Renuka D/O. Ramakrishna Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10774 Kant

                                                    -1-




                                                           CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019


                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                 DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

                                                 BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
                                CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102556 OF 2019 (482-)
                       BETWEEN:

                       1.    RENUKA D/O. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY,
                             AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
                             OCC- HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                             R/O- H.NO.1688, MADLERI ROAD,
                             RANEBENNUR, DIST- HAVERI
                             NOW AT BENGALURU-560001.



                                                                     ...PETITIONER

                       (BY SRI. SANTOSH B MANE.,ADVOCATE)

                       AND:

                       1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                             REPRESENTED BY
                             SPP., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by          BENCH AT DHARWAD.
ANNAPURNA
CHINNAPPA
DANDAGAL               2.    NARAYAN S/O NAGAPPA BATTAL,
Location: HIGH COURT         AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD                      OCC- AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O- YEREKUPPI VILLAGE,
                             TQ- RANEBENNUR,
                             DIST- HAVERI-581115.

                       3.    VENKAPPA S/O RAMAPPA SAWAKAR,
                             AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
                             OCC- AGRICULTURE,
                             R/O- MAIDUR,
                             -2-




                                   CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019


     TQ- RANEBENNUR,
     DIST- HAVERI-581115.

4.   NARAYAN S/O RAMAPPA SAWAKAR,
     AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
     R/O- MAIDUR,
     TQ- RANEBENNUR,
     DIST- HAVERI-581115.

5.   MALESH S/O RAMAPPA SAWAKAR,
     AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC-JOB,
     R/O- MAHENDRAKAR CHAL,
     NEAR KITTUR CHANNAMMA PARK,
     DHARWAD-580008.

6.   AKKAMMA @ VIJAYALAKSHMI
     W/O LAXMIKANT DESI,
     AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
     OCC- HOUSEHOLD,
     R/O- NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE
     JUDICIAL BLOCK COREMANGAL
     BENGALURU.-560047.

7.   CHIDANANDA S/O VENKAPPA HADIMANI,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     OCC- AGRICULTURE,
     R/O- YEREKUPPI VILLAGE,
     TQ- RANEBENNUR, DIST-HAVERI-581115.

8.   BASAVARAJ S/O RACHAPPA HOSAMANI,
     AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
     (ATTESTING WITNESS TO WILL OF
     LALITA)
     OCC- RETIRED,
     R/O- NEAR HEAD POST,
     TQ- RANEBENNUR, DIST- HAVERI-581115.

9.   MUKUNDAPPA S/O HANUMANTAPPA YOGI,
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
     (ATTESTING WITNESS TO WILL OF
     LALITA)
                              -3-




                                   CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019


      OCC- AGRICULTURE,
      R/O- YEREKUPPI,
      TQ- RANEBENNUR, DIST- HAVERI-581115.

10. PANDAPPA S/O RAMAPPA MALLADAD @ MALLUR,
    (ATTESTING WITNESS TO WILL OF
    RAMAKRISHNA REDDY)
    AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
    OCC- BUSINESS,
    R/O- POST YEDAHALLI
    TQ- MUDHOL, DIST- BAGALKOT-587117.

11. SUBASH S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA PALGI,
    (ATTESTING WITNESS TO WILL OF
    RAMAKRISHNA REDDY)
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
    OCC- AGRICULTURE,
    R/O- YEREKUPPI,
    TQ- RANEBENNUR,
    DIST- HAVERI-581115.



                                             ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R1,
SMT V. VIDYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO 6
SRI T.M. NADAF, ADVOCATE FOR R8 AND 9
R2, R7, R10 AND R11 ARE SERVED)


       THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
AND     ORDER    DATED    30/10/2019   PASSED   BY   THE   II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HAVERI
(SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION
NO.196/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A WHEREBY CONFIRMING THE
                             -4-




                                  CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019


ORDER 01/09/2018 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND    2ND    JMFC,   RANEBENNUR       IN     P.C.NO.106/2014
ACCEPTING THE B REPORT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT
POLICE AND TO DIRECT THE TRIAL COURT TO CONDUCT
THE FULL PLEDGED TRIAL AGAINST THE ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 467, 468, 471,
477 R/W 34 AND PUNISH THE RESPONDENT ACCUSED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING.

