Allowed

P. Subramanyam v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024CRL.P/13789/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners faced trial for producing an allegedly fabricated sale agreement during a disproportionate-assets investigation; they were acquitted by the Special Court, after which police filed an FIR. Holding cognizance required a court complaint under Section 195 CrPC, the High Court quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.8334/2012 before VIIIth Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru quashed.

P. Subramanyam Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:34448 CRL.P No. 13789 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13789 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

P. SUBRAMANYAM, S/O P MUNIRATHAM NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/O 93, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH A-CROSS, 1ST MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, MAHALAKSHMIPURA., BENGALURU - 560 086.

¶8

K. ANAND @ K. BRAHMANANDA CHARI, S/O M S KRISHNA CHARI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O NO 66/1, 2ND CROSS, GANESHA BLOCK, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU - 560 026.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR KO., ADVOCATE)

¶11

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPTD BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL., ADVOCATE)

¶16

CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 THEY ARE ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4 RESPECTIVELY IN C.C.NO.8334/2012 (CR.NO.39/2010) OF VIDHANA SOUDHA POLICE STATION BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:34448 CRL.P No. 13789 of 2023

¶19

P/U/S.193, 465, 467, 471, 420, 201 R/W SEC.120(B) OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE VIII A.C.M.M. AT BENGLAURU.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners, accused Nos. 3 and 4, are facing charges for offences punishable under Sections 193, 465, 467, 471, 420, read with Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, and are before this Court.

¶24

The prosecution's case is that the petitioners submitted a fabricated sale agreement, and based on this, a charge sheet was filed against them for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(e), read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for possessing assets disproportionate to their known sources of income.

¶25

During the course of the investigation, the petitioners allegedly produced the fabricated sale agreement to substantiate their claim that they did not possess assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. The Investigating Officer, after completing the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. The fabricated sale agreement was part of the charge sheet material, and the Special Court, after evaluating the evidence on record, acquitted petitioner No.1, stating that the prosecution failed to prove that petitioner No.1 possessed assets disproportionate to their known sources of income. Consequently, the Investigating Officer

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:34448 CRL.P No. 13789 of 2023

¶28

lodged an FIR alleging that the petitioners had furnished the fabricated sale agreement.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State.

¶30

Section 193 of the IPC deals with punishment for false evidence and specifies that whoever intentionally gives false evidence at any stage of a judicial proceeding or fabricates false evidence for use in any stage of a judicial proceeding shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to a fine. Section 195(1)(b)(i) specifies that no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under the following sections of the Indian Penal Codeviz. Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, 228, 463, 471, 475, and 476-when such an offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court, except on a complaint in writing by that court, or by such officer of the court as the court may authorize in writing on its behalf, or by some other court to which that court is subordinate.

¶31

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:

¶32

" 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.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:34448 CRL.P No. 13789 of 2023

¶35

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)

¶36

................. 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.

¶37

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 resedrve 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.’

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

NC: 2024:KHC:34448 CRL.P No. 13789 of 2023

¶41

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.”

¶42

Therefore, when the allegation against the petitioner is that the production of a fabricated sale agreement, which resulted in acquittal by the Special Court, constitutes an offence committed in relation to a proceeding in a court, cognizance can be taken only upon a written complaint as required under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. As such, the police lack the authority to investigate these offences. Consequently, the continuation of criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law.

¶43

ORDER

¶44

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

¶45

ii) The impugned proceedings in C.C.No.8334/2012 pending on the file of the Hon'ble VIII^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Bengaluru, stands quashed.

¶46

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶47

TIN

P. Subramanyam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Subramanyam v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Deepak Raj Vs Axis Bank Ltd.

Manjunath M R, Vs the Manager

M/S Shri Veerabhadreshwar Agency Inamdyamanakoppa Vs the State of Karnataka

Basarur Mohiddin Saheb Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakfs

Sri Mahendra Kumar Vs Sri L Ravindra

Smt Susheeladevi Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer