Karnataka High Court
Smt. Yashwantibai @ Yashavati vs Smt. Vidya W/O Anil Chougule on 7 January, 2025
-1-
CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100303 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
SMT. YASHAWANTIBAI @ YASHAVATI,
W/O. MAHAVEER ANKALE,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS
THROUGH WILL BEQUEATHED IN FAVOR OF
SRI AJITKUMAR M. S/O. RATNAKUMAR M.,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R/O: RAJATASHREE BUILDING, QADRI TEMPLE,
NEW ROAD, MANGALURU.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHRINAND A.PACHHAPURE, ADV. FOR PETITIONER)
AND:
1. SMT. VIDYA W/O. ANIL CHOUGULE,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE,
R/O: CTS NO.1112, ANANTH SHAYAN GALLI,
BELAGAVI.
2. SRI ANIL DHARMARAO CHOUGULE,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: NIL,
R/O: CTS NO.1112, ANANTH SHAYAN GALLI,
BELAGAVI.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH MARKET POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI,
NOW REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
BENCH AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017
(BY SRI YASH NADAKARNI, ADV. FOR
SRI VITTHAL S.TELI, ADV. FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2;
SRI ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.3)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 12.06.2017 PASSED BY THE COURT OF J.M.F.C.-
II, BELAGAVI ON APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 302 OF
CR.P.C. IN P.C.R.NO.169/2016, MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A,
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE
PETITIONER UNDER SECTION 302 OF CR.P.C., MARKET AT
ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 29.11.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)
Petitioner, who is applicant before the trial Court is
before this Court, challenging the impugned order passed
the trial Court rejecting his application, seeking permission
to continue the complaint.
2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has
contended that he is a close relative of complainant. She
filed a private complaint dated 28.06.2016 under Section
200 Cr.P.C against respondents for the offences
punishable under Sections 420, 441, 463, 464, 467 and
-3-
CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017
468 of IPC. It was referred for investigation to the
concerned police. A 'B' report was filed on 30.11.2016.
The trial Court issued notice to the complainant. In the
meanwhile, complainant died on 28.12.2016. Therefore,
the petitioner filed application under Section 302 of Cr.P.C
to permit him to prosecute the complaint. The trial court
vide the impugned order has not only rejected the said
application, but also accepted the 'B' report and close the
complaint.
3. Complainant has executed a Will in favour of
the petitioner and he got it registered on 16.03.2017. The
Will is produced in RSA.No.5829/2011. Therefore, in order
to prosecute the private complaint, it is not necessary for
the petitioner to prove the Will. The trial Court has also
erred in accepting the 'B' report. It has also committed
error in holding that unless the petitioner secured decree
from Civil Court, he has no right to prosecute the criminal
complaint filed by original complainant and hence the
petition.
-4-
CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017
4. On the other hand, learned counsel
representing respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the
impugned order. They would submit that applicant is not
at all related to the deceased and the alleged Will is
concocted. Unless and until the Will is proved, petitioner
cannot come on record and therefore rightly the trial Court
has rejected the application filed by him and accepted the
'B' report and prayed to dismiss this petition also.
5. In support of the petition, the petitioner has
relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Rashida Kamaluddin Syed & Anr. Vs. Shaikh
Saheblal Mardan (Dead) by LRs and Anr.
(Rashida)1
(ii) Chand Devi Daga Vs. Manju K. Humatani
(Chand Devi)2
6. Heard arguments and perused the record.
7. From the documents placed on record it is
evident that complainant is the wife of one Mahaveer
Ankale. Respondent No.2 Anil Dharmarao Chougule is the
1
2007 Crl.LJ 2306
2
AIR 2018 SC (Crl.) 45
-5-
CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017
nephew of Mahaveer Ankale. Respondent No.1 is the wife
of respondent No.2. It is contented by the respondents
that since Mahaveer Ankale and the complainant have no
issues, Mahaveer Ankale has executed a Will bequeathing
all his properties in favour of respondent No.2. When he
applied for probate, it was resisted by the complainant.
Therefore, it was converted into O.S.No.100/2009. After
trial, the said suit came to be decreed, upholding the
contention of respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the Will is
genuine and they are the beneficiaries of the said Will.
8. Against the said judgment and decree
complainant filed R.A.No.1001/2009, which came to be
dismissed. Against the said judgment and decree,
complainant has filed RSA.No.5829/2011 and secured
stay. In the meanwhile, complainant filed complaint in
PCR.No.169/2016 through General Power of Attorney
holder on 28.06.2016. It was referred to the jurisdiction
police for investigation. After conducting detailed
investigation, the concerned police filed 'B' report on
-6-
CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017
15.09.2016. When the notice on the report was sent to the
complainant, it came to light that she died on 28.12.2016.
9. In response to the said notice, the petitioner
appeared before the trial Court and filed application under
Section 302 Cr.P.C to permit him to continue the
complaint, on the ground that he is a close relative of
complainant and she has executed a Will dated
20.12.2013 in his favour and on the basis of it, he is
entitled to continue the complaint.
10. At the outset it is relevant to note that the
complainant has filed the complaint through her power of
attorney holder by name, Rajendra Srikant Bhosagi. In the
complaint, there is no reference to complainant having
executed any Will in favour of the petitioner. Though the
petitioner has stated that he is a close relative of deceased
complainant, he has not stated in what way he is related
to her. Moreover, based on the alleged Will, the petitioner
has not secured any probate and therefore, the
genuineness of the Will is yet to be proved. In the
-7-
CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017
circumstances, there is nothing on record to show that
either the petitioner is related to the deceased
complainant nor a beneficiary of Will executed by her.
11. In Rashida, the applicants were sons of the
deceased and therefore there was justification for them to
continue the criminal proceedings. Similarly, in Chanda
Devi, also the person who sought to continue the criminal
proceedings were legal heirs of the deceased. In the
present case, the petitioner is not legal heir of the
deceased. She wanted to come into picture on the basis of
a Will executed by deceased. Unless and until he
succeeded in establishing the said Will, he has no locus
standi to come on record and prosecute the complaint.
Therefore, the trial Court is justified in rejecting the
application filed by him in accepting the 'B' report. This
Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the
same.
12. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly
the following:
-8-
CRL.RP No.100303 of 2017
ORDER
(i) Petition filed by the petitioner is
rejected.
(ii) Send a copy of the order to the trial
Court forthwith.
SD/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
RR
CT: UMD
