Karnataka High Court
Pillamadhappa vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2023
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 423 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
PILLAMADHAPPA
S/O LATE CHINNANNA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
R/O HORAMAVU POST
KALKERE VILLAGE
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 083
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRASAD B S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY K.R. PURAM P.S
REP BY SPP
Digitally signed by HIGH COURT BUILDING
PADMAVATHI B K BANGALORE-560 001
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. SRI. MADAPPA
KARNATAKA
S/O LATE ADHURANNAIAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/O KALKERE VILLAGE
K.R. PURAM HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK-560 083
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP FOR R-1,
SRI. T.M. VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
-2-
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC
PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.33228/2021
(PCR.NO.19856/2021) ON THE FILE OF THE XLII ACMM,
BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss.120B, 420, 427,
465, 467, 471 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER
ARGUMENTS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in CC No.33228/2021, which
arose out of PCR No.19836/2021 registered for offence
punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 427, 465, 467, 471
of IPC.
2. Heard Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned Advocate for the
petitioner and Smt. K.P. Yashoda, learned HCGP for
Respondent No.1 as well as ri. T.M. Venkata Reddy, learned
Advocate for Respondent No.2.
3. The petitioner is Accused No.2. The issues that are
before this Court in the subject petition need not detain this
Court for long or delve deep into the matter as the Co-
ordinate Bench of this has quashed the proceedings in
respect of other accused ie., Accused Nos. 1, 3 & 4, in
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
Criminal Petition No.9828/2021 [Madappa and
Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Another] in terms of
its order dated 30.09.2022.
4. The quashment of proceedings was tossed by the
very same complainant before the Apex Court in SLP
No.2724/2023 and the said Special Leave Petition was
dismissed by an order of Apex Court dated 05.04.2023.
Therefore, the findings recorded by the Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court in Criminal Petition No.9828/2021 by
quashing the proceedings as against Accused Nos. 1, 3 & 4
has attained finality. The petitioner in the case at hand is
Accused No.2. Accused Nos. 1, 3 & 4 in favour of whom
the orders were passed in the aforesaid Criminal Petition
are the members of the same family of present petitioner.
The issues are identical as they are alleged of what was
alleged in Criminal Petition No.9828/2021. The finding of
Co-ordinate Bench considering the entire spectrum of the
facts and law in the aforesaid order, has quashed the
proceedings by rendering following reasons:-
"VII. CONSIDERATION:-
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
24. It must be noticed that the exercise of power
to quash the proceedings by invoking Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. is no doubt to be exercised in exceptional cases
only where it is necessary to "prevent abuse of process
of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice."
The categories of cases which would warrant exercise
of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been
enumerated by the Apex Court in the case of State of
Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others1.
The categories enumerated which warrant quashing
though are not exhaustive has provided a useful
guideline of practical application. The following
observations relating to certain categories of cases
would be of relevance are extracted as hereinbelow:-
"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
(1992) Supp(1) SCC 335
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list
of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised......"
(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."
25. The need for exercising such power in
appropriate cases to prevent 'Court time' from being
consumed by frivolous litigation has also been
emphasized by the Apex Court in the case of Krishna
Lal Chawla And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh
And Another2.
The observations in Krishna Lal Chawla would
indicate the necessity to intervene and exercise power
under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in appropriate cases to
quash the proceedings, are required to be taken note
of, though the observations have been made in the
context of laying down guidelines under the caption
"Role of the lower judiciary in preventing the abuse of
Court process". The said guidelines are to be applied
while exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as
well. The observations of the Apex Court are as
follows:-
"22. Frivolous litigation should not become the order
of the day in India. From misusing the public interest
(2021) 5 SCC 435
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
litigation jurisdiction of the Indian courts to abusing the
criminal procedure for harassing their adversaries, the
justice delivery system should not be used as a tool to
fulfil personal vendetta. The Indian judiciary has taken
cognizance of this issue. In 2014, this Court elucidated
as follows, the plight of a litigant caught in the cobweb
of frivolous proceedings in Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union
of India [Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014)
8 SCC 470 : (2014) 4 SCC (Civ) 424 : (2014) 3 SCC
(Cri) 712] : (SCC p. 642, para 191)
"191. ... One needs to keep in mind, that in the
process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on
the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless
claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of
nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is
pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the
litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his
borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him
into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable
time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim.
