CRL.P.1109/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRL.P.No. 1109/2018
BETWEEN:
1. Narayanappa,
Age: 86 years,
S/o Late Yalakappa
2. Thimmappa,
S/o Narayanappa,
Aged about 48 years
Both are residents of
B.H.Palya, Henchinapalya,
Dibburu, Kasaba
Tumakuru-572 102.
3. Malleshappa
(Died on 17.4.2018, hence
deleted V/o dated 07.01.2021) ..PETITIONERS
(By Sri Patel D.Karegowda, Adv.)
AND:
1. Srinivasa @ Seenappa,
Age: 60 years,
S/o Narayanappa,
R/o B.H.Palya,
Henchina Palya,
Dibbur-572 102,
Kasaba Hobli, Tumakuru.
2. Ravishankar
(Deleted V/o dated 7.1.2021)
3. State of Karnataka
By Circle Inspector of
Police Tumakuru,
CRL.P.1109/2018
2
Rural Circle Tumakuru,
Tumakuru.
By State P.P.
High Court Of Karnataka
Banglore-01. ..RESPONDENTS
(By Sri Mushtaq Ahmed, Adv. for R1;
Smt Rashmi Jadhav, HCGP for R3)
This criminal petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C
praying to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1788/2007 arising
out of PCR.No.223/2004 on the file of the learned I-Additional
Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Tumakuru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the
Court made the following:
ORDER
1. Petitioners 1 & 2 be arraigned as accused nos.1 & 2 in C.C.No.1788/2007 arising out of PCR No.223/2004 filed by the complainant against the accused before the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Tumkuru, alleging offences punishable under Sections 420, 423, 424, 467, 468, 471, 419 IPC. In this petition, the said accused nos.1 & 2 are seeking quashing of the said proceedings in C.C.No.1788/2007.
2. Heard Sri Patel D.Karegowda, learned Counsel for the petitioners who is present before the Court physically and also the learned HCGP for respondent no.3. However, there is CRL.P.1109/2018 3 no representation for respondent no.1 either through video conferencing or present before the Court physically.
3. It is relevant to state that the case in PCR No.223/2004 was initiated by the complainant viz., Srinivasa @ Seenappa against the accused and the said case was referred under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC to the CPI, Rural Police, Tumakuru District, for investigation and submitting a report. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.151/2004 came to be registered. Subsequent to the registration of the crime, the Investigating Officer has taken up the case for investigation and lodged the charge sheet against the accused in C.C.No.1788/2007.
4. It is relevant to state that respondent no.1 - Srinivasa @ Seenappa is none other than the son of accused no.1 - Narayanappa and is the brother of accused no.2 - Thimmappa. Accused no.4 is the mortgagee and the mortgage was redeemed and the document pertaining to redemption of mortgage is produced for the perusal of the Court.
5. Respondent no.1 - Complainant had filed a suit in O.S.No.117/2003 against his father - Narayanappa (accused CRL.P.1109/2018 4 no.1) and others before the Court of Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & CJM, Tumakuru, seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The said suit was decreed on 09.08.2007. Copy of the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2007 is produced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners for the perusal of the Court. Since the suit filed by the complainant seeking 1/3rd share has been decreed and the mortgage deed executed in favour of accused no.4 has been re-deemed, nothing survives to proceed the case in C.C.No.1788/2007 against accused nos.1 & 2. On all these premises, learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks interference of this Court by exercising power under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the said proceedings in C.C.No.1788/2007 which is pending against the accused.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State submits that though the civil suit in O.S.No.117/2003 has been decreed, the same would not came in the way of seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against the accused. On these premises, learned HCGP for the State seeks to dismiss the petition.
CRL.P.1109/2018 5
7. It is relevant to state here that the private complaint filed by respondent no.1 was with regard to the alleged cheating and fraud committed by the accused 1 & 2 in respect of the property which was mortgaged in favour of accused no.4 - Ravishankar. It is also relevant to state here that the suit filed by respondent no.1 against his father and others seeking 1/3rd share has been decreed and the mortgage deed executed in favour of accused no.4 has been redeemed.
8. However, it is relevant to refer the case of ANAND KUMAR MOHATTA & ANOTHER VS STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) DEPARTMENT OF HOME & ANOTHER reported in - AIR 2019 SC 210, the Apex Court has specifically addressed the scope of Section 482 Cr.PC relating to quashing of FIR and has held that there is nothing in the words of the said Section which restricts the exercise of power of the Court to prevent the abuse of process of court or miscarriage of justice only to the stage of the FIR. It is settled principle of law that the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC even if the charge sheet is filed.
CRL.P.1109/2018 6
9. The judgment stated supra is squarely applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the case whereas, the complainant/Respondent No.1 having been secured the relief by instituting civil proceedings. Therefore, continuing the criminal proceedings against the accused which would result in the miscarriage of Justice and so also abuse the process of the court. Therefore, no hesitation in quashing the instant criminal proceedings against accused nos.1 & 2. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1788/2007 arising out of PCR No.223/2004 pending on the file of I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Tumakuru, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KK