Karnataka High Court
Sri. B M Manjunath vs State By The Bengaluru Police on 15 November, 2023
Bench: J.M.Khazi
-1- CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022
NC: 2023:KHC:40646
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1448 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
SRI. B M MANJUNATH
S/O LATE MUNIPOOJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT BANDEKODIGENAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
PIN CODE - 562 149
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY THE BENGALURU POLICE
REPTD BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 009
Digitally signed
by MADHURI S ...RESPONDENT
Location: High (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)
Court of
Karnataka THIS CRL.RP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF
CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A
DATED 26.09.2022, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE
AND JMFC AT DEVANAHALLI IN C.C.NO.4536/2013 BY
DISMISSING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 239 OF CR.PC
FILED BY THE PETITIONER, FOR DISCHARGE THE OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 468, 471, 406, 420 OF IPC, BY
ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION; b) GRANT
SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE
FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL.
-2- CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022
NC: 2023:KHC:40646
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Being aggrieved by rejection of application filed by
him under Section 239 Cr.P.C, petitioner who is arraigned
as accused has filed this petition under Section 397 r/w
Section 401 and Cr.P.C.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
3. In support of his petition, the accused has
contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal,
perverse and not sustainable either in law or on facts. It is
opposed to facts and probabilities of the case and without
application of mind. The trial Court has not recorded any
reasons for rejecting the application filed by him. For the
offences coming under the provisions of representation of
Peoples Act, 1950, it is necessary to secure the order of
the Magistrate to register the case. Similarly, under the
provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
-3- CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022
NC: 2023:KHC:40646
Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of
Appointments, etc) Act, 1990 ('SC/ST Act, 1990' for short)
the permission of Deputy Commissioner is required.
Accused is the biological son of Kalappa and Muniyamma.
His mother Muniyamma, is the sister of Munipoojappa.
Since Munipoojappa and his wife Kadiramma had no
issues, they adopted the accused and he was raised in
their family. Therefore, question of accused concocting
documents, breach of trust, forgery, cheating and using a
fake document as genuine would not arise. Without
examining these aspects, the trial Court has rejected his
application for discharge and prays to allow the petitioner
and discharge him.
4. In support of his arguments learned counsel for
accused has relied upon the following decision:
(i) Amitkumar Bhikhala Jethva Vs. Chief Election
Officer (Amitkumar)1
(ii) Keshav Lal Thakur Vs. State of Bihar
(Keshav Lal Thakur)2
2009 1 GLH 388; 2009 0 Supreme (Gij) 10
1996 (4) Crimes (SC) 121
-4- CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022
NC: 2023:KHC:40646
(iii) Jayshree Vs The State and Ors
(Jayshree)3
(iv) Dinakarprakash Vs. The Civil Rights
Enforcement Cell (Dinakarprakash)4
5. On the other hand, learned High Court
Government Pleader supported the impugned judgment
and order and sought for dismissal of the petition.
6. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the
record.
7. Thus, a charge sheet came to be filed against
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
406, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C, alleging that accused is the
son of one Kalappa and Muniyamma. The land in
Sy.No.144 of Bandikodagenahalli was granted to one
Sallapuriga on 19.06.1969. After his death, his son
Munipoojappa sold the same in favour of one Muniyappa
on 07.08.1974 without taking permission from the
Government. Munipoojappa initiated proceedings under
2015 0 ILR (Kar) 3463: 2015 Supreme (Kar) 781
2019 (4) KarLJ 124: 2019 Supreme (Kar) 501
-5- CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022
NC: 2023:KHC:40646
PTCL Act and it was allowed on 03.08.1986 and the land
was resumed and restored in favour of Munipoojappa.
Once again, Munipoojappa sold the said property in favour
of one Narayanappa on 03.05.1991 without taking
permission from the Government.
7.1 In turn Narayanappa sold it to complainant M.
Kiran Kumar on 14.02.1995. Complainant Kiran Kumar
has sold the said property in different bits to different
persons. However, accused and Kadiramma initiated PTCL
proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore
North Sub-Division. In the said proceedings, the wife of
Munipoojappa filed application to implead her and
complainant came to know that the accused has
impersonated himself to be the son of Munipoojappa and
concocted documents, viz., Genealogical Tree, Election ID
card and based on such documents has initiated several
PTCL proceedings. After coming to know about it, Kiran
Kumar has lodged the complaint. After conducting detailed
investigation charge sheet is filed against the accused for
-6- CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022
NC: 2023:KHC:40646
the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and
471 I.P.C.
8. During the course of arguments learned counsel
for accused submitted that in respect of alleged concoction
of Election ID card and initiation of proceedings under
SC/ST Act, 1990, the police cannot take cognizance unless
the complaint is by the concerned authority. It is pertinent
to note that in the present case, the complaint against the
accused is for the offences under the I.P.C. The complaint
is not by the concerned authority under the
Representation of Peoples Act or a SC/ST Act, 1990.
Therefore, filing of complaint or sanction by the concerned
authority is not necessary. If at all the concerned authority
wants action to be taken under the said Acts, they may
initiate such proceedings against the accused. In which
event, the argument addressed by the learned counsel for
accused may be pressed into service.
-7- CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022
NC: 2023:KHC:40646
9. As evident from the charge sheet, undisputedly
accused is claiming to be the adopted son of Munipoojappa
and Kadiramma and the burden is on him to establish the
said fact. Undisputedly he is the biological son of Kalappa
and Muniyamma. It is for him to prove that he was
adopted by Munipoojappa and his wife Kadiramma. Such
being the case, there is sufficient material in the charge
sheet to proceed against the accused. Rightly the trial
Court has rejected his application for discharge. Absolutely
there are no justifiable grounds to interfere under the
revisionary jurisdiction of this Court. The citations relied
upon by the accused is not applicable to the case on hand
as complainant is not making allegations regarding
commission of offence under the Representation of
Peoples Act or SC/ST Act, 1990.
10. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly
the following:
-8- CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022
NC: 2023:KHC:40646
ORDER
(i) Petition filed by the accused under
Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is
rejected.
(ii) The impugned order dated
26.09.2022 in C.C.No.4536/2013 on
the file of Prl.Civil Judge & JMFC.,
Devanahalli is confirmed.
(iii) The Registry is directed to send back
the trial Court records along with
copy of this order forthwith.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RR