Time which he should have spent at work, or with his
family, is lost, for no fault of his."
While the Court's ruling pertained to civil proceedings,
these observations ring true for the criminal justice
machinery as well. We note, with regret, that 7 years
hence, and there has still been no reduction in such
plight. A falsely accused person not only suffers
monetary damages but is exposed to disrepute and
stigma from society. While running from pillar to post
to find a lawyer to represent his case and arranging
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
finances to defend himself before the court of law, he
loses a part of himself.
23. As aforesaid, the trial courts and the Magistrates
have an important role in curbing this injustice. They
are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the
criminal justice system, and the harassed and
distraught litigant. We are of the considered opinion
that the trial courts have the power to not merely
decide on acquittal or conviction of the accused person
after the trial, but also the duty to nip frivolous
litigations in the bud even before they reach the stage
of trial by discharging the accused in fit cases. This
would not only save judicial time that comes at the cost
of public money, but would also protect the right to
liberty that every person is entitled to under Article 21
of the Constitution. In this context, the trial Judges
have as much, if not more, responsibility in
safeguarding the fundamental rights of the citizens of
India as the highest court of this land.
26. It is a settled canon of law that this Court has
inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own
processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant
utilising the institution of justice for unjust means.
Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to deny any
relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of
justice by coming to it with his unclean hands.
Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious
proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court
time and public money to achieve his ends."
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
Keeping in mind the above legal framework, the
present factual matrix is examined.
[[ 26. It must be noted that there is no quarrel as
regards to the principle laid down in the judgment of
Apex Court in M.S.Sheriff6 wherein it has been
categorically held that the simultaneous prosecution of
criminal proceedings as well as civil proceedings are
not prohibited. It is further laid down in the same
judgment that the decision of the Court in one set of
proceedings would not bind the Court in the other set
of proceedings except for limited purposes.
27. However, in appropriate cases, taking note of
the various circumstances where it becomes apparent
that the proceedings before the Criminal Court are
sought to be used for the purpose of harassing a
litigant even after having failed in obtaining the relief
before the Civil Court relating to the common set of
facts giving right to both the proceedings, the Court
would be justified in exercising the power vested under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
28. The entirety of all the facts are to be taken
note of while deciding to exercise power under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.
The subject matter of the criminal complaint relate to
(a) Registered Partition Deed dated 21.05.2003 and
(b) Registered Sale Deed dated 21.05.2003 executed
by the family of Annayappa in favour of Accused No.3.
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
Though in the present complaint the allegations
have been made regarding the registered Partition
Deed and registered Sale Deeds dated 21.05.2003, the
complaint has been filed with inordinate delay in the
year 2018.
No doubt, the delay by itself may not make the
complainant's case improbable or doubtful as long as
the delay is properly explained which may remove the
doubts regarding the genuineness of the belated
version and looking at the complaint as being an
improvement could be avoided. However, where the
delay as made out from the facts would indicate that
the complaint was filed with respect to the same factual
matrix which was the subject matter of civil suit and
complaint is filed after the civil suit has been dismissed,
the said action would warrant a stricter examination
bearing in mind the question as to whether the
unsuccessful litigant before the Civil Court was
attempting to utilise the Court processes to settle
scores by continuing his attack on the other side.
29. The observations of Apex Court on this aspect
in the case of KISHAN SINGH3 are extracted
hereinbelow:-
"21. Prompt and early reporting of the
occurrence by the informant with all its vivid
details gives an assurance regarding truth of its
version. In case there is some delay in filing the
FIR, the complainant must give explanation for
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
the same. Undoubtedly, delay in lodging the FIR
does not make the complainant's case
improbable when such delay is properly
explained. However, deliberate delay in lodging
the complaint is always fatal. (Vide Sahib Singh
v. State of Haryana [(1997) 7 SCC 231 : 1997
SCC (Cri) 1049 : AIR 1997 SC 3247] .)
