Sri.Mahalinganagouda S/O ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 2726 Kant

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                           BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.100134/2020

     BETWEEN
     SRI.MAHALINGANAGOUDA S/O ANDANAGOUDA PATIL
     AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
     R/O: MUSHTHIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ: MUNDARAGI,
     DIST GADAG.
                                              ...PETITIONER

     (BY SRI B.C. JNANAYYA SWAMI, ADVOCATE)

     AND
     1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
           THROUGH KUKANOOR P.S.,REPRESENTED BY ITS
           STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
           HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,DHARWAD.

     2.    SMT. SHANKARAMMA W/O HANUMANTAPPA KYADED
           AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST,
           R/O: UCHCHALAKUNTA, TQ: YELBURGA,
           DIST: KOPPAL-583231.
                                              ...RESPONDENTS

     (BY RAMESH CHIGARI HCGP FOR R1 AND
     SRI SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER
INITIATED IN C.C.NO.48/2019 (P.C.R.NO.3/2013) PENDING ON THE
FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, YELBURGA FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 420, 465, 466, 471 R/W
SEC.34 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER /A2 IS CONCERNED.
                               2




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

                           ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question

the proceedings in C.C.No.48/2019 (P.C.R.No.3/2013)

pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Yelaburga, for the offences punishable under Sections 420,

465, 466 and 471 r/w. Section 34 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri B.C.Jnanayyaswami, learned counsel for

the petitioner, Sri Ramesh Chigari, learned High Court

Government Pleader representing respondent No.1 and Sri

Shriharsh A. Neelpant, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts as projected by the prosecution are as

follows:

The petitioner is accused No.2 in the aforesaid

criminal case. A brief history to the registration of the

criminal case is germane to be noticed. One Kanakappa

owned 1 acre and 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.53/3 at

Malekoppa village. Kanakappa is the father of the

complainant. It is the claim of the complainant that

Kanakappa died leaving behind his wife and their sons and

the children claim to have inherited the said property. One

Basappa is alleged to have impersonated one of the

children of Kanakappa and gets a power of attorney

registered in his name in the year 1987. After the said

entries being changed, the petitioner comes into the

picture in the year 2013, 26 years of the alleged

impersonation by Basappa and the change of mutation

entries. In the year 2013, it is the claim of the

complainant that he comes to know of the action of

impersonation only when the sale deed takes place in the

year 2013 i.e., 06.03.2013. The complaint so registered

reads as follows:

"1. That father of the complainant Sri.Kanakappa S/o Mudukappa Talawar R/o: Malekoppa Tq: Yelaburga was the original owner and possessor of the land bearing Old Sy.No.53 Hissa F & New No.53 Hissa F P1 Meas: 01A - 19G situated in the village Malekoppa Tq: Yelaburga.

2.   Sri.Kanakappa,          his        wife
     Smt.Gouramma       and      their  sons

Goneppa & Ningappa died long back leaving behind complainant & Yallamma W/o Ningappa Talawar to inherit and succeed to his above shown property.

3. That, complainant & Yallamma being illiterate & poor use to cultivate the said land with the assistance of accused No.1. Taking undue advantage of the situation, the accused No.1 has got transferred the suit land in his name by playing fraud i.e. knowing full well that, these plaintiffs No.1 & 2 are the legal heirs & he is not the son of Kanakappa Talawar. That is, predicting himself a the son & successor of late Sri.Kanakappa S/o Mudukappa Talawar R/o: Malekoppa vide M.R.E.No.35/1988 dt:28-04-1988 and further got executed a fake Regd. Sale deed infavour of accused No.2 On 06-03-2013. The accused No.2 is also colluded with the accused No.1.

4. That all these facts clearly show that, the accused No.1 & 2 have committed the offence U/Sec. 420, 465, 466, 471 R.W.Sec.34 of I.P.C. & they are liable to punish accordingly.

5. That, Complainant is ready to prove the offence committed by the accused No.1 & 2 by leading evidence.

Hence prayed that:

PRAYER

The Hon'ble court may kindly punish the accused for the offences punishable U/Sec.420, 465, 466, 471 R.W.Sec.34 of I.P.C."

A perusal at the complaint itself indicates that the

complainant is seeking to question a particular act taken

place on 28.04.1988, by registering a complaint on

06.03.2013 and claims that it is a continuing cause of

action. The narration in the complaint is as vague as

vagueness can be. There is no averment to the effect that

the petitioner is in collusion with accused No.1 and result of

such collusion is the execution of sale deed.

4. Admittedly, things that have happened in the year

1988 are sought to be agitated by the complainant in the

year 2013, that too against the petitioner, who is a

bonafide purchaser who has purchased the land from

accused No.1 - Basappa. The offences alleged are the

ones punishable under Sections 420, 465, 466 and 471 of

the IPC r/w. Section 34 of the IPC. None of those offences

can even remotely link to the act of the petitioner

purchasing the said property after 26 years of the alleged

impersonation.

5. It is submitted at the Bar that accused No.1 is no

more and the proceedings against him have already been

abated. If accused No.1, the alleged impersonator is no

more, it may be an unfortunate circumstance to the

complainant. But on that score holding the neck of

accused No.2, petitioner herein, a bonafide purchaser will

be an abuse of the process of the law and degenerate into

harassment against the petitioner.

6. In my considered view, this is a fit case where this

Court has to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 482 of

the Cr.P.C. and terminate the proceedings, which in the

end would result in miscarriage of justice. The view of

mine in this regard, is fortified by the postulates laid down

by the Apex Court with regard to interference under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. in the case of STATE OF

HARYANA V. BHAJANLAL1, wherein the Apex Court holds

as follows:

                      "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

1992 Supp(1) SCC 335

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 noncognizable 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."

(Emphasis supplied)

7. For the aforesaid reasons and in the light of the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of BHAJANLAL

(supra), I proceed to pass following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.48/2019 stand quashed qua the petitioner.

(iii) It is made clear that the quashment of the proceedings will not preclude any civil proceeding to be brought up by the parties to determine their rights and would not influence or bind any civil proceedings pending adjudication between the parties to the lis.

SD JUDGE Vb/-