Mr Raymond D Souza vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 3995 Kant

                           1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JULY 2023

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

            CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6935 OF 2022
BETWEEN

MR RAYMOND D'SOUZA
S/O ANTHONY SYLVESTER D'SOUZA
AGED 75 YEARS
RA/T H.NO.10-40
THUPPE PADE MANE
SHIRVA VILLAGE AND POST
KAUP TALUK
UDUPI - 574 116
                                           ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI GIRISH KUMAR B M, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      BY SHIRVA POLICE STATION
      REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
      HIGH COURT BUILDING
      DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
      BENGALURU 560001

2.    MR.ARTHUR MENEZES
      S/O LT MARTHIAS MENEZES
      AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
      R/AT JULIET VILLA
      NEAR SHIRVA POLICE STATION
      SHIRVA VILLAGE AND POST
      KAUP TALUK
      UDUPI DISTRICT 574116
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. VISHWA MURTHY, HCGP FOR R1
 MS. KEERTHANA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                   2




     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE FIR DATED 13.02.2022
IN CR.NO.10/2022 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
465, 468 AND 471 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF III
ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 26.6.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under

Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime

No.10/2022 registered by Shirva Police, District Udupi, for

the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 471

of IPC pending on the file of III Additional Civil Judge and

JMFC Court, Udupi District, Udupi.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for the

respondent No.2.

3. The case of prosecution is that on the

complaint of respondent No.2-Arthur Menezes, who filed

first information on 13.02.2022, the police registered the

case against the petitioner-accused. It is alleged in the

complaint that the Deputy Commissioner said to be

granted conversion order in favour of the petitioner in

respect of Sy. No.364/39 measuring 0.10 acre of Shirva

Village. It is further alleged that the land in Sy. No.364/28

belongs to the State Government, which is nothing but a

karab land. The petitioner obtained the conversion order

in respect of his property, which is adjacent to the

property of the complainant, by showing Sy. No.364/28 as

a road. It is also alleged that the petitioner-accused

created the false documents and produced the same

before the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of

obtaining the conversion order. Hence, prayed for taking

action. The police registered the case and issued FIR,

which is under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

contended that the property in question was purchased by

the petitioner and obtained the conversion order. The

respondent has also obtained the similar conversion order

and both of them are using the said Sy. No.364/28 as

common road to access the other properties. It is further

contended that the respondent himself has given no

objection i.e. there was mutual agreement between the

parties. Therefore, there is no substance in the complaint.

It is also contended that there is four years delay in

lodging the complaint and hence, prayed for quashing the

FIR.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has

contended that both the petitioner and respondent have

purchased the property in Sy.No.364/5 of Shirva Village.

It is contended that the petitioner has created the false

document in the name of the complainant and produced

the same for obtaining the conversion order wherein the

respondent has not signed on any 'no objection' as stated

by the revenue department. The sketch clearly reveals

that the petitioner-accused manipulated the document and

produced the same before the authorities for getting the

conversion order. Therefore, it is contended that the

matter is required to be investigated by the police in detail.

It is further contended that there were three pieces of land

divided from the original land, where there was no road,

but in order to get the conversion order, the petitioner

shown the government karab land as the road and

obtained the modification order on the false document.

The petitioner fabricated the documents by showing that

the respondent has given consent which is a forged one.

Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. The learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent State has also contended that the matter is

required for investigation and hence prays for dismissing

the petition.

7. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel

for the parties, perused the record.

8. Perusal of the records would indicate that

petitioner as well as the respondent have purchased the

piece of land in Sy.No.364/5 of Shirva village and the

petitioner sought for conversion of the land by producing

the false sketch showing that there was public road by the

side of the land. Subsequently, the respondent objected

the same. It appears that there was settlement between

the petitioner and respondent by way of an agreement,

but the respondent has not signed on the agreement nor

any consent has been given for granting the conversion

order by showing the private road and the phut karab

land. The petitioner has produced the consent letter of

some other persons, where the present respondent has not

signed the consent letter but the petitioner obtained an

amended conversion order based upon the said consent

given by some other persons, which is under dispute.

It appears that the land in question belongs to the

government. In order to grab the government land, both

petitioner and the respondent were trying to make

allegations against each other. It is necessary for the

revenue department to verify as to whether the said land

is a poramboke (karab) land or a public road or a private

road and therefore, the matter is required to be

investigated.

10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner

has relied upon the judgments showing that there was

delay in lodging the complaint, but it is pertinent to note

that the land belongs to the State. Merely, there was delay

in lodging the complaint, this Court cannot blindly quash

the FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also

relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

SLP (Criminal) No.5866/2022 in case of USHA

CHAKRABORTY AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF WEST

BENGAL AND ANOTHER. But, here in this case, it is not

a civil dispute between the two individual parties, but it is

the parties herein trying to convert government land into

the private land and a private road. Therefore, it is

necessary for the police to investigate the matter to find

out the truth as to whether the said land is a private land

or public land or poramboke karab land and whether the

petitioner is trying to convert the government land into a

private road for personal benefit. This Court cannot

conduct a mini trial to find out whether the land is the phot

karab land converted into a private road by the petitioner

or any other persons. The public road cannot be allowed

to be grabbed by the individual by making mutual

agreement between them. Therefore, trial is prima facie

case to investigate the matter.

The criminal petition is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Cs