22. In cases where there is a delay in
lodging an FIR, the court has to look for a
plausible explanation for such delay. In the
absence of such an explanation, the delay may
be fatal. The reason for quashing such
proceedings may not be merely that the
allegations were an afterthought or had given a
coloured version of events. In such cases the
court should carefully examine the facts before
it for the reason that a frustrated litigant who
failed to succeed before the civil court may
initiate criminal proceedings just to harass the
other side with mala fide intentions or the
ulterior motive of wreaking vengeance on the
other party. Chagrined and frustrated litigants
should not be permitted to give vent to their
frustrations by cheaply invoking the jurisdiction
of the criminal court. The court proceedings
ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a
weapon of harassment and persecution. In such
a case, where an FIR is lodged clearly with a
view to spite the other party because of a
private and personal grudge and to enmesh the
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
other party in long and arduous criminal
proceedings, the court may take a view that it
amounts to an abuse of the process of law in the
facts and circumstances of the case. (Vide
Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh [(1982) 1
SCC 466 : 1982 SCC (Cri) 249 : AIR 1982 SC
1238] ; State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992
Supp (1) SCC 335 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 426 : AIR
1992 SC 604] ; G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P.
[(2000) 2 SCC 636 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 513 : AIR
2000 SC 754] ; and Gorige Pentaiah v. State of
A.P. [(2008) 12 SCC 531 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri)
446] )
30. In the present case, undoubtedly
O.S.No.8051/2003 was filed on 10.11.2003 and came
to be decreed on 27.08.2015. The suit for partition
filed by the father of the complainant Annayappa and
continued by the complainant as legal representative-
1(B) also sought for the specific relief to declare the
Partition Deed dated 21.05.2003 as not binding on the
plaintiffs and the said suit came to be dismissed with a
specific observation as regards the Partition Deed as
well as the Sale Deed.
[
31. The issues framed before the Civil Court
relating to Partition Deed and Sale Deeds would reveal
that the documents with respect to which offence has
been complained of were also subject matter of
proceedings before the Civil Court. The issues framed
by the Trial Court in that regard are as follows:-
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the
registered partition deed dated 21.5.2003 entered
into by the plaintiffs and original defendants 1 to
5 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?
2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that
his signatures and thumb impressions were
obtained on blank papers by playing fraud on him
by the original defendants 1 to 5?
3. Whether the supplemental plaintiffs
further prove that they are not bound by the
registered partition deed dated 21.5.2003 and
subsequent sale transactions of suit schedule
properties including of 21.5.2003?
4. Whether the supplemental plaintiffs
further proves that the signature of original
plaintiff was fabricated and fraudulently affixed
the signatures and thumb impressions and the
photo affixed on the sale deed dated 21.5.2003 as
alleged at para-9 of the plaint?
5. Whether the plaintiffs further proves that
the defendant Nos.1 to 5 created sale deed and
agreements, power of attorneys in favour of one
R.Basavaraju and got registered the sale deed at
the time of registration of partition deed on
21.5.2003 itself?"
32. The trial Court while recording the findings on
issue Nos.1 to 5 has categorically held that the
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
assertion of concoction of documents including the
Partition Deed were false and were not proved. The
Court at para-46 has observed as follows:-
"46. ...In view of my foregoing discussion,
I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs have failed
to establish that the Ex.P.21/D.19 ............ is a
fabricated document by playing fraud on the
deceased Annaiappa and failed to establish that
the signatures and thumb impressions found on
Ex.P.22 are not that of Annaiappa and they have
also failed to establish that the power of attorney
executed in favour of R.Basavaraju is a created
document. Hence, I answer Issue Nos.1 to 5 in
the negative."
33. It is to be noticed that Ex.P.21 is the
certified copy of the Partition Deed dated 21.05.2003
and Ex.P.22 is the registered Sale Deed, which
documents are a subject matter of the complaint.
34. This Court is aware that the finding of
the Civil Court by itself cannot be stated to be binding
on the proceedings pending before the Court by way of
criminal proceedings, but reference is being made only
to demonstrate that initiation of proceedings before the
Criminal Court could be linked to the rejection of relief
before the Civil Court and the urge to settle scores with
the other parties, appears apparent, as made out from
the discussion hereinafter.
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
35. The civil suit filed in the year 2003, viz.,
O.S.No.8051/2003 came to be rejected on 27.08.2015
and the complaint came to be filed on 06.12.2018. As
pointed out earlier, the Partition Deed as well as the
Sale Deed dated 21.05.2003 were subject matter of the
suit instituted in the year 2003 and the judgment and
decree in the said case was passed in year 2015.
