Karnataka High Court
Rashmamma vs State Of Karnataka on 2 July, 2024
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:24880
WP No. 15629 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 15629 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
RASHMAMMA,
D/O DEVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.117,LINGARAJAPURA,
ST. THOMAS TOWN, BENGALURU - 560 084.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SACHIN B.S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
PUTTUR TOWN POLICE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. PUSHPA,
Digitally signed by B D/O PRABHAKAR,
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
Location: HIGH R/AT HEMAVATHI HOSPITAL ROAD,
COURT OF SAHYADRI, 2ND CROSS ROAD,
KARNATAKA
HOSA LINE ROAD, HASSAN DISTRICT,
HASSAN - 573 201.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME
NO. 92 OF 2022 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND ACJM COURT, PUTTUR, DAKSHINA KANNADA REGISTERED
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:24880
WP No. 15629 of 2024
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 192, 196, 197,
198, 199, 200, 205, 209, 417, 419, 420, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34
OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AS PER
ANNX-A AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The registration of the FIR for the offences punishable under
Sections 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 205, 209, 417, 419, 420,
506 read with Section 34 of IPC is impugned in this petition.
2. The respondent No.2 lodged the FIR alleging that the
petitioners by taking signatures on the blank papers got executed a
registered relinquishment deed, and the said relinquishment deed
was produced in P & SC proceedings initiated for grant of
succession certificate. Based on the relinquishment deed, the
succession certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner -
accused No.5.
3. The Accused Nos.1 to 4 had approached this Court in
WP.No.4659/2023 challenging the very same FIR impugned herein
and this Court vide Order dated 14.12.2023 quashed the FIR
insofar as it relates to the said Accused by observing as follows:
"6. The allegation is that the petitioner, by taking signature of
respondent No.2 on the blank papers, created the
relinquishment deed, and made use of the said document to
obtain a succession certificate. The Hon'ble Apex court in
the case of Bandekar Brothers Private Limited and
another -vs- Prasad Vassudev Keni and other reported
in (2020) 20 SCC 1 has held as follows:
NC: 2024:KHC:24880
"48. Equally important to remember is that if in the course
of the same transaction two separate offences are made
out, for one of which Section 195 CrPC is not attracted, and
it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section
195(1)(b) CrPC must be followed. Thus, in State of
Karnataka v. Hemareddy [State of Karnataka v.
Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 395] , this
Court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court
(V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy, In re [V.V.L. Narasimhamurthy v.
State, 1953 SCC OnLine Mad 236 : AIR 1955 Mad 237] )
and approved its ratio as follows : (Hemareddy case [State
of Karnataka v. Hemareddy, (1981) 2 SCC 185 : 1981 SCC
(Cri) 395] , SCC pp. 190-91, paras 7-8)
................. The effect of the allegations in the
complaint preferred by the complainant is that the petitioner
has caused this will to come into existence intending that
such will may cause the Judge before whom the suit is filed
to form an opinion that the will is a genuine one and,
therefore, his minor daughter is entitled to the property. The
allegation, therefore, in the complaint will undoubtedly fall
under Section 192 IPC. It will, therefore, amount to an
offence under Section 193 IPC i.e. fabricating false
evidence for the purpose of being used in the judicial
proceeding. There is no doubt that the facts disclosed will
also amount to an offence under Sections 467 and 471
IPC. For prosecuting this petitioner for an offence under
Sections 467 and 471, a complaint by the court may not be
necessary as under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC a complaint
may be made only when it is committed by a party to any
proceeding in any court.
Mr Jayarama Ayyar does not give up his contention
that the petitioner, though he appears only a guardian of
the minor girl, is still a party to the proceeding. But it is
unnecessary to go into the question at the present moment
and I reserve my opinion on the question whether the
guardian can be a party to a proceeding or not, as this case
can be disposed of on the other point viz. that when the
allegations amount to an offence under Section 193 IPC, a
complaint of court is necessary under Section 195(1)(a)
CrPC and this cannot be evaded by prosecuting the
accused for an offence for which a complaint of court is not
necessary.'
NC: 2024:KHC:24880
8. We agree with the view expressed by the learned
Judge and hold that in cases where in the course of the
same transaction an offence for which no complaint by a
court is necessary under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and an offence for which a complaint of
a court is necessary under that sub-section, are committed,
it is not possible to split up and hold that the prosecution of
the accused for the offences not mentioned in Section
195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure should be
upheld."
7. Therefore, the cognizance of the offences punishable
under Sections 192, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 205, 209, 417,
419, 420, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC can be taken only
upon a complaint in writing of that Court or authorized officer
of that Court as stated under Section 195(1)(b)(iii) of Crpc.
Therefore, the registration of FIR for the offences alleged
against the petitioners is improper and contrary to Section
195 of Cr.PC."
4. Therefore, this petition also requires to be allowed
following the Order passed by this Court in WP.No.4659/2023 to
maintain parity. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The petition is allowed.
ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.92/2022 registered by
the Puttur Town Police Station insofar as it relates to
Accused No.5.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DHA
