IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9816 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SMT SATHYAVATHI
W/O GOKULDAS NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
MANAGER,
WORKING AT CORPORATION BANK
UTTARAHALLI BRANCH,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R. B. SADASHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY VIJAYANAGAR POLICE
REP. BY THE LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 040.
2. SRI ROOPESH MURTHY.N
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGE 35 YEARS,
2
3. SRI DINESH
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGE 34 YEARS
BOTH R-2 AND R-3 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.7
5TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
GOVINDARAJ NAGAR,
BENGALURU-40.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ROHITH.B.J., HCGP FOR R1;
BY SRI. H.K. SRIVASTHAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAIST HER IN FIR
NO.404/2015 (NOW IN C.C.NO. 12467/2017) PENDING ON THE
FILE OF XXIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Shri. R.B. Sadasivappa, learned counsel is present before the Court physically and Shri. H.K. Srivasthava, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 is appearing through video conferencing. Respondent No.2 is arraigned as complainant in Cr.No.404/2015 registered as C.C.No.12467/2017. 3
2. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 - State is present before the Court physically and submitting that respondent No.3 - Dinesh son of Narasimhaiah died during the pendency of this petition. Death certificate is produced to that effect for perusal. Accordingly, case against respondent No.3 stands abated.
3. In this petition, the petitioner - Smt. Sathyavathi, who is accused No.3 is seeking quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against her in Cr.No.404/2015 registered as C.C.No.12467/2017, pending before the XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and counsel for respondent No.2, who is assisting the HCGP, keeping in view of Section 301 of Cr.P.C.
4
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who has taken me through the allegations made in the complaint filed by Sri. Roopesh Murthy N. It is alleged in the complaint that in the fraudulent Sale Deed the Manager viz., Smt.N Sathyavathi
-accused in this case has subscribed her signature. It is further stated in the complaint that "including the bank manager - Smt. Sathyavathi, who has trespassed into the property" and therefore, the allegation made against her is that only she has signed as a witness in the aforesaid sale deed, but it was only on her official capacity and further more the petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.3 has not been trespassed into the property at any point of time.
6. The second limb of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that she has no pivotal role relating to the proceedings. But she has asked only to discharge her duty only on official capacity in extending the loan, that too for approval of legal sanction so also under certain guidelines of the bank. It is contended that the bank 5 officials are required to be present at the Sub-registrar's office to collect the documents personally, which leads to filing of this complaint directly against her in Cr.No.404/2015 registered as C.C.No.12467/2017. Charge-sheet was also submitted by the investigating agency against the accused on 15.04.2017 and thereafter this accused has filed this petition for seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against her on the reason that she has not involved in the entire sale transactions except she has discharged her duty in her official capacity. Therefore, if the proceedings has to be continued against her, certainly it amounts to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, this petition is filed exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to meet the ends of justice.
7. On this premise, learned counsel for the petitioner is seeking for intervention of this Court in this petition for a gravamen of accused No.3 would not be suffered for initiation of the criminal proceedings against her in C.C.No.12467/2017 arising out of Cr.No.404/2015.
6
8. Learned HCGP for respondent No.1, who has taken me through the substance in the FIR said to have been recorded by the Vijayanagar Police Station, registered in Cr.No.404/2015, wherein the petitioner herein, who is accused No.3 was discharging her official duties as a manager relating to sanction of loan etc. But, there are prima facie materials against this accused No.3 in commission of the offences. Therefore, the complainant- Roopesh Murthy N has filed a complaint against Sri. Naveen Kumar, Sri Narasimhaiah, Smt. Sathyavatahi, Bank Manager, Corporation bank, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru and others. The deed of cancellation was registered before the Sub-Registrar's office in terms of compromise arrived between the parties in the partition suit. However, this accused was being cited as a witness by subscribing her signature in the cancellation deed involving in commission of the offence with other accused relating to fraudulent document in the name and style of confirmation. These are all the contentions taken by the learned HCGP for 7 the State and seeking for dismissal of this petition, wherein petitioner is seeking quashment of the entire proceedings initiated against her in C.C.No.12467/2017.
9. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that there are certain materials against the accused in commission of the offence which is reflected in the complaint lodged by Roopesh Murthy N. He has narrated in detail in the complaint against this accused, who was working as a manger in Corporation Bank, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru. The petitioner-accused No.3 was also involved with other accused persons in commission of the offence. As per the provisions of Section 301 of Cr.P.C., learned counsel for respondent No.2 has only to extend his assistance to the learned HCGP, but not directly address arguments and permission has been accorded to assist the learned HCGP, who is appearing for respondent No.1-State to address his case relating to filing of charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.12467/2017.These are all the contentions taken by the learned HCGP for respondent 8 No.1, so also leaned counsel for respondent No.2. Hence, sought for dismissal of this petition as there are no specific and justifiable ground for intervention under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against this petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3.
10. It is in this context of the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner so also counter made by the learned HCGP for the State is concerned, it is relevant to refer to the complaint filed by Roopesh Murthy N wherein it is stated that the complainant was the absolute owner of the property bearing No.7, 5th cross, Thimmenahalli, Govindarajanagar, Bengaluru. In the complaint, it reveals that in terms of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.9920/2006 dated 23.12.2009 the complainants are the absolute owners of the property. It is relevant to refer further that the property was divided among themselves equally and deed of cancellation was also entered into between the father of the complainant and K.S. Ramkumar. However, the deed of 9 cancellation was registered before the concerned Sub- Registrar's office. But, it is relevant to refer in further that the petitioner herein namely Sathyavathi, Manager of the Bank, came and informed that one Sri. Naveen Kumar has mortgaged the said property in the year 2013 and defaulted in making the loan payment and she threatened that even if do not vacate the premises they would thrown out of the property forcefully and illegally. Further it reveals that a fraudulent document in the name and style of confirmation cum rectification deed was registered by their father namely G Narasimhaiah fraudulently, wherein three unknown persons have impersonified as children of their father and they have executed the fraudulent confirmation deed. However, at a cursory glance of the complaint made by complainant against the accused it appears that the dispute is civil in nature which has turned into criminal proceedings by filing a complaint before the Vijayanagar P.S. by one Roopesh Murthy.N on 25.07.2015. Based upon the complaint, a case in 10 Cr.No.404/2015 came to be registered. Thereafter the investigating agency has taken up the case for investigation and thoroughly investigated the matter and laid charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.12467/2017. But, the petitioner herein, Smt. Sathyavatahi being manager of the Corporation Bank, Uttarahalli Branch, Bengaluru, was arraigned as accused No.3 in the aforesaid chargesheet case merely because she has put her signature in the deed of cancellation held between the parties. However, it is relevant to refer to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA AND ANR. Vs. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) DEPARTMENT OF HOME HOME AND ANR., reported in AIR 2019 SC 210, in this judgment, the Apex Court has referred the case of INDIAN OIL CORPORATION Vs. NEPC INDIA LTD., & OTHERS, reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780, wherein it has held as under:
"13...... Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims, which do not involve any criminal 11 offence, by applying pressure through criminal prosecution should be deprecated and discouraged...."
In the same judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anand Kumar Mohatta's case (supra) reliance has been placed in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. L Muniswamy and others, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1489, which reads as under:
"7.... In the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice..."
12
11. However, in the instant case it is relevant to note that where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceedings is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has referred the decisions reported in AIR 2006 SC 2780; 2013 AIR SCW 6062 and AIR 2014 SC 1106. Under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it is held that "quashing of FIR - Inherent powers - Nothing in words of Section 482 restricting exercise of power of Court to prevent abuse of process of Court or miscarriage of justice only to stage of FIR -High Court can exercise jurisdiction u/S. 482 even if charge-sheet is filed during pendency of application." However in view of the ratio of reliances, as well as the case of civil in nature has to be turned as criminal in nature. Therefore, no hesitation in quashing the FIR and the charge sheet filed against this petitioner, who is arraigned as accused No.3. 13
In terms of the aforesaid reasons and the findings, the petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.3 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner/accused No.3 in Cr.No.404/2015 registered in C.C.No.1467/2017 pending on the file of XXIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Psg*