Karnataka High Court
Shrimant S/O Jinappa Khanagond vs State Of Karnataka on 1 March, 2021
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF MARCH 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRL.P. NO.100850 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SHRIMANT S/O JINAPPA KHANAGOND
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O HALINGALI VILLAGE, TQ:RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST:BAGALKOT-587315.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.GIRISH YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ADDL. PUBLIC PRSOECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD,
THROUGH PSI, JAMKHANDI TOWN POLICE
STATION, DIST:BAGALKOT-587301.
2. MAGEPPA S/O BAHUSAB DESAI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O HALINGALI VILLAGE, TQ:RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST:BAGALKOT-587315.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1)
(SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO QUASH THE
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN PC NO.4/2019 (CRIME
NO.36/2019) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL.
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, JAMKHANDI FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 120B, 143, 147,
2
148, 149, 403, 406, 420, 504, 426, 427, 465, 468 AND 470
OF IPC INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned HCGP for respondent-State and learned
counsel for respondent No.2-complainant.
2. Respondent No.2 filed a private complaint
on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Jamkhandi against accused Nos.1 to 13 alleging
offences punishable under Sections 120B, 143,
147, 148, 403, 406, 420, 426, 427, 465, 468, 470,
504 read with Section 149 of IPC. It is alleged
that accused Nos.1 to 4 are relatives of the
complainant and all the accused by colluding with
each other created a document dated 19.5.2018
styled as "Memorandum of Partition" showing as if
the said document was entered into between the
complainant and accused No.2. It is submitted
that the family of complainant and accused No.2
purchased certain lands measuring to an extent of
19 acres 6 guntas in the year 1999. However,
subsequently, by impersonating the complainant,
the accused have created revenue records on the
basis of fictitious "memorandum of partition".
3. The learned Magistrate on receiving the
complaint, referred the matter for investigation
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., which is
challenged by accused No.7 in this petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
contended that even according to the complainant,
the petitioner is only a signatory to the
memorandum of partition and therefore, he has no
knowledge about any fraud committed by other
accused persons, if any. He submits that even if
the allegations in the complaint are taken at their
face value, it is in the nature of a civil dispute.
Therefore, the allegations that the petitioner has
colluded with other accused and committed
criminal offences will not sustain. In this
connection, he has placed reliance on a decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinod
Natesan Vs. State of Kerala and others
reported in AIR 2019 SC 296.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
submits that there is no prima facie case made out
against the petitioner and therefore, proceedings
against him is an abuse of process of law and
accordingly, seeks to allow the petition.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has
contended that the accused persons by colluding
with each other have created a fake memorandum
of partition as if the said document is entered into
between accused No.2 and complainant. The
petitioner is one of the witness, who has signed
the memorandum of partition and therefore, it is
clear that he is also involved in creating the said
memorandum of partition, which is not at all
signed by the complainant. He submits that
criminal petition filed by accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 in
Crl.P.No.101270/2019 is already dismissed by this
Court. He places reliance on a decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of HDFC
Securities Ltd. & Others Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Another reported in 2017(1)
Apex Court Judgments 260 (SC) to contend that
the proceedings are still at the initial stage and
therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner
cannot be quashed.
7. It is relevant to mention that accused
Nos.1, 3 and 4 preferred criminal petition before
this Court in Crl.P. No.101270/2019 seeking
quashing of the proceeding initiated against them.
This Court vide order dated 16.3.2020 after
considering the facts and circumstances, dismissed
the said petition observing that when the
cognizance was not taken and the matter is only
referred to Investigation Officer to ascertain
whether there is substance in the complaint to
proceed in the matter, the trial Court has rightly
proceeded in the matter.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the above
decision referred to by the learned counsel for
respondent No.2, has observed that the order
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. requiring
investigation by the police, cannot be said to have
caused an injury of irreparable nature which, at
this stage, requires quashing of the investigation.
9. The facts of the case referred in the case
referred to by the learned counsel for the
petitioner are entirely different and not at all
applicable to the case on hand. In the said case,
after entering into an agreement by the accused
with the complainant with regard to availing of
intellectual services of marketing the products of
the complainant, the accused did not pay the
amount due and payable under the agreement and
paid a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- only and without
paying the remaining amount backed out from the
agreement. In such circumstance, the Hon'ble
Apex Court has held therein that the dispute
between the parties at the most can be said to be
a civil dispute and it is tried to be converted into a
criminal dispute.
10. In the present case, as already
observed, the allegations are that all the accused
have colluded with each other and created a fake
memorandum of partition as if the said partition
was entered into between the complainant and
accused No.2. Hence, at this stage, it cannot be
said that the ingredients of the offences alleged
are not made out or that the allegations are civil
in nature. No grounds are made out to interfere
with the impugned order referring the matter for
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.
Petition, therefore, fails and same is hereby
dismissed.
11. The petitioner is given liberty to
approach the Court in future, if it is warranted.
Since the matter was referred for investigation on
13.03.2019, the respondent-Police shall expedite
the investigation of the case.
Sd/-
JUDGE
JTR