36. Another aspect that requires to be noted
is that the Civil Court has also referred to the Power of
Attorney dated 20.01.1996 which was marked as
Ex.P.65 which again was the subject matter of distinct
complaints in PCR Nos.110/2012, 112/2012, 113/2012
and 114/2012, which were closed upon acceptance of
'B' Report filed by the Investigating Authorities and
finally upheld in Criminal Petition Nos.863, 866, 878
and 879 of 2020 by order dated 10.03.2020.
37. Though the Power of Attorney of 1996
was challenged by way of complaint in 2012, in which
proceedings Accused Nos.3 and 4 were parties, the
attack to the Sale Deed executed in favour of Accused
No.3 on 21.05.2003 and the Partition Deed dated
21.05.2003 by way of criminal complaint was only in
the year 2018.
38. The only explanation in the complaint
regarding belated filing of the complaint is found at
para-14 which reads as follows:-
"14. ...The delay caused by the
Complainant is bonafide one as he was
perusing (sic) the civil remedies against the
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
Accused and more over, the Complainant is
an illiterate and a rustic villager."
39. It was the submission of learned Senior
Counsel Sri M.T.Nanaiah appearing for Sri
T.M.Venkatareddy for the respondent No.2 that the
delay was due to non-obtaining of copies of the
documents due to the deliberate acts of non-granting
of copies of the Partition Deed and Sale Deed.
40. The said explanation may not be sufficient and
is liable to be rejected in light of the averments in para-
7 of the complaint which reads as follows:-
"7. It is submitted that the Complainant
had obtained Xerox copies of the said partition
deed from the Revenue Inspector including the
schedule which was attached to the said Partition
Deed thereafter the Complainant's father Late
Annaiahppa made an application before Tahsildar
requesting him not to affect the Khata on the
basis of alleged Partition Deed dated
21.05.2003...."
This aspect of delay is one of the factors that
needs to be kept in mind along with the other aspects
dealt with below.
41. It is to be noted that on 02.07.2018, there was
a registered Release Deed executed by the members of
complainant's family, i.e. wife and children of late
Gopalappa, who is the brother of the complainant
whereby rights were conferred upon the complainant.
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
The said document expressly records reference to the
Partition Deed dated 21.05.2003 and the relevant
recitals at page Nos.5 and 6 of the document. The
same reads as follows:-
".......F jÃwAiÀiÁzÀ EgÀvÀPÀÌAvÀºÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æÃ. CtÚAiÀÄå¥Àà gÀªÀjUÉ
¢£ÁAPÀ:21-05-2003 gÀAzÀÄ PÀȵÀÚgÁd¥ÀÄgÀ, G¥À-£ÉÆÃAzÀuÁ¢üPÁj
gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è MAzÀ£Éà ¥ÀĸÀÛPÀ, ¹.r.£ÀA.88, 3195/2003-04£ÉÃ
£ÀA§gÁV £ÉÆÃAzÀ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVgÀĪÀ «¨sÁUÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ 'J' µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¥ÀvÀæzÀ
ªÀÄÆ®PÀ §AzÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ²æà CtÚAiÀÄå¥Àà gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄgÀuÁ £ÀAvÀgÀ
£ÀªÀÄäUÀ½UÉ ¦vÁæfðvÀªÁzÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ½UÉ «±ÉõÀ
vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgï gÀªÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ ¥ÀƪÀð vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ,
PÉ.Dgï.¥ÀÄgÀA, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ, ¥ÀæPÀgÀt ¸ÀASÉå.Dgï.Dgï.n(r)33/2017-18,
¢£ÁAPÀ: 21-06-2017 gÀAvÉ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ½UÉ §AzÀ ¸ÀévÁÛVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F
vÀºÀ®égÉ«UÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄä ¸Áé¢üãÁ£ÀĨsÀªÀ ºÁUÀÆ
ºÀPÀÄÌzÁjPÉAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ
D¹ÛAiÀÄ£ÁßV C£ÀĨsÀ«¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛêÉ"
F jÃwAiÀiÁV ªÉÄîÌAqÀ ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À MlÄÖ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ
¸ÀévÀÛ£ÁßV C£ÀĨsÀ«¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀ 'J' µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ
£À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¨sÁUÀ¸ÀÜgÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw. ±ÉÆèsÀªÀÄä, ²æÃ. gÀ« PÀĪÀiÁgï,
²æÃ. ®PÀëöäuï, ²æÃ. ªÀiÁzÉÃ±ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æÃ. £ÁUÉñï, DzÀ ¤ªÀÄäUÀ½UÉ 'J'
µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß F ¢£À F ºÀPÀÄÌ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤ªÀÄä
¸Áé¢üãÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖPÉÆlÄÖ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ '©' µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÀPÉÌ
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ F ¢£À F ºÀPÀÄÌ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÀtÂ
ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
F jÃwAiÀiÁV £À£Àß ¸Àé EZÉѬÄAzÀ ¤ªÀÄä ¸Áé¢üãÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖPÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ
'J' µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À°è E£ÀÆß ªÀÄÄAzÉ '©' µÉqÀÆå¯ïzÁgÀgÁzÀ £À£ÀUÉ
AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀiÁzÀ ºÀPÀĄ̈ÁzÀåvÉUÀ½gÀĪÀÅ¢®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 'J' µÉqÀÆå¯ï
zÁgÀgÁzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ '©' µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼À°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀiÁzÀ
- 17 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
ºÀPÀĄ̈ÁzÀåvÉUÀ½gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ M¦à F ºÀPÀÄÌ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß F
PɼÀPÀAqÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ¼À ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ £ÉÆÃAzÀt ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
µÉqÀÆå¯ï ¸ÀévÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÉÄïÁÌt¹gÀĪÀ jÃvÀå £À£Àß ¸Áé¢üãÀPÉÌ
§A¢gÀĪÀ ¸ÀévÁÛzÀjAzÀ EzÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É fêÀ£ÁA±ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ, ¨sÁUÁA±ÀzÀ
ºÀPÀÄÌ, ªÉÄÊ£Àgï ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ, ¹ÛçÃzsÀ£ÀzÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ, ªÀÄÄAvÁzÀªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀªÀgÁUÀ°, ºÉÆAzÀvÀPÀ̪ÀgÁUÀ°Ã AiÀiÁgÀÆ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è........."
42. Unequivocally, the complainant has admitted
the validity of Partition Deed by being a recipient of
rights under the Release Deed. The executants have
derived rights through the Partition Deed dated
21.05.2003. It is interesting to note that after having
derived the rights under the Release Deed executed on
02.07.2018, the complaint is on 29.11.2018 alleging
commission of offences with respect to the same
Partition Deed dated 21.05.2003. The complainant
cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate as he
has obtained the rights through a document which
relates to the release of rights traceable to the Partition
Deed dated 21.05.2003. The very institution of the
complaint after having derived rights under the
Partition Deed would amount to abuse of the process of
court.
43. In fact, the complainant has acted upon the
Partition Deed and derived benefits under it. The
findings of the Civil Court at para-38 in this regard are
of relevance and is extracted as below:-
"38. Let us consider whether Ex.P.21 is
acted upon. In his cross-examination at page-21
para-14 PW.1 has admitted that he has
- 18 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
constructed a house and dug a bore well in item
no.10 of the suit schedule property i.e.,sl.no.6 of
schedule-A allotted to plaintiff's father as per
Ex.P.21. He has further stated in the said para
that plaintiff no.1(f) to 1(n) are residing in
another house situated at item no.10. In his
cross-examination at page-22 at para-15, Pw.1
has further stated that he is in possession of 17½
gunats of land in Sy.no.422 i.e., item no.11 of
the suit schedule property. Said property was
allotted to the father of the plaintiff under
Ex.P.21 mentioned in A-Schedule item no.8. In
his cross-examination at page-23 para-16, PW.1
has admitted that he had filed a suit in OS
no.3647/2010 i.e., Ex.D.1 against Madappa i.e.,
defendant no.5 in respect of item no.12 of the
suit schedule property i.e., Sy.no.423, sl.no.6 of
'E' schedule allotted to defendant no.5 in
Ex.P.21. In his cross-examination at page-24,
PW.1 has admitted that defendant no.2 is in
possession of item no.13 of the suit schedule
property i.e., Sl.no.9 of 'B' schedule of Ex.P.21
allotted to defendant no.2. In his cross-
examination at page-25, para-18, PW.1 has
admitted that the defendant no.4 & his sons are
in possession of Sy.no.445 measuring 1 acre 29
guntas i.e., sl.no.10 of D-schedule allotted to
defendant no.4 in Ex.P.21. In his cross-
examination at page-25 para-19, PW.1 has
admitted that he is running a nursery in item
no.15 of the suit schedule property i.e., in
- 19 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
sy.no.450 -sl.no.11 of A-schedule allotted to his
father in Ex.P.21. In his cross-examination at
page-26 para-20, PW.1 has further admitted that
defendant nos.2 to 5 are in possession of
remaining extent of land in Sy.no.452 i.e., item
no.16 of the suit schedule property i.e., sl.no.15
in B-schedule allotted to defendant no.2 in
Ex.P.21, C-schedule in Ex.P.21 at sl.no.16
allotted to defendant no.3, D-schedule at
sl.no.17 allotted to defendant no.4 and E-
schedule at so.no.12 allotted to defendant no.5.
In his cross-examination at page-27 para-21,
PW.1 has admitted that he is in possession and
enjoyment of item no.17 of suit schedule
property i.e., Sy.no.139 and Sl.no.3 in A-
schedule of Ex.P.21. In his crossexamination at
page-27 para-24, PW.1 has further admitted that
he and sons of his elder brother are in possession
and enjoyment of item no.23 of suit schedule
property i.e., Sy.no.136 allotted to his father
under Ex.P.21 at schedule-A sl.no.1. Thus, the
aforesaid version of PW.1 clearly discloses that
Ex.P.21/D.19 registered partition deed is acted
upon and the respective sharers in the said
document are in possession and enjoyment of
their respective shares. If really Ex.P.21/D.19 is
a created document, the children of Aduru
Munishamappa would not be in possession and
enjoyment of the lands allotted to them under
Ex.P.21/D.19...."
- 20 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
(emphasis
supplied)
If that were to be so, the Complainant having acted
upon the Partition Deed and having benefited from it
has resorted to an inconsistent stand to file the
complaint attacking the same document, which in
context of the other facts including delay amounts to an
abuse of process of Court.
44. As regards the contention of the respondents
that affixing of photographs to the registered deeds
was not in force as on the relevant date leading to the
inference that the registration of Partition Deed and
Sale Deed were concocted documents, the petitioners
in their written submissions have pointed out that the
requirement of affixing of photographs was in force
from 04.04.2002 and the provision of registration by
electronic mode came into force only on 17.12.2003,
only after which the practice of taking photographs
through digital mode was introduced. Prior to that, i.e.
as on 21.05.2003, the practice of affixing photographs
was in vogue, which has been followed as regards the
documents in question. Such explanation not having
been rebutted, deserves acceptance.
45. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion
and taking note; that the complaint was filed in the
year 2018 relating to the offence alleged to have been
committed in the year 2003, that the complaint is filed
after having suffered a decree before the Civil Court
rejecting the specific contention of the respondents
- 21 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
regarding the two documents, that the complainant is
the beneficiary of rights under the Release Deed dated
02.07.2018 in which document reference is made to
the Partition Deed dated 21.05.2003, all of which in
their entirety and in light of discussion made above
would clearly make out a classic case of abuse of
process of Court. It is clear that the complainant has
resorted to the proceedings before the Criminal Court
after having suffered the orders before the Civil Court
only to wreak vengeance against the accused and to
settle scores.
46. Accordingly, the order at Annexure-'B'
dated 25.11.2021 passed by the Court of XLII Addl.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (CCH-42) in
C.C.No.33228/2021 (PCR No.19856/2021) stands
quashed in its entirety as regards the petitioners /
Accused Nos.1, 4 and 3.
5. In the light of quashment of proceedings qua
Accused Nos. 1, 3 & 4 and the SLP filed against him having
been dismissed, the Court need not hold its hands and
further hear the petitioner or the respondents.
For the aforesaid reasons, following:
ORDER
i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
ii) The proceedings in CC No.33228/2021 (PCR
No.19856/2021) on the file of XLII Additional Chief
- 22 -
CRL.P No. 423 of 2022
Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore for the offence
punishable under Sections 120B, 420, 427,465,
467, 471 of IPC.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KGR
