Karnataka High Court
J N Prakash vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7691 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
J.N.PRAKASH
S/O LATE NAREPPA
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
DISTRICT DEED WRITER
NEAR TELEPHONE OFFICE
OPPOSITE TO MUNICIPAL OFFICE
BAGEPALLI TOWN - 561 207
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI D.P.MAHESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BAGEPALLI POLICE
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT.PRABHAVATHAMMA
W/O SURYANARAYANA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
RESIDENT OF NARASAPURA VILLAGE
GUDIBANDE TALUK - 561 209
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI B.RAMESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN
C.C.NO.266/2020 AND CONSEQUENTIAL CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BAGEPALLI, CHIKKABALLAPURA ANNEXURE-A IN SO FAR AS
PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IS CONCERNED.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
proceedings in C.C.No.266/2020, pending on the file of the Civil
Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Bagepalli, Chikkaballapura,
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 418, 419,
420, 167, 468 read with 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri D.P.Mahesh, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Smt. K.P.Yashodha, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent No.1 - State and Sri B. Ramesh, learned
counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as
borne out from the pleadings are as follows:
Respondent No.2 - complainant claims to be the owner of
the agricultural lands in survey Nos.75/2, 75/3, 75/4 and 75/5
totally measuring 02-18 acres. It is these sale deeds concerning
the aforesaid survey numbers that are the subject matter of this
petition. The sale deeds that are the subject matter were
executed on 24.01.2013 and 02.02.2013 between accused No.2
and respondent No.2. The role of the petitioner in the entire
episode of the alleged crime is that, he is a scribe of those deeds
executed between accused No.2 and respondent No.2, in the
capacity of a District Deed Writer.
4. The said sale deeds were also called in question by the
complainant by instituting a suit in O.S.No.161/2013. The said
suit came to be dismissed and the said dismissal has become
final. The complainant again institutes two suits in
O.S.Nos.415/2018 and 217/2018 between the members of his
family. The said suits are pending adjudication. Suit in
O.S.No.161/2013 was dismissed by the concerned Court on
05.04.2018 and after the said dismissal, the subject complaint
is registered by the complainant against all the accused
including the petitioner on 21.06.2019, alleging impersonation
by accused Nos.1 and 2 and has dragged in the petitioner as he
was the scribe of those sale deeds in the capacity of being a
District Deed Writer. The police after investigation have also
filed charge sheet against all the accused. Petitioner - accused
No.3 calls in question the filing of the charge sheet against him,
in the subject petition.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
impersonation cannot be known to a scribe. The documents
that are given to him are put down on a paper or feed into the
system as is given. Forgery or impersonation would not be
known to the petitioner. Therefore, no fault can be found with
the petitioner as the scribe of the document and he would seek
quashment of the entire proceedings initiated against him.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2
would submit that the petitioner is also involved in the crime of
impersonation by accused Nos.1 and 2 and is equally
responsible for the property being transferred on such
impersonation and seeks dismissal of the petition.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties
and perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated dates and events are not in dispute.
The role of the petitioner in the entire episode of the alleged
crime is that, the petitioner is the scribe of the documents,
which is alleged to have been a product of impersonation by
accused Nos.1 and 2. It is not in dispute that on the very same
fact, complainant had filed O.S.No.161/2013, against accused
Nos.1 and 2 who were defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the said suit.
The specific issue framed by the civil Court with regard to
concoction of documents reads as follows:
"4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
defendants created and concocted the sale deeds
dated 24.01.2013 and 02.02.2013 by colluding with
witnesses and hence they are null and void?"
The said issue is answered in the negative and the said
finding has become final.
9. All the allegations made in the complaint were also
made in the aforesaid civil suit and on perusal of the documents
alleged to have concocted, the Court holds it to be in the
negative. It is added circumstance where the petitioner cannot
be found fault with for penning down the contents as is found in
the documents, being a District Deed Writer. No offence much
less the offences so alleged, the ones punishable under Sections
418, 419, 420, 167, 468 of the IPC, can be laid against the
petitioner. More particularly, in the teeth of the judgment of the
civil Court which takes away the substratum of the allegations
against the petitioner. Therefore, this is an appropriate case
where this Court would exercise its jurisdiction under Section
482 of the Cr.P.C. to obliterate proceedings against the
petitioner, failing which, it would become an abuse of the
process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.266/2020, pending on the
file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Bagepalli,
Chikkaballapura, stand quashed, qua the petitioner.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nvj
CT:MJ