                          ORDER

Heard Sri Santhosh B Mane, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners, Sri Ramesh Chigari, learned High Court

Government Pleader for respondent No.1, Smt. Vidya,

learned counsel for respondents No.3 to 6, Sri T.M. Nadaf,

learned counsel for respondents No.8 and 9.

2. Petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C., with the

following prayer:

"Wherefore, the petitioner humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to call for the lower court records peruse the same and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 30-10-2019 passed by the

CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019

learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Haveri (Sitting at Ranebennur) in Criminal Revision Petition No 196/2018 vide Annexure-A, whereby confirming the order dated 1-9-2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge & 2nd Additional JMFC Ranebunnur in P.C. No 106/2014 whereby accepting the B Report filed by the respondent Police and to direct the trial court to conduct the full pledged trial against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 467, 468, 471, 477 R/w 34 IPC and punish the respondents accused in accordance with the law, in the interest of justice and equity."

3. Brief fact of the case are as under:

A private complaint came to be filed by the petitioner

herein with the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC.,

Ranebennur, which was registered in P.C.106/2014. Learned

Magistrate on registering of the private complaint, perused

the complaint averments and referred the matter to the

jurisdictional police for investigation by exercising the power

under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., Ranebennur Town Police

CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019

thereafter, registered a case in Cr.No.300/2014 on

31.10.2014 for the offences punishable under Section 467,

468, 471, 477 r/w Section 34 of IPC. After thorough

investigation, the police were of the opinion that the

contents of the complaint averments were false and filed a

'B' final report. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed a

protest petition. Thereafter, learned Magistrate recorded the

sworn statement of the complainant and its witnesses and

after verification of the material on record, came to the

conclusion that no case is made out unless scribe and

witnesses were examined and therefore, dismissed the

complaint.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners

approached the District Court in Crl.R.P.No.196/2018 which

came to be dismissed by order dated 30.10.2019.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner

before this Court with the following grounds:

"The Courts below have failed to consider the case of the petitioner in a proper perspective and on the notion that the litigation is Civil

CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019

dispute in nature have rejected the complaint which is arbitrary and without proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case. Hence, the same are liable to be set aside.

The courts below have failed to consider that the allegations of forgery and criminal conspiracy is alleged against the accused persons which implicate serious offences having a bearing on a vital Societal interest in securing probity of titles to or interest in land. Under such circumstances, both the court are erred in holding that it is merely a Civil dispute ignoring the conspiracy of the accused in creating the forged documents to be used in Court of law for wrongful and illegal gain.

The courts below have failed to consider that the forged documents are being used as evidence on a court of law which itself is grave offence under the provisions of IPC which required to be dealt with iron hands by the court but unfortunately, without considering these facts the courts below have brushed aside the allegation in a most arbitrary fashion which is required to be interfered with this Hon'ble Court.

CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019

The Courts below have failed to consider the gravity of the offences alleged against the accused where they have tried to create forged documents to be used in court of law to deprive the petitioner who is only daughter of her parents from her legitimate right of property and driven her away from the house of her parents.

The courts below have failed to consider that the petitioner has placed prima facie material such as the forensic lab report along with other documents such as the affidavit sworn before the court by her father and his service records which clearly disclose that the petitioner is the only daughter to her parents and she is the only person who can inherit the properties of her parents. But unfortunately without considering the facts and circumstances of the matter have rejected the complaint on the ground that it is civil dispute between the parties which encourage the persons like accused create any amount of forged documents to engulf the properties of poor people.

The Courts below have failed to consider that the case involve the allegations of forgery and fabrication of documents, utilization of

CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019

fabricated documents to effectuate transfers of title before the Court and deprivation of the complainant of his interest in the property on the basis of a fabricated Wills and if the allegations of FIR are construed as they stand it is evident that they implicate serious offences having bearing on a vital societal interest in securing the probity of title to or interest in land as such these offences cannot be construed to be merely private or civil disputes but implicate the societal interest in prosecuting serious crime as held by the Hon'ble Court Supreme Court in the case of Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimasinghbhai Karmur & others vs State of Gujrat and another.

