Karnataka High Court

Smt Sathyavathi vs State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2021

Author: K.Somashekar

        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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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..."

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