Mr.Jalalsabh vs The State By
2021 Latest Caselaw 1792 Kant

                            1



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2021

                         BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7414/2020

BETWEEN:

1.   MR.JALALSABH,
     S/O SAIDANNA,
     AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT BENGALURU DISTRICT,
     KARNATAKA-560034.

     PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
     HABSHIHAL VILLAGE,
     YADGIR TALUK & DISTICT-58355.

2.   MR. CHIKKANARASAPPA,
     S/O LATE PILAKENCHAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT SONNAPPANAHALLI,
     SHIVAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
     DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.

3.   MR. ARAVINDAN V.S.,
     S/O V.R. SINGARACHARI,
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     RESIDING AT BENGALURU DISTRICT,
     KARNATAKA-560034.

     PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.49/1,
     2ND CROSS, NANJAPPA GARDEN,
     MANJUNATHA BADAVANE,
     BENGALURU NORTH,
     BENGALORE-560032.

4.   MR. ABDUL MAJEED,
     S/O CHAN PATEL (POLICE PATEL),
                               2



       AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT BENGLURU DISTRICT,
       KARNATAKA-560034.

       PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.4-4/131,
       NEAR GOVT. HOSTEL, AMBEDKAR COWK,9
       YADGIR CITY-585201.

5.     MR. M. CHANDRASHEKAR,
       S/O P.S. MANI,
       AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
       RESIDING AT BENGALURU DISTRICT,
       KARNATAKA-560034.

       PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.52, F-2,
       SRI BALAJI SADANA APARTMENT,
       2ND MAIN, AMARAJYOTHI LAYOUT,
       ANANDA NAGAR, BENGALURU NORTH,
       R.T.NAGAR, BENGALURU-560032.
                                              ... PETITIONERS

               (BY SRI LOKESH C., ADVOCATE FOR
                SRI KUMAR RAM C.M., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE BY
       DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION,
       REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENGALURU-560001.

2.     J. THYAGARAJU,
       S/O JAYARAMA NAIDU,
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
       NO.1323, KAVERY BADAVANE,
       KURUBARAHALLI 2ND STAGE,
       KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK,
       BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.
                                             ... RESPONDENTS

         (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R-1;
             SRI S.V. PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
                                 3



      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN
CR.NO.233/2020 REGISTERED BY THE DODDABALLAPURA RURAL
POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PENDING ON THE
FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND JMFC,
DODDABALLAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 120B, 468, 465 AND 420 R/W SECTION 34 OF IPC.

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

                            ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying

this Court to quash the FIR registered against the petitioners

herein in Crime No.232/2020 for the offences punishable under

Sections 120B, 468, 465 and 420 of IPC read with Section 34 of

IPC.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the

complainant, who is respondent No.2 herein had lodged the

complaint before the police on 25.08.2020 making the allegation

against the petitioners that the property to the extent of 7 acres

2 guntas was in his name and he was in possession of the said

property. On verification of the documents at Taluk Office, he

came to know that the property was transferred to the name of

Jalalsabh S/o Saidanna, Attabasahal, Shahpur Taluk, Gulbarga

District and the documents are changed to his name. On

enquiry, he came to know that they have created the sale deed

dated 23.09.1996 and presented the same before the Sub-

Registrar Office and the said document was subjected to under

valuation and that on 26.11.1998 they have also forged the

signature of the complainant and the documents are registered

in the year 2003 and got changed the entire revenue records of

the complainant in their name. Hence, requested the police to

take action against the petitioners herein.

3. The petitioners who are before this Court in the

petition would contend that the sale deed is of the year 1996

and the complaint was filed in 2020 after delay of 25 long years

and the delay is unexplained in the complaint. The learned

counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of this Court

that respondent No.2 was having the knowledge of the same in

the year 2004 itself and an appeal is filed before the Sub-

Divisional Assistant Commissioner. When he was having

knowledge about the same, the complaint is filed belatedly and

hence there cannot be any prosecution against the petitioners

herein.

4. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this

Court that notice has been issued by respondent No.2 in terms

of Annexure-F stating that with regard to the execution of the

sale deed and claiming the amount of Rs.24,70,000/-. When

such being the facts and circumstances of the case, there cannot

be any prosecution against the petitioners herein.

5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - State would contend

that in view of the interim order granted by this Court, the

Investigating Officer was not able to investigate the matter. A

serious allegation has been made against the petitioners that

they indulged in creation of the documents by impersonation and

committed the offence of forgery and got transferred the

property to the extent of 7 acres 2 acres belonging to the

complainant. This Court cannot exercise the power under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. when the serious allegations of forgery,

impersonation and fabrication of documents are made. It is the

Investigating Officer who has to probe into the matter and

unearth the crime.

6. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would

vehemently contend that these petitioners have indulged in

knocking off the property of the complainant and the

complainant has not executed sale deeds. The petitioners herein

have indulged in committing the offence of forgery and

fabrication of the documents and the same has to be probed.

The learned counsel would contend that the legal notice which

has been brought to the notice of this Court vide Annexure-F has

not been issued by respondent No.2 and disputes the very

issuance of the legal notice.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners,

the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High

Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, this

Court has to examine whether it is a fit case to exercise the

powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR. While

exercising the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court

has to look into the contents of the complaint whether the

complaint prima facie discloses committing of cognizable offence

of not. On perusal of the complaint, in paragraph No.2, specific

allegations are made that the complainant is the owner of the

land to the extent of 7 acres 2 guntas and he was in possession

of the same. Subsequently, these petitioners have indulged in

creation of the documents and by impersonation got transferred

the property by forging the signature of the complainant and

presenting the documents before the Sub-Registrar. When

specific allegations are made in the complaint and the complaint

discloses the cognizable offence, this Court should not venture to

collect the material or appreciate the material as an Appellate

Court. Once prima facie allegations are found in the complaint

for having committed the cognizable offence, the Court has to

allow the Investigating Officer to probe and unearth the crime.

The Apex Court in the judgment in the case of DINESHBHAI

CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF GUJARAT reported in

2018 (3) SCC 104 held that that High Court should not act like

an Investigating Officer and instead allow the Investigating

Officer to investigate the matter.

8. In the case on hand, specific allegations are made

against the petitioners that they have indulged in the transfer of

the property to the extent of 7 acres 2 guntas which was

standing in the name of the complainant and they indulged in

forging the signature and got transferred the property in their

name. The very contention of the petitioners is that the

complainant was aware of the said fact 20 years ago and he has

approached this Court belatedly. When cognizable offence has

been invoked, that too an allegation of impersonation, forgery

and creation of documents and an attempt is made to knock off

the property belonging to the complainant, the very contention

of the petitioners cannot be accepted and the Investigating

Officer has to probe the matter.

9. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the

petitioners would submit that the petitioners would submit the

original documents to the Investigating Officer and the matter

has to be investigated and till then, the interim order has to be

continued.

10. On the other hand, the learned High Court

Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 would

contend that while granting the interim order, specific direction

was given to the petitioners to produce all the documents before

the Investigating Officer. Instead of complying with the order

passed by the learned judge while exercising the discretion in

granting bail, approached this Court and obtained the order of

stay.

11. Having perused the conduct of the petitioners and

also the order passed by the learned judge while exercising the

power under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., specific direction was given

to the petitioners to furnish the documents which are in dispute

and instead of that the petitioners have approached this Court

and suppressing the same, obtained the interim order. Hence,

the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot

be accepted.

12. Having taken note of the gravity of the offence

and also the nature of allegations made in the complaint and

when the complaint prima facie discloses committing of

cognizable offence, it is not a fit case to exercise the power

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and this Court by invoking Section

482 of Cr.P.C. cannot interfere with the investigation as held by

the Apex Court in the case of Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel

(supra). It is a fit case to allow the Investigating Officer to

probe into the matter and file the report. However, this Court

can given liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court, if

need arises, after filing of the final report by the Investigating

Officer.

13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is rejected.

(ii) However, liberty is given to the petitioners to approach this Court after filing of the final report, if need arises.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD