Allowed

K S Swarna Gowramma v. Nanjappa @ Nanjaiah

Karnataka HC7 Jul 2022CRL.P/3540/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition seeking quashal of criminal proceedings against petitioners accused Nos.2 and 3 who were attesting witnesses in a private complaint case involving alleged mutation of property. Court held private complaint not maintainable due to non-compliance with filing provisions and lack of corroborative material.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in C.C.No.1638/2018 against petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 quashed.

K S Swarna Gowramma Vs Nanjappa @ Nanjaiah — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 07^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3540 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

K S SWARNA GOWRAMMA W/O KESHAV, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, WORKING AS STENOGRAPHER, WRDO OFFICE, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE-01

¶9

SMT PARVATHAMMA W/O SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/OF MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST-560061

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI.GIRISH.B.BALADARE, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND :

¶13

NANJAPPA @ NANJAIAH S/O LATE LINGANNA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/AT MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK,

¶14

¶15

BANGALORE RURAL DIST-56001

¶16

M.N.SOMASHEKAR S/O NANJAPPA @ NANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT MYLANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST-56001

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA STATE BY NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION, NELAMANGALA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-01

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.M.D.BASAVANNA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.ROHITH.B.J., HCGP FOR R3)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.05.2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT NELAMANGALA IN PCR NO.7/2017 AND CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS BY FILING THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.1638/2018 (CR.NO.35/2018) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 415,420,463,464,465,468,426,471 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT AT NELAMANGALA.

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

A private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C was filed by the second respondent alleging that the accused No.1 by creating partition deed and in collusion with

¶24

¶25

revenue officials got his name mutated in the revenue records in respect of the subject property and the petitioners-accused Nos.2 and 3 have attested the said partition deed fully knowing that it is created.

¶26

Learned Magistrate referred the complaint to police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 415, 420, 426, 463, 464, 465, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 of IPC. The police after investigation submitted the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences. Learned Magistrate after accepting the charge sheet took cognizance of the above said offences and issued summons. Taking exception of the same, petitionersaccused Nos.2 and 3 are before this Court.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits

¶28

that the offences alleged against the petitioners are cognizable and the private complaint filed by the second respondent was not accompanied by an

¶29

¶30

affidavit for having complied with Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. and the same is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priyanka Srivastava and another -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2015) 6 SCC 287. He further submits that the petitioners-accused are only attesting witnesses to the partition deed and in the absence of any corroborative material that the petitioners fully knowing that the partition deed was created one have attested the said documents, the charge sheet filed against the petitioners only on the basis of omnibus and general allegations against the petitioners-accused is without any substance.

¶31

On the other hand learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondentState submits that the charge sheet material clearly discloses that the petitioners-accused fully knowing that the partition deed was created, have attested the

¶32

¶33

said documents as witnesses and the learned

¶34

Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences alleged against the petitionersaccused.

¶35

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶36

The offences alleged against the

¶37

petitioners-accused are cognizable and the private complaint filed by the second respondent was not accompanied by an affidavit for having complied with Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.C. A perusal of complaint also indicates that there is no averment for having complied with the said provisions. Hence, the private complaint filed by the second respondent without compliance of Section 154(1) and 154(3) of Cr.P.c. is held to be not maintainable, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶38

¶39

Priyanka Srivastava and another -Vs- State of Uttar

¶40

Pradesh and Others stated supra.

¶41

Even otherwise, there is no corroborative

¶42

material to substantiate the allegation that the petitioners fully knowing that the document was created have attested the said document. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44