Dismissed

Sri. B M Manjunath v. State by the Bengaluru Police

Karnataka HC15 Nov 2023CRL.RP/1448/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision petition, the High Court of Karnataka rejected a plea challenging the rejection of a discharge application. The petitioner, accused of forgery and cheating by impersonating an adopted son, argued that the trial court failed to record reasons or consider the adoption defense. The High Court observed that sufficient material existed in the charge sheet to proceed, noting that

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C is rejected and the impugned order is confirmed.

Sri. B M Manjunath Vs State by the Bengaluru Police — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022 NC: 2023:KHC:40646

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1448 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

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

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE BY THE BENGALURU POLICE REPTD BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 009

¶13

Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP)

¶16

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.

¶17

CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022 NC: 2023:KHC:40646

¶18

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

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.

¶22

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

¶23

referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

¶24

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

¶25

CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022 NC: 2023:KHC:40646

¶26

¶27

Tribes and other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc) Act, 1990 ('SC/ST Act, 1990' for short)

¶28

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.

¶29

In support of his arguments learned counsel for

¶30

accused has relied upon the following decision:

¶31

(i) Amitkumar Bhikhala Jethva Vs. Chief Election Officer ( Amitkumar )¹

¶32

(ii) Keshav Lal Thakur Vs. State of Bihar ( Keshav Lal Thakur )²

¶33

1 2009 1 GLH 388; 2009 0 Supreme (Gij) 10

¶34

2 1996 (4) Crimes (SC) 121

¶35

CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022 NC: 2023:KHC:40646

¶36

¶37

(iii) Jayshree Vs The State and Ors ( Jayshree )³

¶38

(iv) Dinakarprakash Vs. The Civil Rights Enforcement Cell ( Dinakarprakash )⁴

¶39

On the other hand, learned High Court

¶40

Government Pleader supported the impugned judgment and order and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶41

Heard arguments of both sides and perused the

¶42

record.

¶43

Thus, a charge sheet came to be filed against

¶44

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

¶45

3 2015 0 ILR (Kar) 3463: 2015 Supreme (Kar) 781

¶46

4 2019 (4) KarLJ 124: 2019 Supreme (Kar) 501

¶47

CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022 NC: 2023:KHC:40646

¶48

¶49

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.

¶50

7.1 In turn Narayanappa sold it to complainant M.

¶51

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

¶52

Kumar has lodged the complaint. After conducting detailed investigation charge sheet is filed against the accused for

¶53

CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022 NC: 2023:KHC:40646

¶54

¶55

the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C.

¶56

During the course of arguments learned counsel

¶57

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.

¶58

CRL.RP No. 1448 of 2022 NC: 2023:KHC:40646

¶59

¶60

As evident from the charge sheet, undisputedly accused is claiming to be the adopted son of Munipoojappa

¶61

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.

¶62