Karnataka High Court

Kariyamma W/O Malleshappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 15 February, 2022

Bench: M.Nagaprasannapresided Bymnpj

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                          BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

           CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100128/2020

BETWEEN

KARIYAMMA W/O. MALLESHAPPA
AGE: 436YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VALMIKI NAGAR, HARAPANAHALLI,
DIST: BALLARI.
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       THROUGH HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION,
       NOW REPRESENTED BY S.P.P.,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENCH AT DHARWAD.
2.     T. SHRIDHAR S/O LATE UCHCHANGEPPA
       AGE- 38 YEARS, OCC: R. T. WORKER,
       R/O: VALMIKI NAGAR, HARAPANAHALLI,
       BALLARI-583131.
                                            ..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1)
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2-SERVED)

       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE
                              2




PETITIONER/ ACCUSED IN HARAPANAHALLI POLICE STATION
CRIME NO.163/2019 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 418, 419, 420, 465, 469 OF IPC AND PRIVATE
COMPLAINT BEARING PCR NO.87/2019 FILED BEFORE THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC COURT, HARAPANAHALLI.


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


                          ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

proceedings in Crime No.163/2019 registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 418, 419, 420, 465 and

469 of IPC.

2. Heard Sri K.L.Patil, learned counsel appearing for

petitioner-accused and Sri Ramesh Chigari, learned HCGP

appearing for respondent No.1-State.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of the present petition

as borne out from the pleadings are as follows :

The complainant by name T.Shridhar files a private

complaint invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C. It is the case of

the complainant that land in Sy.No.813/2 measuring 03

acres, 44 cents of Harapanahalli Revenue village in Kasaba

Hobali was a Government darkast land, which originally

belongs to one Sri Yallappa Nayakar, who after filing an

application for grant of such land was granted on

09.06.1962, after following of due procedure in law.

4. A complaint is registered in the year 2017 on the

score that upto 2001-2003 the land which was granted in

the year 1962 did show the name of Sri Yallappa Nayakar,

after which, the complainant comes to know from a noting

the voter list that the land belong to Smt Kariyamma

w/o.Malleshappa, in the voter list of the year 2017. It is at

that juncture the complainant registers the aforesaid

complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 418,

419, 420, 465 and 469 of IPC. It is this registration of the

complaint that draws the petitioner to this Court in the

subject petition.

5. Learned counsel Sri K.L.Patil appearing for the

petitioner submits that the complainant is no way

concerned to the dharkast land or the revenue records of

the subject land. The land was granted in the year 1962

and has been in possession of the grantee throughout and

there is no foundation laid by the complainant in the

complaint to demonstrate any of the offences that are

alleged.

     6.    The    complainant        remains   served   and

unrepresented.

7. The learned HCGP would however takes this Court

to the complaint to contend that it is not a case where

there is no relationship between the complainant and the

petitioner. They are related to each other and petitioner is

wanting to knock off the land granted in the year 1962 and

therefore the offence is made out.

8. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by the respective counsel and have

perused the material on record.

9. Since the entire issue springs from the complaint

the same is extracted for the purpose of ready reference.

"zÀAqÀ ¥ÀæQæAiÉÄ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A 200 gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀªÁV ¸À°è¹zÀ SÁ¸ÀV ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄ

¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ «£ÀªÀÄæªÁV ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¥Áæyð¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ.

¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀ «¼Á¸ÀªÀÅ F ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÌtÂ¹zÀAvÉ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¦üAiÀiÁðzsÄÀ zÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀgÀ ºÉaÑ£À «¼Á¸À F ªÉÄÃ°£ÀAwgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ§½ ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î PÀAzÁAiÀÄ UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 813/2 «¹ÛÃtð 3 JPÀgÉ 44 ¸ÉAmïì d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ ªÀÄÆ®vÀB F d«ÄÃ£ÀÄ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ AiÀÄ®è¥Àà vÁ¬Ä UÉÆÃuÉªéÀ JA§ÄªÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀzÀ F zÀgÀPÀ¸ïÛ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj Cfð ¸À°è¹ D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09.06.1962 gÀ°è DvÀ£À ¸Áé¢üÃ£ÀzÀ°ègÀÄªÀ ¨sÀÆ«ÄUÉ zÀgÀPÀ¸ÀÄÛ ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï£ÀÄß eÁj ªÀiÁr D £ÀAvÀgÀ J¯Áè PÀæªÄÀ UÀ¼À£ÀÄß dgÀÄV¹ r.Dgï.£ÀA.11/1961-62 gÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 09.06.1962 gÀ°è ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁr ¥ÀÄ£ÀB vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀgÀªÀgÀ DzÉÃ±À PÀA/¨sÆ À «Ä/11/1961-62 gÀ°è DzÉÃ²¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¥ÀºÀtÂAiÀÄÆ 2001 jAzÀ 2002-03 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ºÉ¸ÀgÄÀ £ÀªÄÀ ÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ AiÀÄ®è¥Àà vÁ¬Ä UÉÆÃuÉªéÀ CªÀgÄÀ ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î ¥ÀlÖtzÀ 9£ÉÃ ªÁqïð£À ªÁ¹UÀ¼ÁVzÀÄÝ CªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ EgÀzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ°è EzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ 2017 ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ°è PÀjAiÀÄªÀÄä UÀAqÀ ªÀÄ¯ÉèÃ±À¥Àà JAzÀÄ EzÀÄÝ

ªÀÄ£É £ÀA.48 EzÀÄÝ D ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄÄ ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î ºÀÄ®ÄèUÀgÀrPÉÃjUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ ¥ÀnÖAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ ¨sÁUÀ ¸ÀASÉå: 123 PÀæ.¸ÀA.91 gÀ°è £ÀªÄÀ ÆzÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ§½¸ÀÄªÀ zÀÈ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ ªÀÇgÀ¥Àà vÁ¬Ä UÉÆÃuÉªéÀ FvÀ£ÄÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 30.06.1979 gÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw £ÁUÀªÄÀ ä ¢£ÁAPÀ: 02.05.1982 gÀ°è ªÀÄgÀt ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¥ÀæªiÀ Át ¥ÀvæÀ ¸À°è¹ CªÀjUÉ DgÉÆÃ¦AiÀÄÄ ªÉÆzÀ®£ÉÃ ªÀÄUÀ¼ÄÀ PÀjAiÀÄªÀÄä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉAZÀªÀÄä JA§ ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀjAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀA±ÀªÀÈPÀëªÀ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr AiÀÄ®è¥Àà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ºÉAqÀw £ÁUÀªÄÀ ä£À ªÀÄgÀt ¥ÀæªÀiÁt ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼ÀÄ E®èzÉÃ vÀ£À ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ ªÀA±ÀªÈÀ PÀëªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¸ÀÈ¶×ªiÀ ÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 03.12.2014 gÀ°è CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸À°è¹ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr ¥ÉÆÃwªÁgÀ¸ÄÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ vÀªÀÄä ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ¥ÉÆÃwªÁgÀ¸ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ JA.Dgï.£ÀA. ºÉZï 130/2014-15 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11.12.2014 gÀ°è ¥ÉÆÃwªÁgÀ¸ÄÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÄÀ ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î ¥ÀlÖtzÀ°è CªÀgÀ ªÀA±À¸ÀÜgÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. ¨ÉÃgÉAiÀÄªÀgÀ D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀ§½¸ÀÄªÀ zÀÄgÁ¯ÉÆÃZÀ£É¬ÄAzÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ AiÀÄ®è¥àÀ£À ªÀA±À¸ÜÀ gÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DvÀ£À ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀgÀPÁgÀPÌÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀiÁ»w ¤Ãr ªÀAZÀ£É ªÀiÁr vÀªÄÀ ä ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀ¸À¨Á ºÉÆÃ§½ ºÀgÀ¥À£ÀºÀ½î PÀAzÁAiÀÄ UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gï 813/2 «¹ÛÃtð 3 JPÀgÉ 44 ¸ÉAmïì d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß SÁvÉ

§zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÆÃ¸À, ªÀAZÀ£É¬ÄAzÀ F PÀÈvÀåªÀ£ÀÄß J¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀ £ÁAiÀÄPÀgÀ AiÀÄ®è¥àÀ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢üAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

               EzÀPÉÌ    ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥l
                                  À Ö          zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À        ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß   F
     ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀÄ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀAZÀ£É ºÁUÀÆ CPÀæªÄÀ ¯Á¨sÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ £ÀµÀëªÀ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÈ¶×ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ºÉÃ½PÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ PÀ®A. 418, 419, 420, 465 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 469 gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è C¥ÀgÁzsÀ J¸ÀVgÀÄvÁÛ£É.

DzÀÄzÀjAzÀ ¦üAiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÄÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¥Áæyð¹PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, ªÀiÁ£Àå WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄªÀÅ ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀ£À£ÄÀ ß ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß «ZÁgÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¹ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÄÀ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£ÀvÉAiÀÄ zÀÈ¶Ö¬ÄAzÀ ¥Áæyð¹PÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É."

10. The narration in the complaint dates back to

09.06.1962 and narrates the incident that has happened

upto 2014, the complainant alleges that the mutation

entries of the land in question was changed into the name

of very Sri Yallappa Nayakar, who was the original grantee.

The complainant nowhere narrates as to how he would be

aggrieved by the change of the said mutation entries. The

allegations made are for offence punishable under Section

420 of IPC. The ingredients of cheating are as found under

Section 415 of IPC. None of the ingredients as depicted

under Section 415 of IPC made out in the complaint even

prima facie. There is no incident of inducement by the

accused to the victim for the complainant to allege offence

punishable under Section 420 of IPC. As a matter of fact,

the complainant not even the victim, therefore can be no

inducement by the petitioner against an unknown victim.

The offence punishable either under Section 418 of IPC or

under Section 420 of IPC is not even met in the complaint.

Insofar as the offence punishable under Sections 465 and

469 of the IPC is concerned, which deal with forgery, the

complainant nowhere narrates the name of the petitioner's

bought into the revenue records by forgery. Therefore, the

said offence also cannot be made out in the complaint.

11. On a perusal at the complaint, if it does not make

out offences for which proceedings can continue, it would

become an appropriate case for this Court to exercise its

inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and

obliterate such proceedings. The Hon'ble Apex Court in its

latest Judgment rendered on 10.02.2022 in the case of

Shafiya Khan alias Shakuntala Prajapati vs. State of U.P.

and Another, reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 167, while

following the case of State of Haryana v. Bhajanl Lal,

reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, has held as follows:

"15. The exposition of law on the subject relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution or the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are well settled and to the possible extent, this Court has defined sufficiently channelized guidelines, to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. This Court has held in para 102 in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others (supra) as under :

"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of

decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do

not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non- cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding 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."

16. The principles laid down by this Court have consistently been followed, as well as in the recent judgment of three Judge judgment of this Court in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others."

12. Therefore, if the complaint itself does not make

out an offences alleged, no further proceedings would be

permitted to be continued against the petitioner, as it

would result in miscarriage of justice and be an abuse of

the process of law.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following :

ORDER

(i) The criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.163/2019

(of Harapanahalli Police Station) on the

file of Civil Judge and JMFC,

Harapanahalli stands quashed qua