Karnataka High Court
Sri H U Narayanaswamy vs Sri P William on 25 October, 2021
Author: V Srishananda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.472/2017
BETWEEN:
SRI. H U NARAYANASWAMY
S/O LATE URGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
KNS HIGH SCHOOL,
NAGAMANGALA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MARUTHI.G.B., ADV. PHYSICAL HEARING)
AND:
1. SRI. P WILLIAM
S/O LATE PETER DAS,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
KIRUPUSPA SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA
PALAGRAHARA ROAD,
NAGAMANGALA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.
2. MISS. HELEN
D/O THOMAS,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
KIRUPUSPA SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA
2
PALAGRAHARA ROAD,
NAGAMANGALA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.
3. SMT. P MARY SUSHEELA
W/O ALEXANDER,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
KIRUPUSPA SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA
PALAGRAHARA ROAD,
NAGAMANGALA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.
4. SMT. T THERESA
D/O THOMAS,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
KIRUPUSPA SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA
PALAGRAHARA ROAD,
NAGAMANGALA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.
5. SMT. W. PETER PRASHANTH
S/O PETER WILLIAM,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
KIRUPUSPA SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA
PALAGRAHARA ROAD,
NAGAMANGALA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.
6. SMT. ROSELINE
D/O PRAKASH,
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
KIRUPUSPA SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA
PALAGRAHARA ROAD,
NAGAMANGALA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.
7. SMT. MINI MATHEW
D/O MATHEW,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
3
KIRUPUSPA SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA
PALAGRAHARA ROAD,
NAGAMANGALA TOWN,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 432.
8. STATE OF KARNATAKA
NAGAMANGALA TOWN
POLICE STATION,
NAGAMANGALA MANDYA DISTRICT
REP. BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. H.S.KIRAN KUMAR, ADV. FOR R1-R7;
SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, HCGP FOR R8 PHYSICAL HEARING)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF
CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.02.2017 BY ALLOWING
THE REVISION PETITION PASSED BY THE V ADDL.
DISTRICT AND S.J., MANDYA IN CRL.RP.NO.103/2015 AND
ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
4
ORDER
Even though the matter is posted for admission, by
the consent of both the parties, it is taken up for final
disposal.
2. Heard Sri Maruthi.G.B., learned counsel for the
revision petitioner and Sri H.S.Kiran Kumar, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Smt. Rashmi
Jadhav, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.8. Perused the records.
3. The present revision petition is filed by the
complainant challenging the common order passed in
Crl.RP.Nos.103/2015 and 104/2015 by the V Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Mandya. However, the learned
counsel for the revision petitioner has filed a memo dated
25.10.2021 seeking to restrict this revision petition only
against Crl.RP.No.103/2015. The said memo is placed on
record and the present revision petition is restricted to
Crl.RP.No.103/2015 passed by the V Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Mandya.
4. The brief facts of the case are as under:
A private complaint came to be filed by the petitioner
against respondent Nos.1 to 7, which was culminated into
C.C.No.626/2013 for the offences punishable under
Sections 418, 423, 420, 465, 471, 473 and 144 read with
Section 149 of the India Penal Code (hereinafter referred
to as 'the IPC' for short).
5. The complaint averments revealed that
accused No.1 being the President of Kirupuspa Samaja
Seva Sangha, was running a School by name "Little Flower
English School" in T.B.Extension of Nagamangala Town,
Mandya District. The other accused are the members of
the said Sangha. Accused Nos.1 to 7 did not maintain the
accounts of the said Institution and handed over the entire
administration of the School in favour of the complainant
by an agreement dated 11.10.2010. In respect of the
same, there is a civil dispute pending between the parties.
In pursuance of the pending civil dispute, document relied
upon by the accused persons is concocted for the purpose
of getting favourable order in the civil dispute and in this
regard, the complainant filed a complaint, which was
referred to the jurisdictional police and thereafterwards,
charge sheet came to be filed.
6. After appearance, the accused persons filed
criminal revision petitions challenging the order of taking
cognizance in Crl.RP.Nos.103/2015 and 104/2015.
Learned Sessions Judge after securing the records and
hearing the parties, by order dated 08.02.2017 allowed the
criminal revision petitions and set aside the order passed
in C.C.No.626/2013 taking cognizance of the offence,
whereby, criminal action launched against the accused
persons stood terminated.
7. Learned Sessions Judge in Paragraph No.14 of
the impugned order has held as under:
"14. Thus, as per Section 195 of Cr.P.C. if
the civil Court comes to the conclusion that any
document produced before it or given in evidence,
is created then the complaint shall be presented
as per the procedure contemplated under the said
section. Hence, for the reasons stated supra, the
order of taking cognizance against the petitioners
and issuance of summons is not sustainable in law
as no prima facie case is made out against the
petitioners. Hence, I am of the view that both the
petitions deserve to be allowed. Accordingly, I
have answered this point in the Affirmative."
8. Being aggrieved by the same, the complainant
is in revision before this Court.
9. Sri Maruthi.G.B., learned counsel for the
revision petitioner vehemently contended that Section 195
of Cr.P.C. is not at all applicable to the case on hand and
therefore, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge
is bad in law. Admittedly, there was a concocted document
relied upon by the accused persons in the civil suit. The
same has been taken note of by the concerned court and
therefore, the complainant constrained to file necessary
private complaint before the jurisdictional police. Hence,
he sought for allowing the revision petition.
10. Per contra, Sri H.S.Kiran Kumar, learned
counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7 and Smt. Rashmi
Jadhav, learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.8 justifies the impugned order passed by
the learned Sessions Judge. He further contended that in
respect of an offence punishable under the provisions of
Section 471 of IPC, Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would squarely
apply and therefore, it is for the concerned court or the
authorized officer of the concerned court to raise a
complaint in writing and then only, learned Magistrate can
take action. Thus, he sought for dismissal of the revision
petition.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties, the sole point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the order passed by the
learned V Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Mandya in Crl.RP.Nos.103/2015 and 104/2015
dated 08.02.2017 is suffering from any legal
infirmity and thus calls for interference?"
12. In the case on hand, admittedly there are civil
matters pending between the parties and an agreement
dated 11.10.2010 is alleged to be concocted for the
purpose of getting the benefit in the civil matters and
therefore sought for action against the accused persons.
After charge sheet came to be filed, the learned Magistrate
took cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections
418, 420, 423, 465, 471, 473 and 144 read with Section
149 of IPC and issued process. Being aggrieved by the
same, accused persons filed Crl.RP.Nos.103/2015 and
104/2015. Learned Sessions Judge after taking note of the
relevant aspects and in the light of Section 195 of Cr.P.C.
and Paragraph No.14 of the impugned order, has held that
there should be a complaint in writing by the concerned
court or by the authorized officer of the concerned court.
Therefore, the matter cannot be proceeded against the
accused persons.
13. Reserving such a liberty to the revision
petitioner to move before the concerned court to take
action against the accused persons, this Court is of the
considered opinion that there is no legal infirmity in the
order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly,
above point is answered in negative and pass the
following:
ORDER
The revision petition is dismissed
However, the order of this court shall not come in
the way of concerned court for taking appropriate action
against the accused persons in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SMJ