The courts below are even not justified in accepting the report of the Police as the respondent Police is not authority to pass the judgment on the material evidence it is only required to investigate matter and provide the evidence before the court to decide the nature of offence and the punish the culprit. Unfortunately, in the present case, the Police itself have acted as a court in passing the judgment holding the dispute between the parties is Civil in nature without investigating

- 10 -

CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019

the criminal part of such an act on the part of the accused.

The courts below have failed to consider that the prima facie evidence such as expert opinion was already placed before it and the petitioner being a young student was subjected to such a fraud depriving her of the parents properties and having been involved in such a grave offence of creating and fabricating of the evidence, the court below ought to have conducted the trial in accordance with the law.

The Courts below have failed to consider that the statement recorded by it after the receipt of the report by the Police also prima facie establishes that the offence of forgery and fabrication of documents has been committed by the accused persons but unfortunately without proper verification of the statements of the witnesses, the courts below have taken the entire matter so lightly which has resulted in rejection of the complaint holding it as mere civil dispute in a most arbitrary fashion."

- 11 -

CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019

6. Reiterating the grounds urged in the petition,

learned counsel for the petitioners Sri. Santhosh Mane

vehemently contended that the finding recorded by the

learned Trial Magistrate and dismissal of the revision petition

by the learned District Judge is opposed to the settled

principles of law and sought for allowing the petition.

7. He also pointed out that the learned Magistrate at

the time of taking the cognizance of the offences alleged

against the respondents 2 to 12, should not have insisted for

explaining scribe and therefore, the impugned order passed

by the learned Trial Magistrate accepting the B report which

is incorrect which was not properly considered by the learned

District Judge in Revision Petition No.196/2018.

8. He further contended that the learned Trial

Magistrate has not properly decided the case as per the

procedure known to law while accepting the B report and

reject the protest petition sought for allowing the petition.

9. Per contra, Smt. Vidya, learned counsel

contended that respondents 3 to 6 are the legal

representatives of the deceased Padmavathamma,

- 12 -

CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019

contended that per se no criminal action can be foisted

against the legal representatives.

10. Further, Sri Nadaf, learned counsel contended

that respondents 8 and 9 are the witnesses to the Will said

to have been executed by Lalithamma and therefore, they

cannot be preceded with the criminal action.

11. Learned HCGP however submits that learned Trial

Magistrate has rightly considered the material on record and

passed appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of

the case and sought for passing appropriate order.

12. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

13. Admittedly, there is a civil dispute pending

between the parties which is now pending before the I

Appellate Court. In the mean time, the complaint lodged by

the complainant was referred to the police and police is of

the opinion that there is no material on record to proceed

against the proposed accused persons and filed B report. B

report was objected to by filing the protest petition. After

- 13 -

CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019

considering the protest petition, learned Trial Magistrate

directed the complainant to examine himself for the purpose

of sworn statement and witnesses. On such consideration of

the contents of the sworn statement and documents

produced by the complainant, learned Magistrate passed

detail order stating that the complainant failed to make out

the case as to the investigation conducted by the police is

not correct nor any case is made out proceed against

respondents 2 to 12 for the alleged offences and passed an

order accepting 'B' report.

14. The said order was subject matter of Revision

Petition No.196/2018. Learned District Judge after re-

appreciating the material on record, has confirmed the order

of the Trial Magistrate.

15. This is factual finding that the complainant has

failed to make out a case proceed against the respondents 2

to 12 for the aforesaid offences.

16. This Court while considering the petition under

Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot revisit to the factual aspect of

- 14 -

CRL.P No. 102556 of 2019

the matter having regard to the scope under Section 482

Cr.P.C.

17. Accordingly, no case is made out to interfere with

the learned Trial Magistrate and confirmed in Revision

Petition No.196/2018. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The petition is dismissed.

However, dismissal of this petition and the

termination of the criminal proceedings shall not

affect the rights of the petitioners in the pending

civil litigation.

Sd/-

JUDGE MR