini’ leaves. Therefore, instant complaint has been filed in order to protect her interest and convey to the authorities that she is not involved in any such activity. As such, the complainant has no personal grievance against the petitioner.
6. In the conspectus of the facts of the case, in my view, ends of justice would be met, if police are permitted to complete investigation. This Court trusts and hopes that keeping in view the nature of advocate’s work, the police will record petitioner’s statement without harassing and complete investigation in accordance with law expeditiously.
7. Petition stands disposed of with the above observations.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*