Dismissed

Ramakrishna S/O Shankarayan Hegde v. Mahendra S/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2021CRL.P/100345/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the Sessions Judge's order quashing the trial court's cognizance. The matter concerned a family dispute over land titles, alleging forgery of a will and creation of false revenue documents. The court held the case was essentially civil and prayed to be decided in civil courts.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the lower appellate court's order dismissing the private complaint is dismissed.

Ramakrishna S/O Shankarayan Hegde Vs Mahendra S/O… — Property and Title | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100345/2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAMAKRISHNA S/O.SHANKARANARAYAN HEDGE, AGED-69 YEARS, OCC-RYOT, R/O.PURLEMANE, BIDRALLI VILLAGE, POST-HITLALLI, TQ- YELLAPUR, DIST-UTTARA KANNADA-581 347.

¶8

.. PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI ANANT HEGDE, ADVOCATE AND SRI.VINAY KUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

MAHENDRA S/O.MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE, AGED 35 YEARS, OCC- RYOT AND PRIVATE SERVICE, TQ- YELLAPUR, DIST-UTTARA KANNADA-581 347.

¶12

RAJENDRA S/O.MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE, AGED 29 YEARS, OCC-RYOT AND PRIVATE SERVICE, R/O. KELAGINAKERI, POST-HITLALLI,

¶13

TQ-YELLAPUR, DIST-UTTARA KANNADA-581 347.

¶14

¶15

MAHABALESHWAR S/O.SHANKARANARAYAN HEGDE, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC-RYOT, R/O-KELAGINAKERI, POST-HITLALLI, TQ-YELLAPUR, DIST-UTTARA KANNADA-581 347.

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶17

.. RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI VIDYASHANKAR G. DALWAI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 AND 3) (RESPONDENT NO.2-SERVED THROUGH E-MAIL) (BY SRI RAMESH B. CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R-4)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. AND PRAYED TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED IN CRL.R.P.NO.93/2015 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SIRSI SITTING AT YELLAPUR MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY THE ORDER DATED 06.04.2015 PASSED IN PCR NO.65/2012 (C.C.NO.105/2015) ON THE FILE OF J.M.F.C., YELLAPUR MARKED AT ANNEXURE-E FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 465, 471, 420 AND 120B READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC BE CONFIRMED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶20

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

This petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the order passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karwar sitting at Sirsi in Criminal Revision Petition No.93/2015 dated 07.12.2018.

¶24

Heard Sri Anant Hegde, the learned counsel for petitioner/complainant as well as Sri Ramesh B. Chigari learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.4-State. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 remained absent.

¶25

The case of the complainant that he filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. before the trial Court in P.C.R.No.65/2012 against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and accused No.4 said to be died during pendency of the case. In the complaint, it is alleged that the accused No.3 said to be younger brother of the complainant and accused Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of accused No.3 and in collusion with the accused No.4 village account the accused Nos.1 to 3 have created a false document in Form No.21 and changed the names of accused persons in the revenue records without issuing notice to the complainant and his sisters in respect

¶26

¶27

of land in Sy.No.8/*/4B. Subsequently, the complainant filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and directed to insert the names of the legal heirs of the deceased-father. The complainant has stated, the accused Nos.1 to 4 in collusion between them with an intention to grab the land created a false document, forged the signature of the complainant and got mutated the names of accused Nos.1 to 3 by creating a false Will said to have executed by his father. It is further case of the complainant that the Magistrate by taking the signature of the complainant in the open Court and sent signatures to the handwriting expert’s opinion, where it was found the signatures are differs. Therefore, after recording of the sworn statement of complainant, the Magistrate took the cognizance and issued process to the accused persons on 06.04.2015. Assailing the issuance of process, accused have challenged same before the Sessions Judge, which came to be allowed on 07.12.2018 by setting aside the order of taking cognizance. Assailing the same, the complainant is before this Court.

