Mr. Bhimanagouda Fakiragouda ... vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6421 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 AT DHARWAD BENCH
 DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
                          BEFORE
         THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
                 CRL.P.NO.102162/2021
BETWEEN:

MR.BHIMANAGUD FAKIRAGOUD PATIL,
AGE : ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O #19 SILVER TOWN,
MANJUNATH NAGAR, HUBBALLI,
DIST: DHARWAD-580005.
                                               ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI S.H.MITTALKOD, ADV.)

AND :

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD-580 001.

2.    RASHMI D/O VISHWANATH PATIL @ RASHMI
      W/O MANJUNATH PATIL, AGE : 41 YEARS,
      OCC: HOUSE MAKER, R/O #205 BLOCK,
      C BOCHS RESIDENCY, 80 FEET ROAD,
      ASHWATHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560094.
                                              ... RESPONDENTS
(BY     SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R.1)
        SRI VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADV. FOR R.2)

      THIS petition IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDURE PRAYING THIS COURT TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2017 FOR REGISTRATION OF
C.C.NO.810/2018 BASED ON PRIVATE COMPLAINT NO.1475/ 2017
AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS TO THIS PETITIONER AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEDINGSALLEGING THE COMMISSION OF OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 AND 471
OF IPC, AND THE CONNECTED PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, HUBBALLI IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
                               2




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                       : ORDER :

Though this petition is listed for admission, with

the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, it

is taken up for final disposal.

2. The petitioner-accused is before this Court

seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated

against him now pending in C.C.No.810/2018 on the

file of Principal Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Hubballi

("the Trial Court" for short) registered on the basis of

Private Complaint in PCR No.1475/2017 for the

offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465,

467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for

short).

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the

respondent herein had filed the private complaint as

stated above against the accused alleging commission

of the offences as stated above. It is stated that the

complainant and her mother are the owners of a

immovable property and the accused concocted a

general power of attorney deed by forging the

signature, committed cheating and sold the property

in favour of the third party without the knowledge of

the complaint and thereby they have committed

offence as stated above. It is also stated that

concoction of the general power of attorney deed and

selling the valuable property in favour of the third

party was not within the knowledge of the

complainant till 2017 and the same was came to know

to the knowledge of the complainant and she filed the

criminal complaint and a suit in this regard is also

filed. The trial court took cognizance of the offence

and registered C.C.No.810/2018. Being aggrieved by

the same, the accused is before this Court seeking to

quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

4. Heard Sri S.H.Mittalkod, learned counsel

for the petitioner, Sri Praveen K.Uppar learned High

Court Government Pleader and Sri Vishwanath Hegde,

learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that, since the respondent has filed a civil

suit seeking several reliefs against the petitioner

herein, the criminal proceedings initiated against him

to be quashed. A cause of action for filing criminal

complaint would arise only after passing of the

judgment and decree in the civil suit. He has placed

reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Joseph Salvaraj A Vs. State of Gujarat and

others1 in support of his contention. Hence, he prays

for allowing the petition.

6. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for

respondent No.2 submit that, the complainant is the

owner of the property in question. She came to know

during 2017 as some mischief has been committed by

(2011) 7 Supreme Court Cases 59

the petitioner. When she asked for necessary

documents, the petitioner has not provided with any

such documents. Thereafter under Right to

Information Act, the documents were secured, the

complainant came to know that the accused has

concocted the documents, styled as general power of

attorney deed, by forging the signature of the

complainant. She also came to know that the property

in question was sold in favour of a third party under a

registered sale deed. Therefore, commission of the

offence by the accused is clearly made out by the

documents itself. Learned counsel further submits

that, an application under Section 91 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure filed before the Trial Court seeking

to summon the original general power of attorney

deed said to have been executed by the complainant,

in favour of the accused. The said application was

came to be allowed vide order dated 25.10.2021 by

the Trial Court. Only thereafter this petition is filed

seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated

against him, which is not maintainable in law. Hence,

he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

7. Perused the material on records.

8. In the light of the rival contentions of the

learned counsel for the the parties, the point that

would arise for consideration of this Court is as

follows:

           Whether     the    criminal   proceedings
     initiated    against       the   petitioner   in
     C.C.No.810/2018         (PC.No.1475/2017)     on

the file of the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C?

9. My answer to the above point is in he

'negative' for the following:

: REASONS :

10. The specific contention of the parties is

that, the complainant is the owner of the property in

question which was admittedly sold by the accused on

the basis of the general power of attorney deed. It is

alleged by the complainant that she never executed

any general power of attorney deed in favour of the

accused and the said documents is a rank fabrication

with forged signatures. Therefore, a private complaint

was filed. On the basis which, cognizance was taken

and the criminal proceedings is initiated against the

accused.

11. From the order sheet of the trial Court

produced before this Court, it is clear that the

application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C was filed by the

complainant to summon the original general power of

attorney deed, which is in the custody of the Zonal

Manager, State Bank of India Keshwapur Hubballi. The

said application was came to be allowed vide order

dated 25.10.2021.

12. When serious allegation was made for

concoction of documents by forging the signature,

committing cheating and selling the property in favour

of the third party, it cannot be said that, there are no

materials to constitute any of the offences. But on the

other hand there are prima facie materials to

constitute the offences as alleged against the accused.

13. The Apex Court in Joseph Salvaraj A

(supra) considered the criminal proceedings initiated

against the accused alleging commission of the

offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 506 Pt. I

of IPC and held that there is serious doubt as to

whether such averments and allegations even make

out a prima facie case of commission of the any

offences which could be made out against the

accused. The Court also held that no prima facie case

is made out by the complaint even though the

investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet is

filed. It was also find that the dispute between the

parties is purely of civil nature. Under such

circumstances, the Court quashed the criminal

proceedings. The facts and circumstances of the case

is entirely different. When prima facie case is made

out regarding commission of the criminal offences,

criminal proceedings initiated against the accused is

not liable to be quashed. Hence, I do not find any

merits in the contention taken by the learned counsel

for the petitioner. Hence, I answer the above point in

the 'negative' and accordingly the petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE EM