¶28

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant has contended that the first appellate Court committed error in setting aside the order of the Magistrate. The Magistrate, by considering the sworn statement of the complainant and documents on record, after satisfying the same, he has took the cognizance and issued the process which is in accordance with law. The accused persons have committed offence by creating signature of the complainant and created Form No.21 in collusion with the accused No.4, who is a Village Accountant. The experts’ opinion also received by the trial Court, based upon the same, the trial Court took the cognizance, which is in accordance with law. Therefore, he prayed for setting aside the order of the first appellate Court by restoring the order of the trial Court.

¶30

The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 3 is remained absent. However, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.4-State submits that State is not a necessary party and it was the case based on the private complaint.

¶31

Upon considering the sworn statement of the complainant, the learned trial Judge except recording of statement of the

¶32

¶33

complainant, there is no other documents have marked and other witnesses have been examined before the Court in order to take cognizance and issue process. Even the trial Court not considered before taking cognizance, it is required to obtain prior permission of the State or higher Officer of the Revenue Department for initiating the criminal case against a Government Official who is Village Accountant. The sworn statement of the complainant goes to show that the accused Nos.1 to 3 in collusion with accused No.4-Village Accountant got created a false Will as it was executed by father of accused No.3 and based upon the Will, they obtained Form No.21 for the purpose of transferring the names of the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the revenue records. Though, the learned Magistrate obtained the experts opinion by sending the signatures of the complainant taken in the open Court. But there is no other documents were marked before the Magistrate after examination of the complainant, even the expert’s opinion has not been marked. There is no other witnesses were examined by the complainant in order to satisfy himself that there is an offence made out by the accused for having created the documents and fabricated the documents for taking cognizance. The case goes to shows that there is a family dispute

¶34

¶35

regarding a partition. It is also submitted that case has been filed by complainant against his younger brother and his sons. If at all the complainant challenged the Will that has to be decided by the District Court by calling the written statement from the opposite party, which is based upon the claiming the Will. Entire case is based upon a civil dispute. However, the document produced is not sufficient to show the accused persons were falsely created the document and forged the signature. Considering this aspect, Sessions Judge has held in order to prosecuting the accused No.4 a prior sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. is necessary. Though, the accused No.4 died during the pendency of the case. But before issuing summons or taking cognizance, it is necessary to obtain prior sanction from the State by prosecuting a public servant. Therefore, the first appellate Court has rightly set aside the order of the Magistrate for issuing process to the accused Nos.1 to 4. It is also stated the revenue records has been mutating in the names of accused Nos.1 to 3 has been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Such being the case, the complainant cannot take advantage of the criminal law as his personal purpose and he has not chosen to

¶36

¶37

lodge any complainant to the police. If at all, he is having the case, he can challenge the Will in the Civil Court and get the decree and if once Court gives findings that there is forgery, then (i) a prosecution case launch against the accused person ; (ii) however, if the petitioner/complainant is able to show in a civil case the documents were created, it is definitely after findings given by the Civil Court he can proceed against the accused persons for having committed any criminal offence for impersonation or creating false document as stated by him in the complaint.

¶38

Therefore, considering this aspect the first appellate Court rightly quashed the order of the trial Court. Therefore, there is no ground made out by the petitioner/complainant to interfere with the order passed by the first appellate Court. Accordingly, I pass the following :

¶39

ORDER

¶40

Petition is dismissed.

¶41

In view of the dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021

¶42

does not survive for consideration accordingly it is dismissed.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

ckk

Ramakrishna S/O Shankarayan Hegde v. Mahendra S/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramakrishna S/O Shankarayan Hegde v. Mahendra S/O Mahabaleshwar Hegde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman S/O Shivaji Solanki Vs the State of Karantaka

Yaradoni Channamma Alias Channamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs.Laxmi W/O Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri.Gajbarsab Gulabsab Multani Vs the State of Karnataka

Ravi Naik S/O Tulaja Naik Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraj S/O Kallappa Salahalli Vs the State of Karnataka